HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20070611
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
June 11, 2007
4:00 P.M.
4:00 Call to Order
I. Roll Call
II. Castle Creek Trail Funding
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT
on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's and Councilmembers' Comments
b) City Manager's Comments
c) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #47 2007 - Request for Funds - Ruedi Hydro Turbine Runner
b) Resolution #48,2007 -IGA Red Mountain Water Line Replacement
c) Resolution #45, 2007 - Contract Design of Bus Lanes
d) Resolution #49, 2007 - Acquisition of Property - 517 Park Circle
e) Minutes - May 14, 29, 2007
VII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #21, 2007 - Historic Designation - Boomerang Lodge
b) Ordinance #26, 2007 - Extension of Historic Commercial Moratorium
VIII. Swearing in Mayor and Council
IX. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT
on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
X. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's and Councilmembers' Comments
b) City Manager's Comments
XI. Consent Calendar
a) Resolution #46, 2007 - Contract for Recycling Center Consulting Services
XII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #25,2007 - Smuggler Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD P.H. 6/25
b) Ordinance #27,2007 - 308 East Hopkins Subdivision (LaCo) P.H.
XIII. Action Items
XIV. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting June 25. 2007
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
:rr:
MEMORANDUM - Updated Information
THRU:
Stephen Ellsperman, Deputy Director of Parks and
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
THRU:
Jeff Woods, Director of Parks and Open Space
DATE OF MEMO:
June 6, 2007
MEETING DATE:
June 11, 2007 - Old Business
RE:
Castle Creek Trail Construction - Status of funding negotiations
with MAA
CC:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: For the past four years the Parks Department staff in partnership with
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails staff, have been working towards the construction of a
pedestrian trail from the Marolt housing up to the Music School and County Day School campuses.
Parks Department staff is now requesting approval for an additional $802,686 for the construction
of the Castle Creek Trail. At Council direction staff has been in negotiations with the Music
Associates of Aspen for a financial contribution to the project. The MAA has declined to propose a
contribution to the project and has requested an opportunity to discuss the project and its funding
with City Council at the June 11 th Regular Council meeting. The Mayor has placed this request on
the agenda for 4:00pm.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
. January 2004 - Parks Department staff introduced the conceptual plan for the Castle Creek Trail
as a part of the Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Work Session.
. November 2005 - City Council approved a bond initiative which included $350,000 for the
completion of the Castle Creek Trail.
. May 200"'- Council directs staff to approach the MAA, in collaboration with Pitkin County,
in order to secure a funding contribution for the proposed project
Pagelof4
BACKGROUND: Considered by many to be an important connection for a number of years, this
trail will connect both the Music School campus along with the Country Day School campus to the
existing trails network at the Marolt Housing and the Aspen Valley Hospital (Exhibit - 1). Parks
Department staff first approached the City Open Space and Trails Board with the Castle Creek Trail
in January of 2004 and received unanimous support for the project. Because the majority of the trail
corridor sits in Pitkin County, City staff approached the County Open Space and Trails staff with
our interest and quickly received their support as financial partners with project management.
During planning for this project it was determined that the County Road and Bridge Department was
interested in improving the exposed road cuts. This provided an opportunity to move the road
several feet to the west thus allowing an optimal alignment for the trail. Given this scenario City
staff approached Council with funding approval for $350,000 in November of 2005 for the City's
share of an estimated $700,000 project.
Once the estimated costs for the road improvements project came back, the County Road and Bridge
Department decided they could not afford the improvements and the trail alignment got pushed back
to the east and closer to the edge of the road cut. This decision forced the engineers to design a trail
that required significant retaining walls that have dramatically increased the costs of the project.
City and County staff, along with the Loris and Associates engineering team, have examined
numerous trail alignments and designs to determine the most cost effective and optimal trail
connection. The alignment will run parallel to Castle Creek Road and will be separated by a new
guardrail and will utilize a grade-separated alignment where possible (Exhibit - 2). This higWy
engineered design, along with the increase building costs in the valley over the past two years, has
resulted in a project with a price tag of $2,227,311. On April 26th, City and County staff met with
both Open Space and Trails Boards and received their unanimous support for the project and the
request for additional funding.
DISCUSSION: Pitkin County Open Space and Trails staff has identified a contractor to build the
Castle Creek Trail through a formal bid process which was selected for both their reputation,
successful completion of complex projects, as well as being the lowest bid price. City and County
staff has also successfully negotiated with the contractor to reduce their original estimate through
value engineering and were able to reduce their original bid by $200,000. The next lowest bid came
in at 2.7 million dollars. Due to the complex nature of the project, the actual costs are higher than
the previously approved amounts but staff has carefully reviewed the bid and these costs are
reasonable given the technical difficulties of the construction. Given the rapidly increasing costs of
construction in the Roaring Fork Valley today, staff feels that this is probably our best and most
affordable opportunity to have this trail constructed. County staff will be meeting with the Board of
County Commissioners and City staff is meeting with City Council to request this increased
spending. The attached Exhibit - 3 shows the original project estimate of $700,000 and the current
price of the project at 2.2 million dollars. Since we are financial partners with Pitkin County, the
City's share will be 1.1 million with an already approved amount of $350,000. City staff is
requesting authorization of an additional $802,686 to construct this trail.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Parks and Open Space Fund may not currently have the
available cash balance needed to both acquire these parcels of land and complete the Castle Creek
Trail Project. The fund does have sufficient funds to pay for currently budgeted projects, but the
Page 2 of 4
Smuggler acquisition was not included in the original budget that Council was asked to approve and
the Castle Creek trail was budgeted at a substantially lower amount than the actual cost due to Pitkin
County Road and Bridge deciding not to partner in the project. The early payoff of the 2003
interfund loan from the Wheeler Opera House fund that provided bridge financing for the
construction of the Lewis Ice Arena has restricted current cash balances in this fund, and while the
long term financial condition of this fund is excellent, its current cash position is very tight (Exhibit
- 4).
This early payoff makes sense in the long run as it will save the Parks and Open Space fund over
$250,000 in interest that would otherwise be due to the Wheeler fund over the next three years, but
depletes current cash reserves. The Finance Department and the Parks department have been
working on a combined strategy that:
1. Defers lower priority projects to out years. (Staff plan to meet with the new Council to
review and gain approval for project deferrals that will save approximately $500,000 this
year), and
2. Uses short term financing IF NECESSARY to cover any possible year end fund balance
shortage (it is possible that this will not be necessary depending upon revenue collections
and how the Parks Department budget finishes the year).
At this juncture, staff recommends that Council take one of two possible actions:
1. Decline to fund the proposed project at this time: This will likely result in the project not
being completed in 2007. Pitkin County has approved 50% of the specified cost of the
project. The BOCC has publicly indicated a desire to seek a financial contribution from the
MAA and County staff have indicated that the County open space fund does not have
sufficient resources to finance the entire project cost at this time. Such a project delay will
likely increase the project cost by $200,000 to $500,000 in current year dollars. The County
was able to receive a favorable bid from a contractor already mobilized in the valley for
another project, significantly reducing the project's costs. This decision will also likely delay
a valuable pedestrian safety improvement along Castle Creek Road in Pitkin County.
2. Approve increased funding for the project using financing strategies described above, and
continue to work with Pitkin County to seek a funding contribution from the MAA over the
coming months. Such approval would strain the City's open space fund in the near term, but
the fund is forecasted to recover completely over the next two years from the one time
impact of this project.
As you can see by the attached LRP, this shortfall will be absorbed by future year revenues.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The completion of the Castle Creek Trail will encourage
alternative transportation to and from the Music School and Aspen Country Day School campuses,
thus getting more cars off of the road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Due to the importance of this trail connection, City staff
recommends one of the two options noted above.
Page3 of 4
ALTERNATIVES: If Council decides not to approve this spending, conditions can remain as is
along Castle Creek Road. This would continue the challenging nature of non-vehicular
transportation between the Music School/Country day School campuses and the local Aspen trails
network.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the additional spending of $802,686 for the
construction of the Castle Creek Trail." or
No Action...
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
. Exhibit 1 - Location Map of the Castle Creek Trail
. Exhibit 2 - Detailed map of actual trail alignment
. Exhibit 3 - Castle Creek Trail Construction Costs Spreadsheet
. Exhibit 4 - Parks and Open Space Long Range Plan
Page 4 of4
VllL
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Mayor and City Council
Phil Overeynder, Public Works Directo~~/
Steve Barwick, City Manager Z--.J
TO:
FROM:
DATE OF MEMO: May 21,2007
MEETING DATE: June 11,2007
RE:
Purchase of a replacelTIent turbine runner for the Ruedi Hydroe~tric
Powerplant. -t ~v-.ppleme~laJ -A-fPl1lifh"'--h<Ji'\. Kes.....eS17
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends the purchase of a replacement turbine runner for
the Ruedi Hydroelectric Power plant. The recommended replacement option will cost $356,030
for fabrication and delivery, but will not include installation at the present time.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved $155,000 for the replacement of the
bassler relay (generator exciter) for Ruedi in the 2007 Asset Management Plan (AMP) and
$136,000 for the replacement of the turbine runner in 2008.
BACKGROUND: A small 3" crack has been identified on the turbine runner (wheel) and some
corrosion is taking place. Although information from Gilkes (turbine manufacturer) indicates the
crack is not immediately concerning, it should be monitored in future annual inspections.
DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Public Works has a quote from GE Energy for furnishing a
proofed machine casting (phase I) and furnishing the final dressing, machining, and shipping
(phase 2) of the runner. Staff believes it is in the City's best interest to purchase the runner now
as we are seeing dramatic increases in material costs and fluctuating exchange rates for the
British Pound (the runner is fabricated in Great Britain). Acquiring a back-up runner is the best
contingency plan in the event of a failure of the current runner. A failure of the turbine runner
would account for the Ruedi Hydroelectric Plant being off-line for a year or more due to the lead-
time on this piece of equipment. At current purchase power rates, this would result in an
increased power cost of $800,000 to make up for lost production at Reudi. Present contingency
thinking is to order the runner, thereby locking in material costs, but not install the replacement
runner until it is clear that failure is imminent.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The 2007 Asset Management Plan has $155,000
budgeted for the replacement of the bassler relay (generator exciter) and $136,000 budgeted for
Page 1 of2
the replacement of the Ruedi turbine runner in 2008. The total cost of the turbine runner (phases
1&2) replacement contract with GE Energy is $356,030.
Staff would like to use the 2007 basslerrelay moneys in the amount of $155,000 in addition to a
supplemental in the amount of $201,030 for the remaining contract amount of with GE Energy
for this 2007 contract. We will then request appropriations for additional funds for the bassler
relay replacement in 2008. The relay equipment replacement is not as critical as replacement of
the turbine runner as parts are available on a relatively short lead-time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If the existing turbine runner fails without the availability of
a replacement, the City would lose a year or more of a renewable energy source. This accounts
for approximately 1/3 of the City of Aspen's energy portfolio.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the purchase of a replacement turbine runner
for the Ruedi Hydroelectric Powerplant.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives include deleting phase 2 of the contract with GE Energy for
the manufacturing of a proofed machined casting at a cost of $131,697. This alternative would
avoid rapid escalation of material cost, but still runs the risk of putting the power plant off line
for a substantial time period. This alternative implies a delay due to the need to finish machine
work on the runner and arrange for shipment of the runner from Great Britain in the event the
existing turbine runner fails.
PROPOSED MOTION:
I move to approve Resolution # If?
of2007.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
April 18, 2007 GE Energy Standard Services Quick Quote for runner replacement (p. 1-6)
Page 2 of2
RESOLUTION # tr
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT TO BETWEEN GE ENERGY COMPANY,
AND THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT
43" HCTI TURBINE RUNNER AND, SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
REGARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of
Aspen, Colorado, GE Energy Company, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a
part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the
City of Aspen, Colorado, and, GE Energy Company regarding the purchase of one replacement
43" HCTI turbine runner for the Ruedi Hydroelectric Power Plant, a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen
to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
.
GE Energy
Report to:
City of Aspen Water Department
Attn: Steve Hunter
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
for
Rued; Hvdro Imorovement
Conceots
Mav 2007
Compiled by:
General Electric
Engineering Services
4900 Kingston Street
Denver, CO 80239
Contributors:
Ron Miller, GE Denver
Brad Rasmussen, P.E. ,GE Seattle
Send inquiries to:
Phone: 425-432-4241
brad.Rasmussen@ge.com
Ruedi Hydro Improvement Plan
Page 1
OS/22/07
.
GE Energy
Generator Specifics:
GE Generator
Output voltage is 4160v
FL amp 731
PF 0.95 leading
360 RPM
SF 1.0
5263 KV A
20 poles
Field data
amps 153 at rated load
resistance at 25 deg C is 1.24
amps at max load 170 collector volts hot 295
amps no load 49 collector volts cold 60
Xd" .25
Turbine #56243
1. Turbine Runner Replacement - (Figure 1).
Description: A small 3" crack has been Identified on the runner (wheel) and some corrosion/cavitation is taking
place. Although information from the OEM,Gilkes indicates the crack is not immediately concerning, it should be
watched in future annual inspections. Plans for replacing this runner should be made based on measurements
and inspections. Measurements at the root of the buckets are the indicator to be used for scheduling replacement.
Price below Is for a 43- HCn Runner in Stainless Steel 8S3100 425 C11 (US Equivalent ASTM A743 CA6NM).
Manufactured to Gilkes drawing No. 3135 516. Statically balanced and manufactured in accordance with Gilkes
acceptance standard for Turgo Impulse runners with a fusion coating method nickel-chrome alloy @ 1 mm thick to
the principal wearing surfaces on the turbine runner. This coating is about five times harder than the base metal
and has the advantage that it is fused to the material base it coats, it will not delaminate and when it eventually
wears the areas can be rebuilt by re-treatment thus dramatically extending the runners operational life.
Benefits:
o Contingency plan for preventing unplanned failure of the runner with extended lead time.
o Possible improved operation of the runner
o Contingency plan to prevent increased raw material costs from affecting the R<Jnner cost
Replacement 43" HCTI Turbine Runner
This quotation for a replacement runner for the Ruedi Dam Hydroelectric scheme. We have provided the proposal
in a phased approach to facilitate budgeting. This proposal will cover phase I and Phase II. GE Energy has
included project management and engineering to aid in monitoring the progress of the runner procurement.
Phase 1 - Furnish a proof machined casting.
Phase 2 - Furnish final dressing machining, and shipping.
Phase 3 - Installation.
Phase 4 - Existing Runner Refurbishment
Ruedi Hydro Improvement Plan
Page 2
OS/22/07
.
GE Energy
Phase 1 :
Oty (1): 43" HCTI Runner in Stainless Steel BS3100 425 C11 (US Equivalent ASTM A743 CA6NM). Supplied as a
proof machined casting with NDT (Dye Pen Inspection). Packing suitable for long-term storage is included in the
price. This casting can be stored until required and the City of Aspen has the need to call for dressing/fettling and
finish machining. The runner casting would be clearly identified within stores displaying the owner of the casting
and a vesting certificate would be issued to the customer on receipt of final payment.
Price: $224,333.00 USD
Lead-time: 28 to 30 weeks ARO
Payment Terms:
25% With Order
25% 8 Weeks from order date
25% 16 Weeks from order date
25% On completion of proof machining (photo evidence or customer inspection would be welcome)
Phase 2:
Oty (1): Manufacture offree issued proof machined casting to Gilkes drawing No. 3135516. Statically balanced
and manufactured in accordance with OEM acceptance standard for Turgo Impulse runners.
Price: $131,697.00 USD
Lead-time to ship time: 18 Weeks
Shipping Cost Included
FOB Destination
(Excluding import dutiesltaxes to deliver, these would be paid and added)
Payment Terms:
30% 8 Weeks from instruction to commence manufacture
70% On completion and readiness to ship
Clarifications:
1. The GBP to USD exchange rate has large affect on the pricing of this quotation. When originally quoted the
exchange rate was $1.97 > f1.00. 3% contingency is allowed. The proposal and budget estimate pricing must be
adjusted at time of order if the exchange rate is $2.00 = f1.00 or greater.
2. Free storage of a proof machined casting is available for 3 years, if this was to be extended then A price per year
wouid have to be agreed.
Leadtime : As per specific item
Customer Responsibilities:
Ruedi Hydro Improvement Plan
Page 3
OS/22107
.
GE Energy
1) Customer will provide a supervisor to assist the GE I&FS field engineer in the above activities and be the
point of contact at the site.
2) Customer will provide site safety/security information.
3) Customer will provide/operate/maintain services for drinking water, sanitary facilities, parking, trash
containers and lighting.
4) Customer will provide rigging and crane at the site for lifting and setting the runner, power for test
equipment or light hand tools, and lighting.
5) Customer is responsible for the disposal of all wastes generated at the work site.
6) Customer shall provide access to the equipment during scheduled service times, standby time can be
included for an adder at p<Jblished rates.
Addltiona/ work will be performed on a Time and Mater/a/ basis per our standard published rate for Standard
Service, applicable at the time of performing such work. Presently, these rates for Standard Service are as follows.
GE Energy Services' Hourly Rates for Standard Service:
o $284.00 Hourly ST - Consulting Analyst
o $200.00 Hourly ST - Senior Field Service Engineer
~ $170.00 Hourly ST - Field Service Engineer
A four (4) hour minimum billing rate applies at dispatch of the employee. Additionally, these rates are for work
performed during straight-time hours only (Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM, exclusive of GE holidays). Rates
for overtime (weekdays other than 8 AM to 5 PM and Saturdays) and double-time (Sundays and GE holidays) are
1.5 times and 2.0 times the above rates, respectively. Demand Service rates apply for same day/next day service.
Time for empioyees will be billed from the time they leave their office until they return. Travel and living expenses
will be charged at $100.00 per day per employee (for travel distances of 40 miles or less) or $200.00 per day per
employee (for travel distances greater than 40 miles). Overnight accommodations, air travel, car rental or unusual
expenses will be charged at actual cost plus an administrative adder of 15%. Equipment, additional labor and parts
will be priced at user cost plus 25%. All equipment is F.O.B. shipping point, seller's dock, with freight prepaid and
charged 2% of material price (a minimum per shipment charge of $35.00 shall apply). Seller reserves the right to
select the method of transportation provided for all products unless specified by the client not less than 72 hours
prior to shipment. Any premium transportation or required special handling is in addition and shall be for the
account of the Buyer. Past due payments will be subject to a late payment penalty at the rate of 1.5% per month.
The sale of any service and products, and the integration thereof, ordered by the Buyer is expressly conditioned
upon the terms and conditions contained herein and TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SALE AND LEASE OF
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, attached, ES104 rev 2. Any additional or different terms and conditions set forth in
the Buyer's purchase order or other communication are expressly objected to and will not be binding upon Seller
unless specifically agreed to in writing by an aulhorized GE employee. This quotation is not valid for PCB Services,
off shore or confined locations.
Our current remit to address is:
GE Energy
PO Box 281997
Atlanta, GA 30384-1997
[fyou have any questions, ptease call:
Ruedi Hydro Improvement ptan
Page 4
OS/22/07
.
GE Energy
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GE) \
By: Brian vanBaushU c:::...- I.. j~
Title: Account Manager
Phone
303-562-5282
Ruedi Hydro Improvement Plan
Fax: 303-329-2367
Page 5
CUSTOMER:
By:
Title:
Utilities Engineer
OS/22/07
FORM ES104 (REV2): TERMS AND CONDI110NS FOR SALE AND LEASE OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
NOllCE: Salt or Lease of any Products or Services is expressly concltioned on Buyer'Sllsent to thue Tenns and Concltions. Any addtional or cifferent terms proposed by Buyer.. upressly objected to IIld will not be binclng upon SeRer
unless agroed to in writing by Seller; provided nowever, that no pre-prtntedfacllity entryfonn shall modify these Terms and Conditions even if signed by SeIler's ~senblive. Any oral or written representation, wmanty, course of cluing or
trade usage notcontained in these Tenns and Conditions or the Contract shaN not be binding on lither party. Any order to perform work and Seller's perfotmance of won shaR constitute Buyer's llsent to tllese Terms and Concltions. Unless
otherwise spec:iMd in the quotation or Contract. any quotation by Seller shall expire 30 days from its date and may be modified or withdrawn by Sellerbefore receipt of Buyer's acceptance.
1. Definitions. Unless Seller olherwise agrees
'Buyer" means theentity to which Seller is providing Products or Services under the Contract
'Con!rdmeansthedocumentsthalCOflllrisetheagreementbetweenBuyerandSellerforthesaleorleaseofProductsor
Servk;es, including these Terms and Conditions and any o!tter cIocuments incorporated therein by relerence, such as, the final
quotation. the agreed scope(s) ofwork. and Sellers order acknowledgement
'Hazardous Materials" means lilY chemica!, substance, material or emission that is or may be regulated, goveme<t, listed or
controlled pursuant to lilY intemational, national, fedefal, provincial, state or local statute, ordinance, order, directive,
regulation, judicial decision or other legal requrementapplicable to the Site as a toxic substance, hazardous substance.
haza-dousmaterial,dangerous or hazardouswaste,dangerousgood,pesticille,radioactivemate rial, regulated substance or
anysimilarclassilication, or any other chemical. substance, emission or material,including,witIloutlirritation, petroleum or
petroleum.-derived products or by-products, regulated, governed, listed or controlled or as to which liability is irTlJo5ell on the
basis of potential impact to safety, health or the environment pursuant to any legal authority of the United Slates or the
country of the Site.
"Leased Equipment' mellls all Products Seller has agreed to lease to Buyer under the Contract, as well as all equipment of
Seller which wi" be located at the Site during all or some portion of the term of the Contract without Seiler's personnel present
such as remote diagnostic equipment
"ProdllCts" means all equipment parts,matefials, supplieS,software, and other goods Seller has agreed to supply to Buyer
undertheContract including Leased Equipment and Refurbished Pals.
"Refurbished Pals" means used Products thai have been repaired andlorreconditioned by Selleffo rresale.
'Seller' means the entity providing Products or perfomlng Services under the Contract
"Services" means all seNices Seller has agreed to perform for Buyer under the Contract
'Site' means the premises where Products are delivered or Services are performed, not including Sellers premises from
which itperformsremote Services
"Terms and Conditions' means these Terms and Conditions for Sale and Lease of Products and Services
2. Payment. Except as otherwise agreed to by Seller in writing, and upon approved credit. the following payment terms
apply
2.1 Buyer shall pay Seller all invoiced arnounts in U.S, dollars, without right of set-<lff, within JOdaysfrom date of invoice.
Seller shall be entitled to payment of ali charges associated with Seiler's performance of Services as the Servk;es ire
performed, For each Prodoct with a price of U,S.$500,OOO or more, patial payments of the contract price shall be made as
invoiced sta1ing upon order placement. such that 80% of the Contract price is received before schedu~ shipment Buyer
shall pay a monthly iate payment charge COfllluled at the rate of 1.5%, Of the maximum interest rate permitted by applicable
law, whichever is less, on any past-due a-nount for each calender month (or fraction thereof) that the payment is overdue and
all costs of Sellers collection elfortsinclllding reasonable attomey'sfees.
2.2 Unless otherwise agreed in the Contract. in any transaction in which Buyer and Seller 1I"e domiciled in separate countries,
Buyer shall establish an irrevocable, unconditional, sight letter of credit allowing forpro--rata payments for pcrtial deliveries,
storage, export shipment. price adjustments, cancellation or termination, and all other payments due from Buyer under the
Contract andcer1ilication of the charges and grounds for such payment. The letter of credit shall be {a) confirmed by a bank
thai is acceptable to Seller, (b) payable at the counters oflhe confirmng bank, (c) opened sixly (60) days prior to the earliest
scheduled shipment and (d) remain in effect until ninety (gO) days after the latest scheduled shipment Buyer shall pay al
bankingch1l"ges. Seller will ootbegin performance until the letter of credit becomes operative. Buyer will increase the
amounts and/or extend the validity period(s) and make appropriate modifications to any letter of credit within five business
days of Seller's notilication that such increaseorextension is necessary to pro'lide for payments to become due.
2.3 If at any time Sellerreasonabty deterrrines that Buyers financial condilion does not justify the continuation of Sellers
performance, Sellef may require full or partial payment in advance or shall beentiUed to suspend orterminatethe Contract
3, Taxes and Duties, Unless otherwise specified in the Contract, Seller shall be responsible for and pay directly, all corporate
and individual taxes measured by net income or profit imposed by any governmental authority on Seiler, its employees or
subcontracm due to the execution of any agreementor the performance of or payment for work hereunder ("Seller Taxes")
Buyer shall be responsible for and pay directly when due and payable all taxes, duties, fees, or other ch1l"ges of any nature
(including, but not limited to, ad valorem, consumption, excise, franchise, gross receipts, import. license, Pfoperty, sales,
sla"np, storage, transfer. turnover, use, or value-added taxes. and any and all items ofwithhoiding. deficiency, penalty,
addition to tax, interest. or assessment related thereto), other than Seller Taxes, imposed by any governmental authority on
Seller or ils eflllloyees or subcontractorn due to the execution of any agreement or the performance of or payment for work
hereunder ('Buyer Taxes'). All payments due and payable by Buyer to Seller hereunder shall be made in the full amount of
the Contract price, free and cle1l" 01 all deductions and withholding for Buyer Taxes. If Buyer deducts orwithhilds Buyer
Taxes. Buyer shall pay additional amounts to Seller to cause the arnounts Seller actually receiv eS,netofdeductedorwithheld
Buyer Taxes, to equal the full Contract price, Buyer shall pro'lide to Seller within one month accurate officiai receipts from the
appropriate governmental authority for deducted or withheld taxes.
4. Delivery; Title Transfer; Risk of Loss; Storage, 4,1 For shipments within the country of origin or manufacture and lor
U,S. exports, Seller shall deliller Products to Buyer EXW Sellefs facility, place of manufacture or werehouse (Incoterms
2000). For all other export shipments, Seller shall delillef Products to Buyer FCA Port of Export (Incoterms2QOO). Buyershall
pay all delivery costs and charges orreimbllrse Seller for shipping charges plus 25%, Except for those obli!;lations that ere
consistent with Incoterms 2000 specilically stated above, Seiler shall not be liable in an y claim asserted by Buyer with respect
to delivery, Partial deliveries will be permilted.lfProductsdelivered do not correspond in quantity, type or price tolhose
itemized in the inl/(lice for the shipment Buyer will so notify Seller within 10 days after receipt Seller may deliver any or all
Products in advance of the d~ivery schedule. Delivery times ire approximate and are dependent upon prompt receipt by
Seller of all materials and infurmation necessary to proceed with the work without interruption
4,2 TI\Ie to ProdllCts shipped from the US. shall pass to Buyer immedialely after each item departs from the territorial land,
seas and over1ying alrspaceoftheUS. For this purpose, the parties acknowledge that the tenitorlal seas of the U.S. extend
to twelve nautical miles from the baseline of the country determined in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention
of the Law Of the Sea. Tifte to Products shipped from within the country where Products will be installed shall pass to Buyer
when Products ere made available for shipment from the manufacturer's factory or the storage facility utilized by Seller, Title
to Products shipped directiy from a European Union ('EU") manufacturer or a EU storage facility outside the country where the
Product will beinstalled;;hall pass to Buyer the earlier of (i) the port of export immediately after the Products have been
cleared for export or (ii) immediately after each item departs from lheterritorial land, seas and overlying airspace of the EU
sending country, Title to Products to be shipped from any other country shall pass to Buyer at the port of export immediately
after the Products have been cleered for export, Tifte to Services shall pass to Buy er as performed. Nolwithstandingthe
foregoing, for any soflware provided by Sellerherellnder, only the license to the softw1l"e transfersassetforthherein,andtifte
to Leased Equipmentshall remain at all times with Seller
4.3 Notwithstanding Section 4,1 above, in all events risk of loss shall transfer to Buy erupon title passage
4,4 If any Products cannot be shipped 10 or received by Buyer when ready due to any cause not attributable to Seller, Seller
will notify Buyer and then may ship Products to a slofage facility. including a facility within the place of manufacture, or to an
agree<lfreightforw1l"ller, II Seller places Products in storage or if Products are detained at any port, the following conditions
shall apply: (i) tfte and all risk of loss or dcrnage shall immediately pass 10 Buyer if they had not already passed; (ii) any
amounts otherwise pay<tlle to Seller upon delivery or shipment shall be payable upon presentation of Sellers invoices; (iii) all
expenses <WId chll'ges incooed by Seller, such as for preparation for and placement into storage, handling, inSjlection,
preservation, insurance, storage, demurrage, removal and any taxes shall be payable by Buyer upon submission of Seiler's
inv04ces; and (i'l) when conditions permit and upon payment of all amounts due hereunder, Seller shall resllTle delivery of
Products to the originally agreed point of delivery
4.5 Buyer shall bear the sole risk of loss for Buyers eqllipment during the term of the Contract whether at the Site, the
Sellers facility or in transit from the Seliersfaclllty, If repair Services are to be performed on Buyer's equipment at Sellefs
facility, Buyer shall be responsible for transporting the equipment to and from Sellers facility, Buyer shall reimburse SeWer at
Seller's then current storage rate if the equipment remains at Seiler's facility beycnd 10 days after notification that the
Services have been cOOllleted
5. Excusable Delaye. Seller shall not be liable nor in breach or default 01 its obligations under the Contract to the extent
performance of such obligalions is delayed or prellented,direcfty orindirecfty, due to causes beyond ilsreasonable control,
including. but not limited to, acts of God. fire, terrorism, war (declared or undeclared), epidemics, material shortages,
insurrection, acts (or OITltssions) of Buyer or Buyer's si.Ppliers or agents, any act (or orrission) by lilY governmental authority,
strikes, labor disputes, transportation shortages, or vendor non-performance. The delivery or performance date shall be
extended for a period equal to the time lost by reason of delay. plus such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to
GE Confidentiai and Proprietary
overcome the effect of the delay. If Seller is delayed by any acts {or ornissions) of Buyer, or by the prerequisite work of Buyer's
othercontractorsorsuppliern, Seller shall be entitled to an equitable price and performanceadjustrnent
6. CampHanee with Laws, Codes and Standns. 6.1 Seller represents that the Products wil be produced in compliance with
applicable fair labor standards laws, occupational safety and heallh laws, and laws related to nonsegregalion and equal
employment opportunity
6.2 The Contract price, delivery and performance dates and any performance guarantees will be equitably adjusted to reflect
additional costs or obligations iocooed by Seller resulting from a change in industry specilications, co des,s~dards,applicable
laws or regulations.
6.3 Seller's obligations ire conditioned upon Buyers compliance with all applicable trade cootrollaws and regulations, Buyer shall
nottransship,re-export,divertordirectProductsotherthaninandlotheull:rnatecountryofdestinationSjlecifiedon Buyer's order
or declared as the country of ullimate destinatiooon Sellers invoice, except as penTitted by applicable laws and reg ulations.
6,4 Nolwithstanding lilY other provisions, Buyer shall lineIyobtain any required aulhorizatio n,suchasanexportlicense,iflllort
license. foreign exchange pemit, work permit or any other govemmental authorization, even if Seller applies lor the authorizalion.
Buyer shall be solely responsible for obtaining, maintaining and/or effectuating any govemmental authorizations or notifications,
including,wilhoutlirritation, the subrnission and approval ofa spill prevention and control pia n,oilprocessing notification, and
required airpermitmodilications, if any, required for the lawful perfurmanceoflhe Services a1the Site.
7, Warranty, 7.1 Seller warrants to Buyer thai (i) the Products sl\all be shipped free from defects in material, workmanship and
tifte and (ii) the Services shall be performed in a competent diligent manner in a:cordarce with any mutually agreed
specmcations, Unless Seller expressly agrees otherwise in writing, any items not manufactured by Seller (including incidental
materials and consumables used in the Services) shall carry only the warranty that the original manufacturers provide. and Seller
gives 00 warranty on behalf of the manufacturers of such items. Furthermore, u5ell Products other thM Refurbished Parts shall
be sold "as is.'
7.2 Unless otherwise stated in the Contract, the warrant)' period for Products shall be one yew from first use or 18 months from
delivery,whicheveroccursfirst. except that software ere warranted fo(90days from delivery. If Services inciude installation or
direction of installation of heavy duty gas and steam turbine parts, the waranty period for each soch pert shall be one year alter
completion of installation or four ye1l"S from the date of delivery, whichever occurs first Unless otherwise stated in the Contract,
thewarrlllty period for Services shall be one year from COfllllelion, except lor baghouses, precipitators arld other particulate
collection equipment related Services. which shall be 30 days from COfllIletion, sofIwere related Services, which shall have a
warranty period of gO days from completion, and repair Services, which shall have waranty periods as follows: centrifuges and
under!rOund mine equipment - 30 days; PUflllS, corTlIressors, instrumentation, corrrnunication, Hay and control devices - 90
days; and other mechanical equipment -180 days.
7.3 If Products or Services do not meet the above warranties, Buyer shall prompfty notify Seller in Wfiting within the waranty
period, Seller shalt thereupon (i) at Seller's op~on, repair or replace the defective Products or (ii) re--perform the defective
Services. Ifin Seller's reasonable judgment the Produc1 cannot be repaired or replaced or the Services cannot be re- performed,
Seller shall refund or cre<lit monies paid by Buyer for that portion of Products or Services thai do not meet the abovewarra nties.
Any repair, replacemenl or reperforrnance by Seller hereunder shall not extend the applicable w arrantyperiod, The pcrties shall
mutually agreeontheSjlecificationsofanytestto determnethe presence of a defect.
7.4 Buyer shall bear the costs of access (including removal and replacement of systems, structures or other parts of Buyers
facility),de-installation,deconlamnation,re-instailationandtransportationofProductstoSellerandback to Buyer.
7.5 These warranties and remedies are conditioned upon (a) the proper storage,installatio n, Olleration, and maintenance of the
Products and conformlllcewith the proper operation instwctlon manuals pro'lided by Seller or i ts suppliers or subcontractors, (b)
Buyer keeping proper records of operation and maintenance during the warranty period and providing Seller access to those
records, and (c) modification or repair of the Products or Services onty as authorized by Seller Seller does not warrant the
Products or any repaired or replacement parts against normal wear and tear or damage caused by misuse, accident or use
against the ad'lice of Seller. Any modification or repair of any of the Prodoctsor SeNices notaulhorized by SeUer shall render the
warranty null and vrjd
7.6 This Article pro'lides the exclusive remedies for all claims based on failure of or defect i nProductsorServices,whetherthe
failure or defectll'ises before or during the applicable warranty period and whether a claim, however described, is based on
contract warranty, indemnity, tortIextracontractualliability (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise. The warranties
provided in this Nticle ire exclusivt and ere in lieu of all other warranties and guarantees whether written, oral, implied or
statutory NO IMPLIED STATUTORY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
APPLIES
8 Umitatlon of Uability, 8,1 The total liability of Seller for all claims arising out of or relating to the performn:e or breach of the
Contractor use of any Products or Services or any order shall not exceed (a) the Contract price or (b) ifthi s Contract is in lheform
of a frarneor master agreement under which Buyer places an order with Seilerforthe Products and SeNices to be plJ"Chased, 0)
the final price of the particular order under which the specific Products or SeNices giving rise to the clam ere supplied or
performed or (ii) ten thousand US oollars (US$10,OOO) if the claim is not pert of any pcrticww orde r,SeIIer'sli<tlilityshalltenrinate
upon the expiration of the applicable warranty period. providedthalBuyermayenforceac laim that accrued prior to that date by
commencing an action or filing an arbitration, as applicable under the dispute resolution clause, before the expiration of the
applicable statute of Iinltations or repose, but not later than one yew after the expiration of such waTanty period.
8.2 Seiier shall not be liable for loss of profit or revenues, loss of product loss of use of Products or Services or any associated
equipment, interruption of business, cost of capital, cost of cover, downtime costs, increased Cllerating costs, claims of Buyer's
customers for soch damages, orforanyspecial,consequential,incidental,indir ect, punitive orexerT1llary damages.
83 If Buyer is supptying Seilers Products or Servicestoathirdparty,Buyershailrequretheth irdpartyto agree to be bound by
this Article, If Buyer does not obtain this agreement lor Seller's beneftt, Buyer shall indemnify,defend and hold Sel Ierhamless
from and against any and all claims made bythe third party in excess of the iimitations and exc lusions of this Article
8,4 Seller shall not be liable lor any advice or assistance that is not required underth eContract
8,5 For the purposes of this Article, the term 'Seller' shail mean Seller,its affiliates, subcontr actors and suppliers of any tier, and
theiragentsandernployees, individually or collectively.
8 6 The lirritations and exclusions in this Article Shall apply regardless of whether a claim is based in contract. warranty, indemnity,
lortlextracontractual liability (including negligence). strict liability or otherwis e.
8.7 Buyers and Seller's rights, obligations and remedies arisifl9 olil of or relating to the Products or Services lI'e limited to those
rights, obligations and remedies described in this Contract. This Article shall prevail over MY confticting or inconSistent terms in
lhe Contract. excepttotheextentthatsuchtermsfurtherrestrictSellers liability.
9, Dispute Resolution, Governing Law, 9,1 Any dispute arising outof or in connection with the Contract. including any question
regarding its existence, vaiidityortermination, shall be resolved in accordancew iththisparagr~handwillbesettled,ifpossible,
by negotiation ofthepa:ties. If a dispute is notresoived by negotiations, either party may, by giving written notice, refer the
dispute to a meeting of appropriate higher management of each party, to be held within twenty (20) business days after gi'ling
notice. II the dispute is not resolved within thirty (JO) business days after the date of the meeting of higher management, or lilY
later date to which the parties may agree, either party may submit to arbitration orcourtdepe ndingonBuyerspertinentplaceof
business,asfollows
(a) If Buyers pertinent place of business is in acounlry other than the U.S" the d isputeshall be referred to and finally resollled by
arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration ('LCIA') Rules, w hich are incorporated by reference into this clause.
The number of arbitrators shall be one uniessthe 1I"fIOuntin dispute exceeds the equivalent of U. S. $1,000,000, in which event it
shail be three, When three arbitrators areinvollled. eoch party shall appoint one arbitrator, and lhosetwo sl\all appoint the third
within thirty (30) days, who shall be the Chairman. The single 1I"bitrator or the Chairman may not be a nationai or resident of the
country of the Site or the countries in which either party is organized or has its principal place 0 fbusiness, unless both parties
otherwiseagree,Theseat,orlegalplace,ofarbitrationShallbeLonoon,England,Thearbitrationshall be conducted in English
In reaching their decision, the arbitralorsshall give full force and elfect 10 the intent of the parties as expressed in the Contract
and if a solution is not found in the Contract, shall apply the governing law of the Contract The deciSion of the arbitrator shall be
final and binding upon both parties. and neither party shall seek recourse toa iaw court or other authority to appeai for revisions of
lhedecision
(b) If Buyer's pertinent place of business is in tlle U.S., any claim, legal actio nor proceeding (including without limitation claims for
set"oft or counterclaim) reg1l"ding the dispute shall be brought in tlle U,S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, or in
the event that court lacks jurisdiction to he1l" the claim, in the appropriate state courts of Cobb County,GeorQia, and the parties
irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts for such claims, Each party submits to and accepts generally and
unconditionally the Jurisdiction of those collis with respect to its person and property,and irrevocab ty consents to the service of
process in connection with any such action or proceeding by personal deHvery to the party or by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid,to Its address for notice under the Contract
Page10f2
9.2 Notwithstanding lheterms above, each party has the right at any bme, at its option and where legally available, tJ
commence an action oc proceeding in a court of colfllelent jurisdiction 10 ..,ply for interim or conservatory measures, but not
monelafy danages
g.3 The validity, performance and all matlers relating to the interpretation and effect of the Contract and all furt!ler documenls
execuledpursuantto~shallbeconstruedandinterpretedinaccordancewiththelaws,excludingtherules on the co*tor
choice 01 laws, of(i} the State of New York, US., if the Buyer has its pertinelll place of business in the US., Of~i) England
andWalesiftheBuyerhasitspertinentplaceolbusinessoutsideoflheUS.lftheContractincludes the sale of Products and
the Buyer has its pertinent place 01 business outside of the U.S., the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
IntemationalSaleofGoodsshall..,ply
10. Confidentl.lity. 10.1 In connecbon with the Contract, Seller and Buyer (as to information disclosed, the "Disclosing
Party1 may each provide the other pClty (as to inforrration received, the "Receiving Party") with "Confidentiallnformalion.'
"Conftdenballn!ormation'means (a) all pricing for Products and Services, (b) all terms of the Contract (c) all iflformationthat
is designaled in writing as "confidential" or "proprietary" by the Disclosing paty at the time ofwrit\en disclosll"e, and (d) all
information that is orally designated as "confidential' or"proprietary'bythe Disclosing Party at the bme oforal disc losureand
iscontirmed robe "conftdential"or'propriel<fy" in writing within 10 days after oral disclosll'e. The obligations of this Article
shaU oot apply as to any portion of the Confidential Information that (i) is or becomes generally availabl etothepublicother
than ffom disclosll'll by \he ReceiviT1g Party,its representatives or its afliliates; (ii) is or b6c0mes available to the Receiving
Pcrtyor its representatives or aflilia\es on a oon-ronfidential basis from a source other than the Disclosing PCIty when the
sourceisnottothebestoftheReceivingParty'sknowledge,su~toaconfidentialityobligationtothe Disclosing Party: (iii)
is independenijy developed by \he Receiving Pa1y, its representatives Ofafliliales, without reference to the Confioontial
Information; (iv) is reQuired to be disclosed by law, a valid legal process or a government agency; or (v) is approved for
disclosure in writing by an aulhorited representabveoflhe Disclosing Par1y
10.2 The Receiving Paiy agrees: (i) to use the Confidential Information only in connection with the Contract and permitted
use(s) and maintenance of Products and Sefvices, (ii) to take reasonable measures to prevent disclosure of the Confidential
Information, except to its employees, agents or financing pcwtieswho have a need to know for Buyer to perform its obi igations
undefthe Contract or to use and maintain Products or Services, and (iii) not to disclose the Confidenballnformationtoa
competitor of the Disclosing Party. The Receiving Party agrees to obtcin a corrmitrnent from any recipient of Conftdential
Information to comply with the terms of this Article. Conlidential Information shall not be reproduced wilhoutthe Disclosing
PCIty'swritten consent and the Receiving Pcrty shall return all copies of Confidential Informatiollto the Disclosing Party upon
request except to the extent that the Contract enti1les the Receiving PCIty to retain the Coo1idential Inform abon. SellermCPf
also retain one copy of Buyers Coo1idenbal Information until all its potential liability under the Contr act\em1inates.
10.3 If either party or any of its afliliates or representatives is required by law, legal process or a government agency to
disclose any Confidenliallnlormation, that pa-ty agrees to provide the Disclosing Pa-ty with promptwrit\en ootice to permt the
Disclosing Pcrtyto seek an appropriate protecbve order or agency decision or to waive COlfllliance by the Receiving Pa1y
withtheprovisionsoflhisArticIe. In the event lhat efforts to secure conlidential treabTlent are unsuccessful, Seller may
lawfully revise the Confidential Information to make it nonproprietary Of to minimize the loss 01 rts proprietary value.
10.4 Nothing in this I\rticIe grants the Rec~ving Pcrty any license under any invention, patent trademark or copyright now or
later owned or controlled by the Disclosing Party.
10.5 Buyer shall not disclOse Coo1idential Information to Seller unless itis requiredlo do so to enable Seller tl perform work
under the Contract If Buyer does disclose Confidential Information, Buyer warrants that ~ has the right to disclose the
information, and Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmlesS against any claims or damages resulting from improper
disclosure by Buyer.
10.6 As to any individual item of Confidenbal Information, the restrictions of this Article sh all expire the eartieroffive (5) years
after the date of disclosure or three (3) years after tennination or expiration of the Contract
10.7ThisArlicledoes not supersede any separate confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement signed by the parties.
11. Health and Safety MlItIen. 11.1 Buyer shall take all necessa-y precautions, at all times, for the health and safety 01
Seller personnel at the Site. These include, but are notlimiled to: providing to Seller for review, and instructing Seller's
personnelregarding,Buyer'ssaletypractices;properoodsalehandlingof,andprotectionofSeller'spersonnffilromexposure
to, Hazardous Materials; energization and de-energization of all power systems (electrical, mechaneal and hydraulic) using
salearn::leffectivelock-outltag-outprocedures:andconducbngperiodicsafetymeetings.
11.2 Seller may, from time to time, conduct safety audits to ensure the existence 01 safe site and working conditions and make
recorrmendations to Buyer coocerning them. Whether or not Seller conducts safety audi1s or makes recommendations,
Buyer will remain responsible for pro..;ding a wOfk environment that is safe and that COlllllies with all applicable legal
requirements Buyer will mete its local medicai facilities and resources avaiiable to Seller personnel who need medical
attention, for the duralion of their needs. Under no circumstance will Seller personnel be required to work more than any
maximl.WTl time periods allowed by applicable law.
11.3 If,in Seller's reasonable opinion, the safe execubon of the Contract at the Site is,ori s apt to tIe,ifll)etiledbysecunty
concerns, Iocalcondilions, W<l(decl.redor undeclaed}, armed conflict or threatened conflict civil unrest, terrorist acts or
threats,threattosaletyocwell_beingoftheSiteOfpefSOn~orSeller'spersonsorinterests,thepresenceofor threat of
exposure to HaZlJ'"OOus Materials, or unsafe working conditionS,=SeIIer may, in addition to other rights or remedies available to
it evacuate some or all of its personnel from the Site, suspend performaoce of all or any pM of the Contract, andlor transfer
suchperformanceandSl.peNise~atalocationSO~ydeterminedbySeller. Buyer shall assislin anyevacuaron. Any delay
that results shall be considered excusable
11.4 Before issuing its purchase order, Buyer shall advise Seller in writing of all applicable S~e-specific rules, regulations,
safety codes, and laws that apply to Products and Services.
11.5 Operation of Buyer's equipment is the responsibility of Buyer. II Buyer requifesor permits Seller's personnel to operate
Buyer's equipment at the Site, Buyer shall indemnify and save Seller, its employees and agents, hannless from expense and
liability {including reasonable attorneys' fees} incurred by or imposed upon Seller, its employees a"ld agents, based upon
exposure to Hazadous Materials, injury to persons (including death) or damage to property resulting from operation of
equipment at the Site by Seller personnel. Buyer shall oot require Seller person~ to work on other projects or equipment
duringthetemloltheContract
12. SiteAcc8lslndConditions; Hazlrdous Materials, 121 Buyer shall provide Seller access to the Site and any other
facilities free of charge, including the operating and development environment and information, as necessa-y for Seller's
performance of the Contract Prior to Seller starting any work at the Site, Buyerwill~) pro";de documentation thatioontifies
anyexistingHazardousMaterialsonorabouttheSite,and (ii) a1lowSeIler,atitsopbon ,accesstotheSitetoperformorhave
performed a Site evaluation, including without limitation, a review of applicable documents and vis ual examination of the Site.
Whether or not Seller conducts any evaluation, Seller will have no responsibility orliab ilityfofexisbng Si\e conditions.
12.2 Seller shall promptly, and,iffeasible, tleforesuchcondilionsa-edisturbed, notify Buyer in writing of: (i) subsurface, iatent
physical or other conditions atthe Site, including but oot lirmed to Buyer's health and safety requirements, differing materially
from those indicated in the Contract or otherwise disclosed by Buyer, and (ii) previously unk oownphysicalcondibonsatthe
Site, including archeological remains, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as
inherent in work oflhe character provided fOf in the Contract Buyer shall promptly investigate those conditions. If it is
detemllned that any conditions do materially differ and cause an increase in Seiler's cosl of, or the time required for,
performance of any pat of the work under the Contract the pll1ies shall mete an equitab~ adjustment in price and schedule
and modifytheContractinwribng accordingly
12.3 If, at the Site, Seller encounters Hazardous Materials that require special hand~ng or disposal, Buyer shali immediately
take whatever precautions are required to eliminate legally the hazadous conditions so that the wOfk under the Contract may
safely proceed. Seller shall not be obligated to commence or continue wOfk until Buyer causes lhe haza'"dousco nditionsto
berernoved. If any suCh Hazardous Materials cause an increase in Seller's costoforbme required for performance of any
part 01 the work, the pa1ies shall mete an equitable adjustment to the price and schedule and modify the Contract in writing
acCOfdingly. Buyer agrees to properly store, transport and dispose of all Hazardous Materials introduced, produced Of
generated in the course of Seiler's work atthe Site
12.4 Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless for any and all claims, damages, losses, causes of action, demands,
judgments and expenses arising out of or relating to any Hazardous Materials wheh are or were (i) present on or about the
Site prior to the commencement of Seller's wOfk, (ii) imprope~y h&;ldled Of disposed of by Buyer or Buyer's employees,
agents,contractorsorsubcontractors,or(iii)brought,generated,producedOfreleasedontheSitebypartiesotherthan
Seller
13. Termination IndSuspension, 13.1 Buyer may temllnate the Contract (or any portion tIleroon for cause if Seller: (i)
substantially breaches a matetial obligation which does notolherwise have a specified contraclual remed y,providedthat (a)
Buyer shall first provide Seller with detailed written notice of the breach and 01 Buyer's inten bon to terminate the Contract and
(b) Seller shall havefailed,within 30 days after receipt of the oobce (or such extended period as is considered reasonable by
Ihep<Vties), to either (1) commence and diligentiy pursue cure of the breach, or (2) provide reasonable evidence that the
breach has not occurred; or (ii) becomes insolvenl makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, has a receiver or
trusteeappointedforthebenefitofitscredilas,orfilesforprotecliOnfromcreditorsUnderanybankruptcy or insolvency laws.
If Buyer temlinates the Contract as provided in this Section: (a) Buyer shall pay to Seller all portions of the Contract price
allocable to work performed (forexarnple, the price for Products cOllllleted or partiallycollllleled before the tennination),
lease Fees incurred,and all SeNicesperforrned at the Seller's then-current standard bme an d material rales: and (b}SeIIer
GE Confidential and Proprietary
shall pay Buyer the difference between that portion of the Contract Price allocable to the \ermina\ed scope and the actual amounts
reasonably paid by Buyerto aooIhersl.ppllerforthatscope
13.2 SeUer shall have the right to suspend or\emlinale the Contracl {or any portion thereon imrnediately for cause if: (i) Buyer
becomes insolvent metes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, has a receiver or trustee appointed for the benefit 01 its
creditors,orfilesfor protection from creditors under any baliln.ptcy Of insolvency laws; (ii) there is an excusable delay {as per
Section 5 above) lasbng Iongel" than 120 days; (Iii) any representation or warranty made by Buyer herein Of in any document or
certificale Iurnished by Buyer in connection herewith proves to be incorrect in any material respect or (iv) Buyerma\eri ally fails to
comply with any terms of the Contract including but not Iirriled to, failure to make any payment when due or to fulfill any payment
conditions
13.3 if the Contract (or any portion thereof} is terminated for any reason other than Ihose set forth in Secti on13.1 above, Buyer
shall pay Seller for all Products cOllllleted or pa1ially completed, Lease Fees incurred, and Services perfom1ed before the
effective date of termination, plus a cancellation cha-geeqllal to 15% of the Contract price allocable to the uncomple\ed Products,
unfinished lease Term and unperformed Services. The following shall apply when detem"ining the amoont due from Buyer lor
Services performed before the date of termination: (i) for Services performed undeftime and material pricing, Buyershal I pay lor
all hours performed at Seller's then-currentstandard time and material rates a"ld (ii) for Services performed under a firm fixe<l
price, Buyer shall pay (a) the appleable price for all milestones achieved and (b) for any milestonenotyetachieved,a1lholJ(S
performed in connection with the unachieved milestone(s) at SeIler's then-cooent standad time and ma\erial ra\es.
114 Buyer shall pay any reasonable eiqlenses incurred by Seller in connection with a suspension or tennination, inciuding
expenses for repossession, fee collection, demobilizationlremobilization or costs of storage during suspension I.pon submission 01
Seller'sinvoice(s). Performance of Seller's obllgabons shall be extended for a period of time reasonably necessa-yto overcome
theeffectsofanysllspension.
14. Software, leased Equipment, Remote Environmental ServIces, Remote Diagnostic ServIces, PCB ServIces, EPC
ServIces, 14.1 If Seller provicles any software to Buyer, the terms of this Contract shall apply including the Software License
Addendum. II Seller leases any of SeIler's equipment or provides related Services to Buyer, including placing SeIler's equipment
at Buyer's site to provide remote Services, the lerrns of this Contract shall apply including lIle Lease Agreement Addendum. If
Seller provides any remote environmental Services to Buyer, the terms of this Contract shall apply including the Remote
Environmental Services Addendum. If Seller provides any remote diagnostic services to Buyer, the lerrns of this Contract shall
apply including the Remote Diagnostic Services Addendum. If Seller provides any PCB Services to Buyer, \he terms of this
Contract shall appty including the PCB Sefvices Addendum. II Seller provides any EPC Services to Buyer, the terms of this
Contract shall apjlly including the EPC Services Addendum. If there is any cooflict between these terms and the terms 01 any
applicable addendum, the terms of the addendum shall prevail
14.2 If SeHer performs Services related to Seller's own proprietary software, Buyer a(1ees that Seller owns all proprietary-rights,
including, but not limited to any patent, copyright trade secret trademcrl and otherproprie taryrights,inandtothatsofiwareand
any work derived from that software ("Derivative WOfk"). "Defivative Work" is (i) any work that is based l.porI one or rrore pre-
existingwork,su::h as a revision, eohancement rmdification, Ircl'lSlaion, abridgement, condensation,expatsion, extension Of any other
form".. wNch such pre-i!xisting wOfk may be recast transformed, or adapted, and ltIat ifprepaed wilhoutlhe autrorizatioo of the owner
ofthecopyrighttosuchpre-existingwork,woUdconstiluteacopyrightinfiingementood(i}any~iliD:lnthatincorporaiessuchapm.
existing work. Buyer shall have only a "right to use" license to a Derivative Wor1I, for internal business purposes and shall oot
disclose,sell,lease, dislribute, or olherwisetranslefthe Derivative WOfk to any third party except as may tie permitted by these
termsoras..,provedin writing by Seller.
14.3 For the purposesofthisArticIe,"Seller" means Seller, itsaffilia\es,andtheir successors or assigns.
15. Intellectual Property Indemnification, 15.1 Subject to the terms 01 the Contract Seller shall indemnify Buyer against any
dOOlageS, costs and expenses aising out of any suit ciaim, or proceeding {a"CI aim1 alleging that Products or Services inlringe a
patent in effect in the U.S., an EU member sta\e or country ofdelivery (provided there is acorrespondi ng patent issued by the US.
or an EU meml:ler state), or U.S. copyright or copyright registered in the country of delivef)': provided that (a) Buyer prompUy
notifies Seller in writing of any such Claim; (b) Buyer metes no admission of liability and gives Sellersoleaulhonty, at Seiler's
expense, to direct and control all defense, setlJement, and COlfllromise negotiations: and (cl Buyer provioos Seller with full
disctosure and assislance that may be reasonably required to defend any such Claim
15.2 Seller shall have no obligation Of liabHiIy with respect to any Claim based upon: (a) any Products or SeNices that have been
altered, modified, Of revised: (b}the combination, operation. or use of any Products or Services with other products when such
combination is pM 01 any allegedly infringing process: (c) failure of Buyer to implement any update provided by Seller that would
have prevented the Claim; (d) unauthorized use of Products or Services,including, w ithoutlimi1ation, a breach of the provisions of
the Contract; or (e) Products or Services made or performed to Buyer's specifications.
15.JSllould anyProductorService,oranyportionthereof,becomethesubtectofaClaim, Seller may at its opIion (a) procure for
Buyer the right to continue using the Product or Sefvice, or portion thereof, (b) modify or replace it in whole or in part to make ~
non-inlringing, Of (c) failing (a) or (b),take back Products or Services and relund any fees received by Selleratlributable to the
infringing Product or Service
154 This states Seller's entire iiabilily for indemnification for patent trademark, copyright, and trade secret infringement for
Products and Services
15.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Products or Services, or portions thereof, which are not
manufacturedldeveloped by Seller, only the indernnity of the manufacturer/developer, ifan y. shall appty.
16. Changes. 161 Each party may at any time propose changes in the schedule Of scope of Products or Services in the form 01
a draft change order Some changes requested by Buyer may require analytical or investigative work to evaluate the change, and
this evaluation wOfk may be charged to Buyer at prevailing rates. The parties may mutually agree on the length of time within
which a decision shall be made regcrdingthe change. If mutually agreed, the changes will be documented in a writterl documelll
signed by autoorizedrepresentabves ofeach party,aIong with any equitable adjustrnenls in the Contr act price or schedule. Seller
is not obligated to proceed with the chaoged schedule or scope until both pa1ies agree in writing. Changes in applicable laws,
rules and regulations shali be treated as a change within the meaning, and subject to the requirements, of this Article. Unless
otherwise agreed by the parties, pricing for additionai work .:rising Irom changes in laws, rules and regulations shall tie at time and
material rates.
16.2 All Products delivered shall conform to Seller's pat or version number specified or (at Seiler's option} its equivalent or the
superseding number subsequenUy assigned by Seiler. IflhenumtlerOfderedisnolongeravailable,Sellerisauthorixedtoshipa
valid interchangeable Produclwithout noIiceto Buyer
17. Inspection and FlctoryTests. The qualily control exercised by Selier in its manufacture 01 Products shall be in accordance
with Seiler's normai quality control policies, procedures and practices. Seller shall attempt to accommodate Buyer's reQuests to
witness Seller's factory tests of Products, il such witnessing can be crranged without delaying the work. Such access shall be
limited to areas directly concerned with Products Ofdered by Buyer and shall not include restricted a-eas where development work
or work of a proprietary natu'e is being conducted
18. GenerllClauses. 18.1 Products and Services sold by Seller are not intended for use in connection wiIh any nuclea-facility
or acbvity withoutlhe writ\en consent of Seller. Buyerwarrantsthat~shallnotuseorpermitotherstouseProductsorServiceslor
such plJ'poses, unless Seller agrees to the use in writing. If, in breach of this, any such use occurs, Seller (and its parent
affiliates, suppliers and subcontractors) disclaims all liability for any nuclear or other dcrnages, injury Of contamination, and in
addition to any other iegal or equitable rights of Seller, Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller (and itsparelll,affiiiates, suppliers
and subcontractorsj hamless against any such liabiiily. If Seller agrees inwribng to any such use, lhe pa1ies shall agree upon
special terms and condibons that provide Seller protections against nuclecr liabili ty and which are acceptabletl Seller underlhe
then current laws that apply
18.2 Seller may assign or novate its rights and obligalions under the Contract in part or in whole,to any of its afliliateswithout
Buyer's consent, and may subcontract portions of the work, so long as Sellerrernainsresponsiblefor~. Buyer agrees to execute
any OOcuments that may be necessa-y to effect Seller's assignment or novation. The delegation or assignment by Buyer of any or
a~ of its duties or rights under the Contract without Seiler's prior I'ofitten consent shall be void.
18.3 Buyer shall notify Seller irrmediately upon any change inlhe ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of Buyer's voting
rights or in Buyer's controiling interest if Buyer fails to do so or Seller objects to the cha"lge, Seller may (a) terminate the
Contract (b}reQu1re Buyer to provide adequate assuranceofpeflorrnance (inciuding but not limited to payment), or(c} put in
place special controls regarding Seiler's Confidential Information
18.4 If any proviskln of the Contract is found to be void or unenforceable,theremain der 01 the Contract shall nolbe affected. The
pa1ieswill replace any such void or unenforceable provision with a new proviskln that achi eves substantially the sarne practical or
economic effect and is valid and enforceable.
18.5Thefollowing Articles shall survive termination or cancellation of the Contract 2.3,4,6, 7,8,9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17and18
18.6 The Contract represents the entire agreement tlelween the pa1ies. No modification, amendment rescission Of waiver shall
be binding on either party unless agreed in writing by the parties' authorized representabves
18.7 FOf direct and indirect U.S. government contracts only, all Products and Services provided by Seller shall be considered
.commercial items" as delined in FAR Pert 2, 2101 a"ld in accordance with FAR 52.244-6. If the reasonableness of the price
cannotbeestablished,dcostorpricingdalaisrequiredforanyotherreason,oriftheProductsorServicescannotbeconsidered
"conmercial iterns: Seller may cancel the Contract without liability.
18.8 This Contract may be executed in multiple CQulllerparts thai together shall consbtute one agreement
18.gExceptasprovidedintheArticleentitled.Lim~abonofLiability,"andin18.1 above rega-ding nuclear use, this Contract is for
Ihe benefitoftheparties and notfor any third party
Page2012
V\b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
CC:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
Phil Overeynder, Public Works Directo~~
May 30, 2007 ~
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Red Mountain Waterline replacement
SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Water Department desires to replace portions of the Red
Mountain Waterline coinciding with Pitkin County's reconstruction of same road.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council requested review and re-submittal with
revised cost structure line items. Existing 2007 appropriations for water mainline replacements
together with hydrant replacements totals $165,000.
BACKGROUND: N/A
DISCUSSION: The County owns Red Mountain Road, (the "Road") and will be reconstructing
portions of the Road from Spring to Fall of2007, (the "Project"). The City owns and maintains a
waterline located within the Road right of way and desires to work with the County's Contractor
on the Project, (Aspen Earthmoving), to replace portions of the waterline, (the "Waterline
Work") within the Project's scope. Executing this project during this time period is critical to
avoid future destruction of the reconstructed Road. Validation for the Waterline Work includes
history of increasing failure, shallow burial, and need to replace the outdated cast iron pipe with
improved ductile material pipe.
Plans
The engineering plans were prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, entitled "Red Mountain
Road"; dated 08/28/06, revised 4/3/07, (the "Project Plans").
The Waterline Work plans: prepared by McLaughlin Rincon L TD, entitled "Red Mountain Road
Water Line and Electrical Replacements"; dated 01106, (the "Waterline Plans").
Responsibilities and communication
The City will undertake all design and permitting relating to the Waterline Work, and be
responsible for construction inspection of the work. Change requests by the City shall be
communicated to the County Engineer and the County shall retain ultimate authority over how
work on the Waterline Work shall progress. The County shall advocate the City's position if a
1
conflict arises with Aspen Earthmoving with regard to what is required by the Contract or the
Plans.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Waterline Work would be executed based on unit
prices agreed to between the County and Contractor. The City shall reimburse the County for
any and all costs pertaining to the Waterline Work included in the County's contract with the
Contractor. The County will invoice the City, which shall be paid within 30 days from the
invoice date. The total cost to the City is $314,716.09. (See attached cost structure in the
LG.A.). A supplemental appropriation of$150,000 will be necessary. This cost can be offset
against two budgeted system expansions (Tiehack Road & Burlingame to AABC connection),
which will not go to construction in 2007.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Executing the Waterline Work in collaboration with
the Road reconstruction will utilize resources, equipment, manpower, materials, and time most
efficiently. This will minimize construction waste in the local landfill and use less fuel and
natural resources.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Red Mountain Waterline replacement in
collaboration with the County's Red Mountain Road reconstruction.
ALTERNATIVES: Red Mountain Waterline replacement could be postponed to a future date.
This would cost more than synchronizing efforts with the County's Red Mountain Road
reconstruction since destruction and reconstruction of the Road would need to be completed.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # 1<6 of2007.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Intergovernmental Agreement between Pitkin County and City of Aspen concerning City of
Aspen Water Line and Red Mountain Road Construction.
2
RESOLUTION # !/J2
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FOR RED MOUNTAIN WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT, AND SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of
Aspen, Colorado, and Pitkin County, Colorado, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and
made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the
City of Aspen, Colorado, and Pitkin County, Colorado regarding the replacement ofthe Red
Mountain Waterline replacement, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
and does hereby authorize the City Manager ofthe City of Aspen to execute said contract on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Concerning City of Aspen Water Line and Red Mountain Road Construction
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreemenf') is made this day of
, 2007 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County Colorado,
whose address is 530 East Main St., Aspen Colorado 81611 (the "County") and the City of
Aspen, whose address is 130 South Galena Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (the "City).
RECITALS
1. The County owns Red Mountain Road (the "Road"), which provides access from Red
Mountain in unincorporated Pitkin County into the City. The County will be reconstructing
portions of the Road, including that portion located from station 0+27.58 to 218+00,
during the period of Spring 2007 to Fali 2007 (the "Projecf'). The Project is depicted on
and described within, among other things, those certain engineering plans entitled "Red
Mountain Road" prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Job No. 2005-372, version
dated August 28, 2006, as revised April 3, 2007 (the "Project Plans").
2. The City owns and maintains a water line located within the Road right of way. The City
desires to replace the waterline from approximately stations 209+50 to 218+25. The City
desires to have the County's contractor on the Project perform the work necessary to
replace the waterline (the "Waterline Work") based on unit prices agreed to between the
County and Contractor. The plans for the Waterline Work are shown In "Red Mountain
Road Water Line and Electrical Repiacements" prepared by McLaughlin Rincon L TD in
January 2006 (the 'Waterline Plans").
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the
parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as foliows:
1. Coordination of Waterline Reolacement with Proiect. The County and City agree to
coordinate the Waterline Work with the Project as set forth in this Agreement.
2. Performance of Work. By agreement of the parties, the Waterline Work was included In
the request for proposals, bid, and construction contract (the "Contracf') executed for the
Project between the County and Aspen Earthmoving, the general contractor for the
Project. The Waterline Work shali be performed by the County's general contractor
(currently Aspen Earthmoving) and its subcontractors (coliectively, "Aspen Earthmoving")
pursuant to that Contract. The County agrees, subject to the other provisions of this
Agreement, to cooperate with the City and as necessary to communicate City concerns
to Aspen Earthmoving to ensure that the Waterline Work is performed in accordance with
that Contract and the Waterline Plans.
3. Desian and Construction Oversiaht. The City of Aspen will undertake ali design and
permitting relating to the Waterline Work, and shali have principal responsibility for
construction inspection of the Waterline Work. In the event that the City believes
changes to the work are necessary to ensure proper construction, it shali communicate
such information in fuli to the County Engineer. The City shali not attempt to
independently control Aspen Earthmoving's work. As between the City and the County,
the County shali retain ultimate authority for determining how work on the Project,
Including the Waterline Work, shali progress. In the event of a conflict between the City
and Aspen Earthmoving (or its successors) with regard to what is required by the
Contract or the Plans, the County shali advocate the City's position so long as the County
determines, in its sole discretion, that doing so is consistent with the Contract, will not
expose the County to liabilities to Aspen Earthmoving or any other party, and will not
result in delays to the Project. In the event of a conflict between the Waterline Work and
another component of the Project. the County shall determine, in its sole and absolute
discretion but after consulting with the City. how to resolve such conflict.
4. Costs. The City shall reimburse the County for any and all costs pertaining to the
Waterline Work included in the County's contract with the Contractor. These line items,
. I d' tl r t d tT
Inc u rnQ curren~es Ima e I Quan lies, are:
Contract Contract Item Unit Price Unit Quantity Total
Item #
202-00220 Remove Asphalt Mat $ 5.50 SY 1,152.00 $ 6,336.00
208-00010 Erosion Bales $ 32.60 EA 20 $ 652.00
403-00720 Hot Bituminous Pavement $ 300.00 Ton 13 $ 3,900.00
(patching) (Asphalt)
403-34801 Hot Biruntinous Pavement $ 53.80 Ton 336.2 $ 18,087.56
(Grading SX) (100)
411-03352 Asphalt Cement Perfonnance $ 640.00 Ton 23 $ 14,720.00
Grade (pG 58-28)
411-10255 Emulsified Asphalt (slow-setting) $ 3.55 GAL 166.53 $ 591.18
626-00000 Mobilization $ 221,000.00 LS 12% $ 26,520.00
627-00001 Pavement Marking Paint $ 58.50 GAL 12.3 $ 719.55
630-00000 Flagging $ 40.90 HR 600 $ 24,540.00
630-00002 TCS $ 490.00 DAY 30 $ 14,700.00
630-80341 Const. Traf. Sign (A) $ 140.00 EA 8 $ 1,120.00
630-80342 Const. Traf. Sign (B) $ 120.00 EA 5 $ 600.00
630-80360 Drum Channelizing Device $ 36.20 EA 50 $ 1,810.00
630-80363 Drum Channelizing Device (With $ 42.10 EA 18 $ 757.80
Light)(Flashing)
619- 8" DIP REMOVE AND REPLACE $ 159.00 LF 996 $ 158,364.00
619- 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX $ 1,600.00 EA 7 $ 11,200.00
619- 8" TEE wrrnTB &ML'S $ 230.00 EA 4 $ 920.00
619- 8" BENDS wrrn TB & ML'S $ 180.00 EA 7 $ 1,260.00
619- FIRE HYDRANT - $ 3,510.00 EA 2 $ 7,020.00
REMOVE&REPLA
619- 8" x 6" REDUCERS $ 130.00 EA 4 $ 520.00
619- CONNECTIONS TO EX SYSTEM $ 1,830.00 EA 6 $ 10,980.00
619- SERVICE RECONNECTIONS $ 3,010.00 EA I $ 3,010.00
619- 6"DIP $ 118.00 LF 26 $ 3,068.00
619- 6"GATEVALVE ANDBOX $ 1,660.00 EA 2 $ 3,320.00
The County shall invoice the City from time to time for payments made to Aspen
Earthmoving that relate to the Waterline Work. The City shall pay each invoice in full
within 30 days of the date of each invoice.
5. Governina iaw. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the validity, performance
and enforcement of this Agreement. Shouid any party institute legal suit or action for
enforcement of any obligations contained herein, it is agreed that the venue of such suit
or action shall be in Pitkin County, Colorado.
6. Authoritv. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that they are
fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement and to bind the party he
represents to the terms and conditions hereof.
7. Notice. All notices required under this Agreement shall be made In writing, effective upon
receipt, and addressed to the parties as follows (or at such other addresses as may be
provided by subsequent notices in accordance with this paragraph):
The foregoing Agreement is approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Coiorado at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2007.
The foregoing Agreement is approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held on
the day of 2007.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed as of the day
and year first written.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY
ATTEST:
By:
Michael Owsiey, Chair
By:
Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By
Hiiary Fletcher, County Manager
By:
John Ely, Pitkin County Attorney
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST
By:
Helen Kianderud, Mayor
City of Aspen
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
By:
John Worcester, City Attorney
\/\c
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation
THRU:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO:
May 31, 2007
MEETING DATE:
June 11, 2007
RE:
Agreement for Professional Services for the Design of the Bus
Lanes from Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek Roundabout
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The Transportation Staff is requesting City Council's approval of Resolution #45 of2007 that
allows the City Manager to execute the attached Agreement for Professional Services between
the City of Aspen and PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC. (PARSONS) for the
Design of the Bus Lanes from Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek Roundabout (Bus Lanes). The
design of the Bus Lanes is an EOTC project and will be paid for out of the EOTC Transit Fund
and will not require the use of any City funds.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
As an EOTC member, Aspen City Council has participated in the discussion and approval of the
funding for this project. At its February 15, 2007 meeting, the EOTC approved the funding
request in the amount of up to $500,000.00 for the design of the Bus Lanes. City Council at its
March 12, 2007 regular meeting also approved the funding for this project as part of the 2007
EOTC Supplemental Budget request. Each of the other individual EOTC members (Pitkin
County and SnoWffiass) also approved the funding of the project at their respective meetings, as
required by the EOTC Intergovernmental Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
See Attached EOTC Memo of February 9,2007
DISCUSSION:
The design of the Bus Lanes is an EOTC project funded by the EOTC. The EOTC is an advisory
committee and advises its member jurisdictions on the use of the )1,% Transit Sales and Use Tax.
As an advisory committee the EOTC can not enter into agreements with professionals for their
services.
Pagelof3
The City of Aspen, on behalf of the EOTC is entering into this Agreement for Professional
Service with PARSONS and will manage the contract for the design of the Bus Lanes.
At a Special EOTC Meeting on September 20, 2007, EOTC staff and Parsons will present the
Bus Lane design to the EOTC members and request funding for the construction of the Bus
Lanes.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
This project is an EOTC project and will be funded through the EOTC \1,% Transit Sales and Use
Tax. The funding has been approved by the EOTC as a whole and again by the individual
members at their regular meetings as required by the EOTC enabling legislation. The EOTC
approved funding for this project up to $500,000. Timely bus lane design and construction could
avoid approximately $500,000 in Maroon Creek Bridge construction and retrofit costs.
No City funds will be expended for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Design and construction of the Bus Lanes will allow every bus trip in the corridor to benefit from
10-15 minutes in travel time savings during peak hours that often extend throughout the day in this
heavily congested section of State Highway 82. Decreases in transit travel time equate to lower
operating costs, improved service reliability, and superior passenger convenience that would allow
transit to better compete with private automobiles. The Bus Lanes will help support the Canary
Imitative and have a positive beneficial impact on the environment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Transportation Staffrequests Council's approval of Resolution #45 of 2007 that allows
the City Manager to execute the attached Agreement for Professional Services between the City
of Aspen and PARSONS for the Design of the Bus Lanes from Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek
Roundabout.
ALTERNATIVES:
Aspen City Council could decide not to enter into the Agreement for Professional Services with
PARSONS for the design of the Bus Lanes. If this happens, the design for the Bus Lanes will be
delayed or postponed. A delay could lead to the opening of the new Maroon Creek Highway
Bridge in a two lane configuration and the loss of up to $500,000 in bridge construction savings.
PROPOSED MOTION: This should be a brief statement for a Council member to read such as
"I move to approve Resolution #45 of 2007 to allow the City Manager to execute the Agreement
for Professional Services between the City of Aspen and PARSONS for the Design of the Bus
Lanes from Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek Roundabout."
Page 2 of3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # 45 of2007
EOTC Memo Dated February 9,2007
2007 EOTC Budget
EOTC Multi-year Plan
Page3 00
RESOLUTION #45
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND PARSONS SETTING
FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE
DESIGN OF THE BUS LANES FROM BUTTERMILK TO THE MAROON
CREEK ROUNDABOUT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and PARSONS, a copy of which agreement
is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Agreement
for Professional Services between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and PARSONS,
for the Design of the Bus Lanes from Buttermilk to the Maroon Creek
Roundabout, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does
hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract
on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held June 11,2007.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
H:\Brush Creek P.L\lntrawest contract reso.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
Aspen City Council
Snowmass Village Town Council
FROM:
Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager
DATE:
February 9, 2007
RE:
Funding Request for Bus Lanes Between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout
SUMMARY:
This memorandum recommends EOTC approval of a funding request to move forward with design
and construction of bus lanes between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout. This
funding request follows direction from the Aspen City Council at a January 30 work session to
proceed with an Aspen municipal ballot question in May to allow construction of two general
traffic lanes and two exclusive bus lanes (the Preferred Alternative) on the 1.2-mile long segment of
the Entrance to Aspen between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek Roundabout. Moving ahead with
this section of the Entrance to Aspen would not predetermine or preclude any option on the more
controversial portion of the corridor between the Roundabout and Main Street.
Construction of the Preferred Alternative with bus lanes between Buttermilk and the Roundabout
could be done with available Y2 cent transit tax funds and would take advantage of a narrow
window of opportunity (now that the Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation is completed and the Maroon
Creek Bridge replacement is underway) to construct the new bridge with bus lanes and then open
the bus lanes for the entire segment in late 2008 or early 2009.
Timely bus lane construction would avoid approximately $500,000 in bridge construction and
retrofit costs. It would also allow every bus trip in the corridor to benefit from 10-15 minutes in
travel time savings during peak hours that often extend throughout the day in this heavily congested
section of State Highway 82. Decreases in transit travel time equate to lower operating costs,
improved service reliability, and superior passenger convenience that would allow transit to better
compete with private automobiles.
The municipal ballot question would allow only a change in use to construct and operate bus lanes
in the easement that the City granted to CDOT in 2002. The ballot question and this funding
request would only affect the section of SH82 between Buttermilk and the Roundabout. This is
admittedly not a total solution to upper valley traffic congestion, but it is a reasonable approach that
can be accomplished with available funds in the near term. Meanwhile, the City and the EOTC can
continue to honor the public process dealing with the diverse, heart-felt community sentiments
1
regarding what, if any, transportation improvements should be implemented between the
Roundabout and Main Street.
The attached January 25 memorandum to City Council (Attachment 1) goes into detail about the
background of this issue, results of previous ballot questions, the specific open space parcels in
question, bus lane cost and benefit estimates, and the rationale for proceeding with improvements
on this particular segment of the corridor in the near future.
The request before the EOTC at this time is for the following:
. 2007 supplemental budget approval of$500,000 from the Y:z cent transportation fund to
cover the cost of completing final design and construction drawings for the bus lanes from
Buttermilk to the Roundabout, with revised approaches to and from the new Maroon Creek
Bridge, and with two general purpose lanes and two bus lanes (rather than just two lanes,
wide shoulders and a concrete median) on the new bridge.
. Conceptual approval, pending an affirmative result on the May open space use ballot
question, of approximately $7 Am in Yz cent funds for 2008 construction of the bus lanes.
The construction budget for this project will be refined during the final design process.
The May open space use election is necessary because CDOT currently has an easement to use City
open space along the Entrance to Aspen corridor "to construct, operate and maintain a two lane
parkway and a corridor for a light rail transit system (to be constructed when the financing is
available), but for no other purpose or purposes." Without voter approval and funding to construct
bus lanes, the new Maroon Creek Bridge will open as a two-lane replacement facility with a
concrete median and wide shoulders.
The 2006 Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation has upheld the Preferred Alternative, including the
ability to build two general-purpose lanes and either a corridor for light rail or two exclusive bus
lanes from Buttermilk into Aspen. Since the Reevaluation is complete and construction is
underway on the new bridge, there is an immediate opportunity to construct the new bridge with
two general traffic lanes and two bus lanes, and then to open the bus lanes from Buttermilk to the
Roundabout in late 2008 or early 2009 if City voters approve a change in the use of the open space
and if construction funding is approved.
The cost to complete the two general traffic lanes and two bus lanes between Buttermilk and the
Roundabout is estimated to be $7.9 million in 2007 dollars. Among the assumptions that went
into development of that cost estimate is that, wherever possible, construction of the bus lanes
should preserve the LRT platform on the south side of the easement to allow the bus lanes to
continue in operation throughout construction of the LRT system at some point in the future.
The other assumptions affecting the cost estimate are in the attached memorandum.
2
The cumulative surplus in the Yz cent Transportation Fund by the end of 2007 is projected to be
about $12.7 million. The attached draft Multi-Year Plan (Attachment 2) shows the impact on the
fund if the EOTC approves $7.9m for bus lane design and construction.
Available Yz cent funds would be sufficient (without the need for bond proceeds) to complete the
$7.9 million Buttermilk to Roundabout segment, but would fall well short of funding the entire
$45.9 million necessary to complete the project all the way to Main Street.
The attached memorandum also discusses the opportunity to avoid about $500,000 in Maroon
Creek Bridge construction and retrofitting costs associated with construction and demolition of
the concrete median and short bridge approaches if CDOT receives timely direction to proceed
with bus lanes on the new bridge.
Staff recommends EOTC approval of2007 supplemental funding of$500,000 to complete final
design and construction drawings for the bus lanes, and EOTC conceptual approval of about
$7.4m in bus lane construction funding, pending Aspen voter approval of the open space use
question in May. Approval of the open space ballot question and the funding would avoid about
$500,000 in bridge construction and retrofit expenses and transit passengers would begin to
realize 10-15 minutes of reduced travel time in both directions during peak hours of congestion.
We look forward to discussing this matter with you at the February 15 EOTC meeting.
Attachments:
#1 Council Memo ofJanuary 25, 2007
#2 RFTA Memo of February 9,2007
#3 2007 Budget & Multi-Year Plan
3
--..-..,.
.....
Q)
OJ
-0
,
~
I'-
o
o
N
/
I.
_ ',' 00'0 0
"'C ClI" 0 0 0 0
ClI :,~,- 0 0 0 0
_ "'C ~:-.w W W - _
II) ::3 :). ,..., 0 0') (0
ClI CO 'Iii-. ,1' N N (0 .......
::3 EW;.', 0 I.C) (0 N
C" .....I~W I.C)w
C1I 0;",
c:: 0".'.,
N E~~,.
.
Ul
"
-
o
Z
~.
~~.
~-
,'"
~1-
~1
:~O 0 ~ ~
\'llilO a co co
:~O_O_MwMw
_"""'10') 0 ("') N
._ C1Il O')-c-com
0: 1.C)1DLt1(O
o MW .qw
'"
Cl
l::
"'C
l::
~
LL
+'
U
C1l
......
o
...
a.
:!::
f/l
l::
~
...
l-
t)
l-
e
UJ
x U
r.n S en
.!!! "'E
'" Ul
Ul :J <<l
I~~J~
'~:J :J cory
:'....i...'... ~ ~ i ~
t' ~ ~ E::J
;00.. 0.. _ lL
" CO
'Ii) -- --
'w en.c c.J ~
"iiliil
co(Ooo
"-.qOO
""".......00
ai r--: (0- 0-
('I").q-c-I.C)
a
a
co
o
N
~ a
coo
~O
c"'''-ow
<DN
N~
M
a
a
I[)
co.
~
~
001[)
000
00....
OOl.C)w
00....
Jl) N (0_
~
"C
~
'"
2:
.E
~
~
'"
"
"C
~
'"
2:
.E
~
Cii
"
"C
~
'"
2:
.E
~
~
'"
"
"C
~
en)
2:
.E
~
~
'"
"
.......OOOvCOOOO
COMooml.C)OOM
o(Oooomoo(O
NMwl.C)-O-c--ciciocO
MN.......I.C)(OMNO.......
'l"""N ('1")0')
NW N
000
000
000
oWI.C)-a-
O<DO
~~N
a
a
a
a5
~
'"
c
o
:;:
"
:J
~
-
en ~ ~
" ~
o .0 0
" '" U
Cl lL oil
c "
:.;::::; u c:
~ _ ffi C1
= 0))( coo (/J Ow
odo. S 0)- 0) Q)
o en 'EW '- C
:J 0) co en 0) C 'cc lL. ~ en
en:J'Eco Ooo::::C 0 C1I
.9:2 en CO)(/) :.;::::;..::;; 0) cUe
"'T ..c C E ~ en (J) 0. 0) ta
.s C)c...caO)o -g:J.!5o.r.nci.i-l
0) C I > ~ :J CD........ (/) (IJ..... fJ)
C-C .;::cce.......(/Joc.9<(~CI):::J
'E- .;:: 0) 0 .~ 0. a ~. lL. ~ 0).9 ..a:: ~ ~
~~ ~.~cE~:J~(/JgO)~~55
cau .~caca~~.c~<(cagO)~B~
od~~~~~~a~~J-<(~~C~ta~
-~(J) O)O)rn~~O W--~L-C:
-E~.oQ)~Cl'-CO~o.lL. c~~~o
0':J~cc--..cenO:::O)w-UJ5;
ClEfJJ:2.-:s2O)c c,-..c'-en(!)ota
E.-_~~,-ClOVcao-S5__~
>-.- ~ ca co co :.;::::; '- '- - - '''' - .... 0-
r;;-:g~ 0.0.:: :Jst- 0.0 en '-::J 0"
Cl"-"' >.0 ~:Jc(J)t-1Xl E
._ - ~ CD ~ ~ .;::..c 1:.... ~ 0 0) -
(J)rn_,-Q)O)(/J_U:JO:.;::::;UID~=C1I
0) (J)uQ)O)(J)c~'EornoO)~.--
~~EQ)cUUcaE8EQ)..c~~~~EE
,,- 0 U~"'''"'LU~-
_ (J) o..c..c~<('E Q)>-c~Q) r.n
O)~(J)~,-(J)(J)ot-co~~Q)~-<=~O)
U'J e:J'i" CO 2 2 clL. '- Q) 0) O):J rnUJ:::::Ie::: (/)
:;;roroooO::<9zooo::o..:;;-Jalal::J
n. -
_______________~- S
.......NMVI.C)(O,...,coma.......N('I")~I.C)_rNo
"""''1'""'1'""''''''''''''''''''(;) t-
'"
Ol
'"
N
'"
I[)
a5
I[)
Ol
N
o
~
I[)
I[)
....
....
N
<D
~
~
~
c;;-
O
o.
a
~
co.
~
~
a
co
~
N
N
~.
~
~
E
u
u:
W
e.
-
00
::J
...J
0..
0::
::J
00
...J
~
::J
Z
Z
~
U
J-
o
W
t:
u
u:
W
o
Ui
::J
...J
0..
0::
::J
00
W
>
~
...J
::J'
:;;
::J
U
U
J-
o
W
.~
"
a.
,.,
-
"C
'0
.c
c
"C
"
-
o
c
Ul
-
Ul
"
:::I
C"
.,
~
Uln;
.! .u
o .,
za.
. ..
"C
.,
J:
"
'"
-
-
'"
.!!1
c
o
:;:
'"
-
c
.,
E
:::I
U
o
"C
Cl
C
:e
o
a.
a.
:::I
Ul
:.:;
a;
-
'"
~
'"
a.
.,
Ul
"C
.,
~
.,
"C
'u;
C
o
u
.,
.c
"C
Ql
"C
';;
o
~
0-
,!!2
c
o
~
C
Ql
E
:J
"
o
"C
Cl
c
1::
o
a.
a.
:J
Ul
o
C
,.,
'"
c
"
:J
CT
"
Ul
C
o
"
'"
~
U
J-
o
W
....
a
Ql
Cl
"C
:J
.c
....
a
a
N
.8
1"
'"
2:
.E
"C
"
.E
'"
"
"
.c
Ql
Cl
"C
:J
.c
."
Ul
'"
P
Ql
f;
Ql
:a
~
c
o
"
"C
C
'"
"
c
~
E
"
Cii
Ul
"
"
:J
CT
"
~
-
.,
Cl
"C
:J
.c
'~
<D
a
a
N
E
E
-
Ql
Cl
"C
:J
.c
C
"
0-
'"
C
:J
>>
C
'"
10
f;
Ul
c
'"
"
E
'a
~
'"
2:
o
-
~
"
J:
o
~
~
'"
."
ro
....
a
a
N
-
Ol
N
P23
c
Cll
ll..
L..
Cll
Q)
>.
I
:;::;
::::l
~
c ~
.. ~
C:~
0000
0000
0000
~~Ml[)-ai
r.n(()Q)O
ml[)NCO
.... Lli
c 0
.!l!~
ll..~
0000
0000
0000
c,,r N- 0-"';
Olt)..--c.o
I"-LON"I:t
..q-h l!)R
c '"
.. 0
C:~
0000
0000
0000
l[)-~M())-
(()...t CO CO
-q-lONN
..j lri
c CO
.. 0
O:~
0000
0000
0000
cior--:r--.
..q-C")a:lU1
NI.O-q-N
.q-- L{)-
....
o
o
N
0000
0000
0000
,..: 0 mh cO
NNCO
ql[) tON_
.... '"
CD
o
o
N
OO"'d""'d"
OOCOCO
aaMC")
criciM-N"
C)..-a:lm
l[)l[)lJ")<O
M "'d"-
Cl
C
"C
C
:::l
LL.
...
CJ
CIl
...~
o
...
c..
x U
~ .~
5l E
011
OJ
E en
o OJ
" f:
>. >'.S :::l
'E'E 0
::I:::lcCI)
o 0 OJ
00 E.S
ccoo"'O
:i::';;::: g: c
:::::::: ::J
a..a....!:LL
ro
o
f-
-
tIl
C
Cll
...
l-
t)
I-
o
W
24
'" 0 ~
0"" co
'" 0 co
cDN-r----
...."'~
'"
'"
'"
.,.:
N
o
'"
N
N.
~
O.
....
.... 0 ~
'" 0 0
"'a'"
M ro- ci
N"'~
"'00
NM
~~
~f~
~~
g~co '" 0
I:~'.'~~. f2. ;;;.
'.":,~ "'d" en (0
I........~
~I
f#f~
~CD 10 0
ooNO
00"'....
.,.... 00- cD
........~
.... 0 co
"'0'"
....0....
N-a-cO
N"'~
f'.:.~
N'"
NaCO
"'0'"
COOO
~NU:)
N~'"
'" .....
'"
00(000
1'-",,"00
",I'-- T""" 0 a
-~en r-: CO. 0
.~~C"')V"-LO
"EO"'CT'""Q
roofficoa
"000.,,.... 0
c c: M- ci
OC\lOCDN
- -N-.:t
1:' 1:'ri
~ ~
'" '"
" "
"0
~
'"
~
,2
1:'
~
'"
"
0"0
o ~
'" '"
cO~
;:.E
1:'
~
'"
"
OOO"'d"COOOO
("')OOmI.OOOM
COOOOmOOtO
M-trici~o-ciocO
N..-l[)(O('I')NO..-
"I"""" "1_ Mq
N N
000
000
000
ci Lri 0-
ocoo
~~N
o
o
o
00.
~
'"
c
o
:;::
"
::l
~
-
en ~ ttJc
1il
o "0 0
" '" U
C) ~ ~
.S tJ c:
~ -x ffi .~
~ c ~ ttJ
~ c.. J:g mOO Q) Q)
o en 'Ew:; q
::J cornSJ!2 g"roLL ~ tIJ
.~ ~~a3m "~a3cU ~
I .r::cE ctl(/)a.Q) ra
.S C)D...ro 'ifl. "'O::;IVJa.cn ...J
co c:1'~~ 5CO<((/)~~tJ)
"'0 "C ceo .,.... en 0 c 0 <( U CI) ::J
c: "i:: Q) 0 .2 10... _ OJ U. Q) -- ~q U I'. [D
'E (l)'-(/)c.ocn a.Q)~<(~
i~ '~~i~~.E~~~B~~~~
~-~ca.x~x'~o~ro<(~~Q)W~~
cn32 Q) OJ OJ C "i::1:::L-C ~ Co:: ca
~~cn rn~~o~UJ~Ctl ~c
E I;...~ Q) C'lC)~CX) >.a.LL C...JI- c 0
rn~E::len~Cc~-~cn~Q)W~W~'-
'i:::i232 Q) c'<;t c.....~..... cnC) 010
E.-_~..........C)o rno-ScQ _
>..-L.I..lrnCtlCtl:;:;.....I.....-- C'tI O::::c
c-~~a.~=~S~~O~I.....~o~
fi~.~~g~~~~~~~~.~B~~:~
I" u~a.~o~~cncrocoroe~~=~
jX_ 0 E ocOO ~ 8 E OJ.c.2 ~Ci5'"' E E
:sg~Ctla~~i<(~u~~.2 W~-~
~:Q).~cn~I....."'~~O~u..~i~Q)~.~"'~~~Q)en
en ..... ~. ..... ~ C ~ Q) Q) Q) ~ _ _ ~
~~~[]Jx~[]J[]J~~~z~~~~~mm~
0.. ro
j~NM~~~~~mo~NM~~~~No
~ ~~~~~~~ ~
o
o
o
o'
o
'<t
r-:
00'"
000
00....
0010
00....
Il) N CD_
....
o
'"
"!.
'"
'"
~
....
'"
....
"'.
co
00
"<
co
N
00
"'.
~
o
'"
co
'"
'"
"'.
co
....
"<l:
~
~
'"
'"
'"
N.
'"
'"
cr:i
o
....
.....
'"
'"
co~
~
....
N
CXl
.,.:
00
~
cr:i
.
,
">
f..
;;:;-
....
"'-
N
N
.....
~
~
~
....
cO
o
~
...
c
..
c
"E
..c
'"
N
00
'"
N
~
"!.
~
~
....
'"
o.
~
'"
'"
.....
0;-
'"
'"
en
~
"!.
e
co
'"
....
ri
....
....
Lli
'"
'"
N
o
....
'"
'"
....
....
N
co
'"
~
~
0;-
o
o
o
....
00.
~
o
00
....
N
N
.....
~
~
i="
U
u:
UJ
e-
Vi
~
..J
ll..
~
~
~
..J
<(
~
Z
Z
<(
o
f-
a
w
t:
~
u..
w
o
Vi
~
..J
~
~
~
~
UJ
>
~
..J
~
~
~
o
o
f-
a
w
o
N
01
-
N
CITY OF ASPEN
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC., ("Profession-
al").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and
professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon
receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work
as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the
Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be
completed no later than December 1. 2007. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for
the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be
adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time
required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of
authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not,
except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional.
Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay
Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work
performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "B" appended
hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional
shall not initially exceed $500.000.00 . Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for
work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or
untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the
Professional's bill.
Non-Assignabilitv. Both parties recognize that this contract is one
for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior
written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any
of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely
responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers,
agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee
of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to payor be
liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor.
Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this
Agreement, without specifying the reason therefore, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the
other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the
effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the
Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City.
Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for
damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and
the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time
as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined.
Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that
slhe has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working
for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that slhe has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage
fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this
contract.
Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and
understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as
establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an
independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on
behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to
be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under
this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of
Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to,
workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the
employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible
for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during
the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in
connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes
or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax
law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the
services agreed to herein.
2
Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability,
claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims
arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, which
arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is
caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the negligent act,
omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any
subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the
Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's
compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor
of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide
defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands, at the option of the City, or
reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability,
claims, or demands.
If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment and legal
fees attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and
maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all
liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8
above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this
contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other
obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain
insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts,
duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All
coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-
made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to
maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws
for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability
insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for
each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit,
and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence
of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of
this paragraph.
(ii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with mlDlmum combined single
3
limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00)
aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles assigned
to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of
interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this
Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City
under this contract.
(iii) Professional Liability insurance with the mlrumum limits of ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000)
aggregate.
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's
officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insur-
ance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided
through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that
provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall
contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The
Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's
insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and
minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall
identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be
canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has
been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract
upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or
renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums
in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon
demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to review a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement
thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00
per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided
by the Colorado Govemmentallmrnunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to
time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
4
Notice. Any written notices as. called for herein may be hand
delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return
receipt requested, to:
City:
John D. Krueger
Director of Transportation
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Professional: .
S'-l eo v"'.r\ t" . OS '" ,-'t "
\J\~c.t; -p___...S,de........-\
-""""?d.-t ~e""~ -'-;:a...V'\s.po...-\o::...~'.ov"\ G.rc....,'P
Street Address \., 00 """f.':,_oo d.....~j
City, State & Zip Code I:::>Q.V> ,...., Co <:> S 0 z.")o
Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color,
creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin,
ancestry, handicap, or religion sha1l be made in the employment of persons to perform services
under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code,
Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition
hereof sha1l not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No
term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the
City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a
waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may
apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City
sha1l be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any
such forbearance or indulgence. .
Execution of Agreement bv Citv. This agreement shall be binding
upon a1l parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon
the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his
absence) fo1lowing a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the
Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions,
representations or covenants can be modified, changed, tenninated or amended, waived, superseded
or extended except by appropriate written instrument fu1ly executed by the parties.
(b)
unenforceable
proVISIOn.
If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, i1legal or
it sha1l not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations
to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that
5
ATTESTED BY:
WITNESSED BY:
~
SIGNATURE PAGE
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
PROFESSIONAL: ?AaSo~s --r:;.A.N:!>\'o...."TA..."ON G4!o..,f
By:
_/(l-A~
'St-.......Vl 7. ~ :-t",
Title: V lCo'll" ?a.8""S' 1::>......:1 T
Date: {p /7/07
I r
7
The City Of Aspen
Standard Terms And Conditions
For Professional Engineering Services Contracts
These standard terms and conditions have been prepared by the City of Aspen to be incorporated by
reference into Agreements entered into between the City of Aspen and engineers or professional
engineering firms for professional engineering services. The provisions herein are interrelated with
other standard contract documents customarily used by the City of Aspen and a change in one may
necessitate a change in others. Whenever a conflict exists in the terms and conditions of this
document and the Agreement, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall take
precedence.
ARTICLE 1
ENGINEERS'S SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1. GENERAL
1.1.1. The Engineer shall perform the services undertaken according to the Agreement with the City.
The part of the project for which Engineer is to provide services pursuant to the Agreement with
the City is hereinafter called TItis Part of the Project.
1.1.2.The Engineer shall designate, when necessary, a representative authorized to act in the
Engineer's behalf with respect to This Part of the Project.
1.1.3. The Engineer's services shall be performed in character, sequence and timing so that they will
be coordinated with those of the City and all other consultants for the Project.
1.1.4 The Engineer shall recommend to the City the obtaining of such investigations, surveys, tests,
analyses and reports as may be necessary for the proper execution of the Engineer's services.
1.1.5 The Engineer shall provide progress copies of drawings, reports, specifications and other
necessary information to the City and other consultants. All aspects of the Work designed by the
Engineer shall be coordinated by the Engineer, and the Engineer shall also become familiar with the
Work designed by the City and other consultants as necessary for the proper coordination of the
Project.
1.1.6 The Engineer shall cooperate with the City in determining the proper share of the construction
budget to be allocated to This Part of the Project.
1.2 BASIC SERVICES
The Scope of Work document shall set forth the Basic Services which the Engineer has agreed to
perform. The Scope of Work may consist of one or more of the following phases. The terms and
conditions set forth below apply to those phases which have been made a part of the Scope of
Services.
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE
1.2.1 The Engineer shall ascertain the requirements for This Part of the Project and shall confirm
such requirements with the City.
1.2.2 The Engineer shall review alternative systems with the City, attend necessary conferences,
prepare necessary analyses, drawings and other documents, be available for general consultation,
and make recommendations regarding basic systems for This Part of the Project. When necessary,
the Engineer shall consult with public agencies and other organizations concerning utility services
and requirements.
1.2.3 The Engineer shall prepare and submit to the City a Statement of Probable Construction Cost
of This Part of the Project based on current area, volume or other unit costs, as directed by the City.
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
1.2.4 When authorized by the City, the Engineer shall prepare from the Schematic Design Studies
approved by the City the Design Development Documents. These shall consist of drawings and
other documents to fix and describe This Part of the Project, including materials, equipment,
component systems and types of construction as may be appropriate, all of which are to be
approved by the City.
1.2.5 The Engineer shall submit to the City a further Statement of Probable Construction Cost of
This Part of the Project
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE
1.2.6 When authorized by the City, the Engineer shall prepare from the Design Development
Documents drawings and specifications setting forth in detail the requirements for the construction
of This Part of the Project, all of which are to be approved by the City. The Engineer shall prepare
the Drawings and Specifications in such format as the City may reasonably require.
1.2.7 The Engineer shall advise the City of any adjustments to previous Statements of Probable
Construction Cost of This Part of the Project indicated by changes in requirements or general
market conditions.
1.2.8 The Engineer shall assist the City as necessary in connection with the responsibility for filing
the documents concerning This Part of the Project required for the approval of governmental
authorities having jurisdiction over the Project.
BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE
1.2.9 If required by the City, the Engineer shall assist the City's project engineer in obtaining and
evaluating bids or negotiated proposals, and in awarding and preparing contracts for construction.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE - ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
1.2.10 The Construction Phase will commence with the award of the Contract for Construction
and together with the Engineer's obligation to provide Basic Services under this Agreement, will
terminate when final payment to the Contractor is due or, in the absence of a final Certificate for
Payment or of such due date, sixty days after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work,
whichever occurs first.
1.2.11 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement and incorporated in the Contract Documents,
the Engineer shall assist the City in the Administration of the Contract for Construction with
respect to This Part of the Project, as set forth below and in General Conditions of the Contract for
2
Construction.
1.2.12 The Engineer shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction for This
Part of the Project or as otherwise agreed with the City in writing, to become generally familiar with
the progress and quality of the Work for This Part of the Project and to determine in general if such
Work is proceeding accordance with the Contract Documents. The Engineer shall keep the City
informed of the progress and quality of the Work for This Part of the Project and shall endeavor to
guard the City against defects and deficiencies in such Work of the Contractor.
1.2.13 The Engineer shall at all times have access to the Work for This Part of the Project wherever
it is in preparation or progress.
1.2.14 The Engineer, based on observations at the site and on evaluations of the Contractor's
Applications for Payment, shall assist the City in determining the amounts owing to the Contractor
for This Part of the Project and shall certify such amounts to the City. Such certification shall be in
writing if requested.
1.2.15 Certification by the Engineer to the City of an amount owing to the Contractor shall
constitute a representation by the Engineer to the City that, based on the Engineer's observations at
the site as provided in Subparagraph 1.2.12 and the data comprising the Contractor's Application
for Payment, the Work for This Part of the Project has progressed to the point indicated; that to the
best of the Engineer's knowledge, information and belief, the quality of such Work is in accordance
with the Contract Documents (subject to an evaluation of such Work for conformance with the
Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, to the results of any subsequent tests required
by or performed under the Contract Documents, to minor deviations from the Contract Documents
correctable prior to completion, and to any specific qualifications stated by the Engineer); and that
the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certified.
1.2.16 Upon written request of the City, the Engineer shall furnish to the City, with reasonable
promptness, written interpretations of the Contract Documents prepared by the Engineer, if, in the
opinion of the City, such interpretations are necessary for the proper execution or progress of the
Work.
1.2.17 The Engineer shall render written recommendations, within a reasonable time, on all
claims, disputes and other matters in question between the City and the Contractor relating to the
execution or progress of This Part of the Project or the interpretation of the Contract Documents.
1.2.18 The Engineer shall assist the City in determining whether the City shall reject Work for
This Part of the Project, which does not conform to the Contract Documents or whether special
inspection or testing is required.
1.2.19 The Engineer shall review and approve, or take other appropriate action upon, and
forward to the City for final disposition the Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings,
Product Data and Samples with respect to This Part of the Project; but only for conformance with
the design concept of the Work and with the information given in the Contract Documents. Such
action shall be taken with reasonable promptness so as to cause no delay. The Engineer's approval
of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component.
1.2.20 The Engineer shall assist the City in preparing Change Orders for This Part of the Project
for the City's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Engineer
3
shall recommend to the City minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment in the
Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time, which are not inconsistent with the intent of the
Contract Documents.
1.2.21 The Engineer shall assist the City in conducting inspections, with respect to This Part of the
Project, to determine the dates of Substantial Completion and final completion, and shall review
and approve, or take other appropriate action on, the Contractor's list of items to be completed or
corrected and shall forward the list to the City for final disposition. The Engineer shall assist the
City in receiving and forwarding for review written warranties and related documents required by
the Contract Documents and assembled by the Contractor with respect to This Part of the Project. If
requested, the Engineer shall issue to the City a final certificate in writing with respect to final
payment for This Part of the Project.
1.3 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES
1.3.1 If more extensive representation at the site than is described under Subparagraphs 1.2.10
through 1.2.21, inclusive, is required for This Part of the Project, the Engineer shall, if requested by
the City, provide one or more Project Representatives to assist the Engineer in carrying out such
responsibilities at the site.
1.3.2 Such Project Representatives shall be selected, employed and directed by the Engineer, and
the Engineer shall be compensated therefore as set forth in an exhibit appended hereto or an
amendment to the Agreement. Such exhibit or amendment shall describe the duties,
responsibilities and limitations of authority of such Project Representatives.
1.3.3 Through the observations of such Project Representatives, the Engineer shall endeavor to
provide further protection for the City against defects and deficiencies in the Work for This Part of
the Project, but the furnishing of such Project representation shall not modify the rights,
responsibilities or obligations of the engineer as described in Subparagraphs 1.2.10 through 1.2.21
inclusive.
1.4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The following Services are not included in Basic Services unless specifically included in the Scope of
Work. They shall, however, be provided if requested in writing by the City, and they shall be paid
for by the City as provided in the Agreement, in addition to the compensation for Basic Services.
1.4.2 Providing financial feasibility or other special studies.
1.4.3 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations, environmental studies or comparative
studies of prospective sites, and preparing special surveys, studies and submissions required for
approvals of governmental authorities or others having jurisdiction over the Project.
1.4.4 Providing services relative to future facilities, systems and equipment, which are not
intended to be constructed during the construction Phase.
1.4.5 Providing services to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or to make measured
drawings thereof, or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information related thereto.
1.4.6 Preparing documents for alternate, separate or sequential bids, or providing extra services
in connection with bidding, negotiation or construction prior to the completion of the Construction
Documents Phase, when requested by the City.
4
1.4.7 Providing coordination of work performed by separate contractors or by the City's own
forces.
1.4.8 Providing services in connection with the work of a construction manager or separate
consultants retained by the City.
1.4.9 Providing Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost, analyses of owning and operating
costs, or detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and labor.
1.4.10 Providing engineering services or special consultants related to interior design
services and other similar services required for, or in connection with, the selection, procurement or
installation of furniture, furnishings and related equipment.
1.4.11
Providing services for planning tenant or rental spaces.
1.4.12 Making' revisions in Drawings, Specifications or other documents when such
revisions are inconsistent with written approvals or instructions previously given, are required by
the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such
documents, or are due to other causes not solely within the control of the Engineer.
1.4.13 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and supporting data, and providing other
services in connection with Change Orders to the extent that the adjustment in the Basic
Compensation resulting from the adjusted Construction Cost is not commensurate with the services
required of the Engineer, provided such Change Orders are required by causes not solely within
the control of the Engineer.
1.4.14 Making investigations, surveys, valuations, inventories or detailed appraisals of existing
facilities, and providing services required in connection with construction performed by the City.
1.4.15 Providing consultation concerning replacement of any Work damaged by fire or other
cause during construction, and furnishing services as may be required in connection with the
replacement of such Work.
1.4.16 Providing services made necessary by the default of the Contractor, or by major defects or
deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance of either the City or the
Contractor under the Contract for Construction.
1.4.17 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings showing significant changes in the Work
made during construction, based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the
Contractor to the City.
1.4.18 Providing extensive assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system, such as initial
start-up or testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals,
training personnel for operation and maintenance, and consultation during operation.
1.4.19 Providing services after issuance to the City of the final Certificate for Payment, or in the
absence of a final Certificate for Payment, more than sixty days after the Date of Substantial
Completion of the Work.
1.4.20 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness in connection with any public hearing,
arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding.
5
1.4.21 Providing services of consultants for other than the normal engineering services for This
Part of the Project.
1.4.22 Providing any other services not otherwise included in this Agreement or not customarily
furnished in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice.
ARTICLE 2
THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 The City shall, with reasonable promptness, provide all available information regarding the
requirements for This Part of the Project.
2.2 The City shall designate, when necessary, a representative authorized to act in the City's
behalf with respect to This Part of the Project. The City, or such authorized representative, shall
examine documents submitted by the Engineer and shall render decisions pertaining thereto
promptly, to avoid umeasonable delay in the progress of the Engineer's services.
2.8 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any fault or defect with respect to This Part
of the Project, or nonconformance with the Contract Documents, prompt written notice thereof
shall be given by the City to the Engineer.
2.9 The City shall consult with the Engineer before issuing interpretations or clarifications of the
Engineer's Drawings and Specifications and shall request the recommendation of the Engineer
before acting upon Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples or other submissions of the Contractor,
or upon Change Orders affecting This Part of the Project.
2.11 The City shall advise the Engineer of the identity of other consultants participating in the
Project and the scope of their services.
2.12 The City shall review the Engineer's work for compliance with the City's program and for
overall coordination with the City's and other engineering requirements.
ARTICLE 3
CONSTRUCTION COST
3.1 The Construction Cost of the Project shall be the total cost or estimated cost to the City of all
elements of the Project designed or specified by the City or the City's consultants. The Construction
Cost of This Part of the Project shall be the total cost or estimated cost to the City of all elements of
the Project designed or specified by the Engineer.
3.2 The Construction Cost of the Project or of This Part of the Project shall include at current
market rates, including a reasonable allowance for overhead and profit, the cost of labor and
materials furnished by the City and any equipment which has been designed, specified, selected or
specially provided for by the City and, the City's consultants.
3.3 Construction Cost does not include the compensation of the City's consultants, the cost of the
land, rights-of-way, or other costs which are the responsibility of the City as provided in Article 2.
6
3.4 Evaluations of the City's Project budget, Statements of Probable Construction Cost and
Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost, if any, prepared by the Engineer, represent the Engineer's
best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.
3.5 If a fixed limit of Construction Cost has been established, the City and the Engineer shall
establish, if practicable, a fixed limit of Construction Cost for This Part of the Project. If such a fixed
limit is established, the Engineer, after consultation with the City, shall be permitted to include
contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation, to determine what materials, equipment,
component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents with
respect to This Part of the Project, and to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of This Part of
the Project to bring it within the fixed limit. If required, the Engineer shall assist the City in
including in the Contract Documents alternate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the fixed
limit. Any such fixed limit shall be increased in the amount of any increase in the Contract Sum
related to This Part of the Project occurring after execution of the Contract for Construction.
3.5.1 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase for This Part of the Project has not commenced within
three months after the City receives the Construction Documents any Project budget or fixed limit
of Construction Cost for This Part of the Project established as a condition of this Agreement shall
be adjusted to reflect any change in the general level of prices in the construction industry between
the date of submission of the Construction Documents to the City and the date on which bids or
Qualifications are sought.
3.5.2 If a Project budget or fixed limit of Construction Cost for This Part of the Project (adjusted as
provided in Subparagraph 3.5.1) is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated
Qualification, the City may require the Engineer without additional charge, to modify the
Engineer's Drawings and Specifications for This Part of the Project as necessary to bring the
Construction Cost thereof within such fixed limit for This Part of the Project. If it was not
practicable to establish a fixed limit of Construction Cost for This Part of the Project, and if the
lowest bona fide bid or negotiated Qualification, the Detailed Estimate of Construction Cost or the
Statement of Probable Construction Cost established for the entire Project (including the bidding
contingency) exceeds the fixed limit of Construction Cost of the entire Project, the City may require
that the Drawings and Specifications prepared by the Engineer be modified without additional
compensation as necessary to make them bear a reasonable portion of the burden of reducing the
Construction Cost of This Part of the Project so that the fixed limit of Construction Cost for the
entire Project is not exceeded. The providing of such service shall be the limit of the Engineer's
responsibility in this regard, and having done so the Engineer shall be entitled to compensation for
all services perfornled in accordance with this Agreement.
ARTICLE 4
DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE
4.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct salaries of all the Engineer's personnel
engaged on the Project, and the portion of the cost of their mandatory and customary contributions
and benefits related thereto, such as employment taxes and other statutory employee benefits,
insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions, and similar contributions and benefits.
7
ARTICLE 5
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
5.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services and
include actual expenditures made by the Engineer and the Engineer's employees and consultants in
the interest of the Project (to the extent they are reimbursable by the City for the expenses listed in
the following Subparagraphs; provided that engineer shall not be reimbursed for expenses unless
prior written approval therefore has been obtained from City.
5.1.1 Expense of transportation in connection with the Project; living expenses in connection with
out-of-town travel; long distance communications; and fees paid for securing approvals of
authorities having jurisdiction over the Project.
5.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling of Drawings, Specifications and other
documents, excluding reproductions for the office use of the Engineer, the City and the City's
consultants.
5.1.3 Expense of data processing and photographic production techniques when used in connection
with Additional Services.
5.1.41f authorized in advance by the City, expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular
rates.
5.1.5 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups requested by the City.
ARTICLE 6
PAYMENTS TO THE ENGINEER
6.1 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES
6.1.1 Payments for Basic Services, Additional Services and Reimbursable Expenses shall be made on
the basis set forth in the Agreement.
6.1.2 The City shall disclose to the Engineer, prior to the execution of this Agreement, any
contingent or other special provisions relative to compensation.
6.1.3 The Engineer shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for Basic Services, Additional Services
and Reimbursable Expenses. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered
incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with the Engineer and confirm, in writing to
the Engineer within ten days from receipt of the Engineer's billing, the City's understanding of the
disposition of the issue.
6.1.4 If and to the extent that the Contract Time initially established in the Contract for Construction
is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Engineer, compensation for any Basic Services
required for such extended period of Administration of the Construction Contract shall be
computed as set forth in the Agreement.
8
ARTICLE 7
ENGINEER'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS
7.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses pertaining to Additional Services and
services performed on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall be kept on the basis
of generally accepted accounting principles and shall be available to the City or the City's
authorized representative at mutually convenient times.
ARTICLE 8
OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS
8.1 Except for reference and coordination purposes in connection with future additions or
alterations to the Work. Drawings and Specifications prepared by the Engineer in instruments of
service are and shall be the property of the City whether the Project for which they are made is
executed or not. The Engineer shall be permitted to retain copies, induding reproducible copies, of
Drawings and Specifications for such information and reference. The Drawings and Specifications
may be used by the City on other projects, or for completion of this Project by others.
8.2 The Engineer shall maintain on file, and make available to the City, design calculations for
This Part of the Project, and shall furnish copies thereof to the City on request.
8.3 Submission or distribution to meet official regulatory requirements, or for other purposes in
connection with the Project, is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the City's or the
Engineer's rights.
9
Design Services for Bus Lanes on SH 82 from Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Roundabout
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SECTION 1
Specific Project Information
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The planned improvements are to expand the existing template to accommodate Bus Lanes on State Highway 82 from approximately MP 38.3
at the intersection with Owl Creek Road to approximately MP 39.8 at the Maroon Creek Roundabout in the City of Aspen Colorado. The
consultant will use several past documents for the Entrance to Aspen, such as but not limited to, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the
Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Record of Decision, the EIS Reevaluation, the highway as-built plans from the ABC to Buttermilk,
Maroon Creek Bridge, the Truscott Intersection and the Maroon Creek Roundabout as guide for design. The reconstruction will be to improve
the existing template to accommodate a dedicated Transit Lane in each direction and coordinate with the changes in profile that will be
executed on the current CDOT Maroon Creek Bridge Project.
There is currently a single lane in each direction of the Highway with appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes for intersections and
major access points. This project will design additional driving surface and adjust the surrounding amenities and access points. The design
consists of grading, drainage and intersection improvements Surface template depths shall be designed based on geotechnical investigations
and the minimums required on the State Highway 82 Corridor. Geometric improvements will be made to accommodate turning movements
required for appropriate vehicles at the SH82 intersections and to accommodate current CDOT and AASHTO Standards.
The consultant is responsible for the final design of the Bus Lanes, intersection improvements, relocated irrigation pipes and ditches, design of
a storm drainage system, relocated trails, landscape and irrigation design, permits, utility relocation plan and coordination, signing and
pavement marking plans and construction phasing plans as well as any coordination with Pitkin County (County land-use review), Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT), the City of Aspen, the Town ofSnowmass and affected utility companies. CDOT will provide a review
and approval of the following but not limited to: civil design, traffic, hydraulic, access requirements, materials, geotechnical engineering, and
environmental clearances for the project.
The work products consist of relevant reports, preliminary plans (FIR), almost final (FOR), and final plans and final construction drawings,
specifications, contract and bid documents. The design document will be prepared to CDOT Local Agency Manual standards/guidelines.
Currently it is anticipated that the project shall be submitted for review and approval by CDOT Region 3 as a Local Agency Construction
Project with an lGA developed between CDOT and tbe City of Aspen. Standard drawings and specifications for construction will be those used
by CDOT. CDOT nomenclature will be used for bid items, references to the work and the preparation of estimates and bid tabulations.
In the event of conflicts between sections of this Scope of Service, Sections 2-7 take precedence.
II. WORK TASKS
Task Group A - Highway Alignment Grading and Drainage Plans
1. Highwav Grading. A Preliminary Design where horizontal and vertical alignments will be refined to meet current AASHTO
Standards for urban conditions. Preliminary grading plans will be developed for the side roads and modified bus lanes and
stops. Bus Lanes will match the Maroon Creek bridge deck currently under construction that will be modified by CDOT to
accommodate four 11' lanes with two 6' shoulders. All alignment work shall on the Maroon Creek Bridge approaches shall be
coordinated with the Change Order drawings that will be issued by CDOT to accommodate the bus lanes.
Project plans will be developed to include: title sheet, general notes, typical sections, and plan/profile sheets. The plan sheets
will include alignments, profile grades, existing right-of-way, drainage, existing utilities, toes of slope, earthwork cross-
sections, soil data and structure general layouts. A preliminary construction phasing and traffic control plan will also be
included. The horizontal and vertical geometric plans will be submitted to CDOT, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and utility
companies for FIR review.
After the FIR review, almost final plans, specifications and estimates will be completed. Plan quantities will be calculated,
tabulated and a summary of quantities prepared. The Final Office Review (FOR) plans will include the sheets as preliminarily
outlined in the Attachment C. The FOR plans will then be submitted again for a Final Office Review by CDOT, Pitkin County,
City of Aspen, and affected utility companies.
It is estimated that there will be approximately 150 sheets of construction drawings for the project. Special provisions will be
written to supplement CDOY's Standard Specifications and Standard Special Provisions. An estimate of probable construction
costs will be prepared at every review using up to date quantities and bid prices from related construction projects.
2. Utility Coordination. Existing utilities, identified by the combining the existing survey information and will be plotted on the
base maps from field survey data, maps from the utility companies, and field locations. Verification of these existing utilities
may be required. Locations of manholes, valves, poles, riser boxes, hydrants, and meters will also be shown. The plans will be
sent to the affected utility companies for location verification. The base maps will be revised as per comments from the utility
companies, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen.
Conflicts with future and existing utilities will be determined and relocations will be coordinated with the appropriate utility
company. Final design for the relocation of sanitary sewer and water in the area will be done by appropriate Water or
Sanitation District. Utility drawings showing proposed horizontal locations of underground utilities will be included in the
plans for information only.
3. Drainage Reoort and Design. The following components will be complied to submit a modification with the CDOT design
documents.
a. Hvdrologv. Modify existing CDOT drainage basin data from SH 82 projects, collect historical drainage data and projected
changes, and complete a hydrological analysis. Analysis shall meet CDOT drainage standards/requirements. Any changes to the
existing drainage shall be minimized. All analysis shall be approved by CDOY.
b. Storm Sewer Desil!n. Determine location for inlets, manholes and storm sewer pipes using the grading plans developed for
the project. Determine the type and size of the various culverts and prepare structure cross-sections to determine elevations,
flowlines, slopes and lengths of the structures. The storm sewer will be designed for the 50-year storm event as per Pitkin
County and CDOT standards.
c. Irril!ation Desil!n. The existing irrigation ditches on the project will be replaced and to accommodate the new roadway
design width. Irrigation structures and flumes will be evaluated for reuse or replacement.
d. Culvert Desil!n. The existing culvert crossings will be lengthened or replaced and new end section designs provided as
necessary to accommodate the new parking and roadway width water crossings using CDOT standards.
e. Erosion Control. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWMP) will be prepared in accordance with CDOY's Erosion
Control Manual and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Standard Plans, and Specifications and per NPDES requirements.
f. Preoare Reoort. A hydraulics report for FIR submittal and FOR submittal will be prepared that includes the hydrology, minor
structure hydraulic design, with basin maps and drainage worksheets.
Task Group B - Intersection and Traffic Engineering
1. Intersection and Access Modifications. Anticipated traffic movements within the limits of this project are believed to be
currently adequate but with additional demand may need to be reassessed, modifications may be necessary to the SH82
intersections. As such, revisions in traffic movements are anticipated at this time and will be based on anticipated use of
traffic modeling efforts being conducted by the City at the time of this RFQ. Existing acceleration and deceleration lanes shall
be incorporated into the bus lane alignment to confine improvements within the existing CDOT ROW. CDOT access
requirements may have input on what is required for this analysis and required modifications. No new traffic counts are
anticipated to be required for this project.
2. Traffic Signal Modifications. Due to the expanded width of the intersection, Traffic Signal modifications may be required for
the project. All modifications will be coordinated with CDOT Region 3 Traffic in Grand Junction and revised detection
systems will be included in the design effort.
3. Signing and Pavement Marking. Separate plan sheets will be prepared that show existing and proposed signs and proposed
pavement markings. Special signing for the transit only lanes is expected for this job. Existing signs will be replaced in kind.
Signing adjustments for areas of widening improvements will be accommodated. Tabulations of the signing and pavement
marking quantities will be included with the plans.
4. Traffic Control and Construction Phasing. A final construction phasing with traffic control plan will be developed which
integrates the construction of all project work elements into a practical and feasible sequence. This plan will accommodate the
existing traffic movements and parking uses during construction, and a final traffic control plan developed which will be
compatible with the phasing plan. This plan will meet the requirements of MUTCD as required by CDOT.
Coordination with CDOT staff for the Maroon Creek Bridge Project will be required to detennine possible work to be
completed on site by CDOT contractor that may compliment widening project. Times for access to the site will also need to
be determined based on work to be completed on the Maroon Creek Bridge project.
Task Group C - Geotechnical Engineering
The consultant will be conducting the geotechnical investigations for this project. As such, it is anticipated that the
consultant will provide the following information to the City of Aspen and CDOT.
1. Soils Investigation Reports. Exploratory test holes data and locations to be detennined by the soils engineer with consultant and
staff approval. Soil samples will be tested for classification, moisture-density, resistance value, compressibility or swell
characteristics, and corrosiveness. The soils engineer will determine if the pavement section is satisfactory based on the
number of anticipated truck/car ESAL's. No life cycle cost for alternative pavement types are anticipated. Two design sections
are anticipated to accommodate the road alignment. Existing ground water levels will also be detennined from the borings at
these locations.
2. SH 82 Template Design. The consultant will provide the pavement design/s for SH 82 as asphalt pavement, which matches the
SH 82 corridor design. The current pavement design is believed to be 5.5 inches of Superpave asphalt atop 4 inches of
aggregate base course (Cl. 6). The roadway embankment material is rated R-59 or better for 2 feet beneath this template.
3. Geotechnical Investigation Report. A report will be provided to the City of Aspen/CDOT, which summarizes the boring, and
test data obtained and provides conclusions and recommendations for roadway subgrade compaction, pavement design
verification and structure foundations.
4. Geotechnical Foundation Report. A minimum of two test holes will be drilled on the alignment of any retaining walls on the
project. There could be the need to provide retention of the highway template to remain in the existing CDOT ROW for SH 82
and to protect existing City of Aspen amenities, such as the pedestrian underpass and trail. It is assumed that there will be
several locations on the project that may require down hill retaining walls or modifications to existing structures. Borings shall
be drilled during irrigation season to determine worst case scenario for ground water elevation The appropriate laboratory tests
will be performed and data analyzed to determine strength and allowable bearing capacity of the foundation material. Existing
ground water levels will also be detennined from the borings at this location. A foundation report will address all new and
modified structures and walls within the project.
Task Group D - Structural Selection Report and Designs
Consultant will prepare a Wall Selection Report for the potential new and modified structures in accordance with CDOT guidelines and
City of Aspen staff. The report will evaluate the existing structures to ensure that they accommodate the highway bus lanes. The
evaluation will incorporate geotechnical investigation, field investigation and previous wall designs to determine the structural integrity
and load capacity of the existing structure. The design will be based upon the use ofHS-25 loading and LRFD design loading criteria.
The proposed widened roadway will be adjusted to accommodate the horizontal and vertical sight distance requirements per current
AASHTO standards. New and Modified wall construction drawings will conform to AASHTO and CDOT standards and shall include an
estimate of quantities and opinion of probable cost.
Task Group E - Specifications and Meetings
1. Bid Documents. After the FOR is held, final corrections will be made to the plans and specifications and reproduced for
advertisement. The CDOT will be responsible for advertising the project. The consultant will be able to answer contractor's
questions regarding the project and prepare any addendum's that may be necessary to finalize the bid set. A pre-bid conference
is recommended to review the proposed project with prospective contractors; this has been included in the engineering estimate.
2. Pennits and ADDlications. The consultant will be responsible for the following list of pennits and applications to ensure the
proper approvals are acquired for the construction of the project:
a. Local Agencv Checklist. Due to the nature improvements to the State Highway 82 template the project will be required to go
thru the Local Agency process. The consultant will submit this project on behalf of the City of Aspen and follow all of the
guidelines contained in the 2006 Local Agency Manual. The consultant will submit to CDOT Region 3 the FIR, FOR and Final
sets for review and application to modify the template and intersections on SH 82. Comment from the review and approval
process will be incorporated into the Construction Plans and Specifications.
b. Section 404 (CW A) - Dredge Fill and Wetlands Mitigation. The Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control
Division, will be contacted and made aware of the project and the type of construction activity that will take place. This 404
pennit and its related permit requirements, Section 40 I, of the Clean Water Act has been addressed within the Entrance to
Aspen EIS which will define the impacted wetlands impacts are within these project limits. Update to the existing wetlands
since the ElS need to be performed. The 404 or 401 permits required for this project will be prepared by the consultant as
necessary.
c. Section 402 (CW A) - NPDES. Currently there is an active NPDES pennit open until 2008 for the area covered under
Maroon Creek Bridge construction project. A new and separate pennit will be required for the remainder of the project
alignment. Review of the open permit and possible additional requirements need to be examined.
3. Proiect Meetinlls. A Design Scoping Review meeting will be held and an on-site inspection will be made to ensure that the
project team is familiar with the existing conditions as well as the project requirements. The consultant and City of Aspen Staff
will conduct this meeting. A Project Schedule will be developed with critical tasks and anticipated time frame for completing
those tasks. A meeting after the FIR set is distributed will be held with interested parties, which shall include but not limited to
CDOT, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and RFTA. A meeting following the FOR plan set distribution may be required for
follow up approval by CDOT. It is anticipated that at least 2 intermediate meetings may be required with CDOT specialty staff
but can be combined with City of Aspen staff meetings. And as method of tracking the project the consultant and the City of
Aspen Staff will meet at least twice per month to coordinate the work effort, resolve problems, update the schedule, and
determine information or items required from other agencies.
Task Group F - Miscellaneous and Project Management
1. Progress ReDorts and Billings. Progress reports and billings will be submitted on a four or five-week basis (12 times a year).
2. Desilm Survevs. The existing area proposed for construction has been surveyed by CDOT to the extent that a three
dimensional topography of the existing conditions can be generated. The Consultant will be responsible to verify the
locations for all existing storm drainage facilities, utilities, edges of pavement, curbs, sidewalks, signs, bridges, culverts,
buildings, wetlands and trees (diameter >4") located within the project limits are expected to he included with the mapping.
The horizontal and vertical control usedfor the State Highway 82 (ABC to Buttermilk, the Maroon Creek Bridge and the
Maroon Creek Roundabout) projects will be used as the control survey data throughout the project. Some supplemental
survey should be anticipated to indicate conditions after the completion of the work done by the Maroon Creek Bridge
project.
3. Public Involvement. The consultant will be assisting the City of Aspen with Design Public Meeting.s to inform the public of the
project if required. At least two public meetings are included in the scope of services. The consultant will provide staff to
answer questions or address concerns generated during and after the meetings. The consultant will provide exhibits showing
proposed impacts and any other materials needed to facilitate the meetings.
It is anticipated that City of Aspen will be responsible for notifying the appropriate individuals, consortiums, or general public
(via: radio, newspapers, newsletters.) of the meeting times and places.
4. LandscaDing and Urban Design. Landscaping services are an important component of the project. The Consultant team will
work with the City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department to reestablish the vegetation landscaping design in the corridor.
Urban design services necessary that could include, but are not limited to; assisting in the selection of ornamental lighting
fixtures; developing decorative treatments for adjacent pedestrian trails, transit facilities, landscaping to minimize impact of the
sitel irrigation systems, decorative berming, and decorative signage.
5. Computer/Software Information. The primary hardware used by CDOT is a Microsoft Windows based system. Current
software utilized by CDOT:
Earthwork:
Drafting:
Survey:
Geometry:
Estimating:
Inroads
Micro Station
TMOSS (developed by CDOT to compile and codify topographical survey data)
CDOT COGO (Coordinate Geometry)
Bid items to be provided to CDOT in a compatible file format (i.e. Estimator) which will be imported into
Tms*port.
Microsoft Word
MS Project
MS Word, Excel, Power Point
Specifications:
Scheduling:
Misc.:
6. Environmental Clearances - Designer need to follow guidelines according to ROD August 1998 but some follow up on the
environmental requirements will be required such as (but not limited to) actual disturbed wetlands and erosion cantraLl storm water.
A wetlands mitigation plan will need to be drafted working with CDOT staff.
III. DELIVERABLES
1. Preliminary design plans (FIR) with preliminary construction estimate.
2. Permit Applications. (Some of the permits may be directly with the City such as 404)
3. Almost final plans for distribution (FOR)
4. Final design plans with final construction estimates broken out for the major components of the project-phased parking, drainage and
intersection.
5. Bid documents for project advertisement with final quantities.
6. Hydraulic, Geotechnical, Foundation and Wall Selection Reports.
7. Produce Addendum's required to optimize or clarify the design (per client's request).
Design! Advertisement Timeline
Design Scoping Meeting
FIR Review Meeting w/CDOT
FOR Review Meeting w/CDOT
EOTC Update Presentation (special meeting)
Advertise CDOT Bus Lane Construction Project
Open Bids for project (3 week ad period)
Begin Construction
June 4'" , 2007
August 1, 2007
September 5, 2007
September 20, 2007
November 15, 2007
December 6, 2007
Spring 2008
IV. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (separate contract)
The consultant will perform under a separate contract at the client's request administration of the construction in accordance with
CDOT practices and policies.
The administration work includes tasks commencing with the advertisement for bids and the
completing with project finals. Tasks include attending pre-construction meeting, award of the contract, sublet pennits, coordination
with utilities and other interested parties, conferences and weekly meetings, submittal review, work inspection and documentation,
coordination with material testing firm, work acceptance, pay quantities, pay estimates, project reviews and changes, as-builts, and
project finalizing. lfCDOT requires EEO and DBE procedures and monitoring be utilized. Work will be documented using standard
CDOT practices and forms or construction within their ROW.
SECTION 2
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
1 ASPEN CONTACT
The Contract Administrator for this project is:
A. Name: Mr. John Krueger
B. Title: City of Aspen Director of Transportation
C. Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
D. Telephone: 970920-5042
E. Fax: 970544-9447
SECTION 3
REFERENCE ITEMS NEEDED BY THE CONSULTANT
1 CURRENT CDOT MANUALS. SPECIFICATIONS. STANDARDS. ETC.
Electronic files of applicable standards. All CDOT Aspen, PITCO, and RFTA forms as specified in this document.
The consultant shall obtain and utilize the most recent CDOT adopted references including standards and specifications,
manuals and software or as directed by the ASPENIPM.
SECTION 4
GENERAL INFORMA nON
1 NOTICE TO PROCEED
Work will not commence until the written Notice-to-Proceed is issued by the City with certification from the Consultant that
the work will be completed within the allotted time. Work may be required, night or day, on weekends, on holidays, or on
split shifts. The City must concur in time lost reports prior to the time lost delays being subtracted from time charges.
Subject to the City prior approval the time charged may exclude the time lost for:
A. Reviews and Approvals.
B. Response and Direction
2 PROJECT COORDINATION
A. Routine Working Contact
The routine working contact will be between the City Project Manager (ASPEN/PM) and the Consultant Project
Manager (C/PM) Ralph Trapani as defined in Appendix C.
B. Project Manager Requirements
Each Project Manager will provide the others with the following:
a. A written synopsis or copy of their respective contacts (both by telephone and in person) with others.
b. Copies of pertinent written communications.
3 ROUTINE REPORTING AND BILLING
The Consultant will provide the following on a routine basis:
A. Coordination
Coordination of all contract activities by the C/PM
B. Periodic Reports and Billings
The periodic reports and billings in a form acceptable to the ASPEN/PM
C. Minutes of all Meetings:
The minutes will be completed and provided to the ASPEN/PM within five (5) working days
after the meeting. When a definable task is discussed during a meeting, the minutes will
identify the "Action Item", the party responsible for accomplishing it, and the proposed
completion date.
D. General Reports and Submittals
In general, all reports and submittals must be approved by the City prior to their content
being utilized in follow-up work effort.
4 PERSONNEL OUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant Project Manager (C/PM) must be approved by the City Contract Administrator. Certain tasks must be
done by Licensed Professional Engineers (PE) or Professional Land Surveyors (PLS) who are registered with the
Colorado State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. National Institute for Certification
in Engineering Technology (NlCET) or other certifications may be required for project inspectors and testers.
5 CDOT COMPUTER/SOFTWARE INFORMATION
The consultant shall utilize the most recent CDOT adopted software. The primary software used by CDOT is as follows:
A. Drafting/CADD
B. Estimating
C. Specifications
InRoads and Microstation with CDOT's formatting configurations and standards.
Transport (an ASHTO sponsored software)
Microsoft Word
6 PROJECT DESIGN DATA AND STANDARDS
A. General:
Appendix A is a list of technical references applicable to CDOT work. The consultant is
responsible for ensuring compliance with the latest CDOT adopted version of the listed
references. Conflicts in criteria shall be resolved by the C/PM.
B. Specific Design Criteria:
Appendix B is a list of specific project criteria. The list is comprehensive and may include
items that are not required for a tasks defined in this scope. The Consultant shall submit
proposed any changes to the pertinent criteria to the ASPEN/PM at one of the periodic
progress meetings prior to initiating design.
C. Construction MaterialslMethods:
The materials and methods specified for construction will be selected to minimize the initial
construction and long-term maintenance cost to the public entities. Non-typical construction
materials and methods must be approved in writing by the City.
SECTION 5
PRECONSTRUCTlON WORK TASK DESCRIPTIONS
This list establishes the consultant's individual task responsibility. The consultant shall maintain the ability to perform all work
tasks which are indicated below by an 'X' in the consultant column, in accordance with the forms and conditions contained
herein, and the applicable standards. Selected work tasks shall be assigned only after coordination and consultation with the
City. The Consultant is also responsible for coordinating the required work schedule for those tasks accomplished by CDOT and
other agencies. The Consultant should review this entire section to identify applicable material. Contact the Aspen/Project
Manager (ASPEN/PM) if clarification is required (see Section 2.01).
The following activities of communication, consensus building, project team reviews, conceptual design, data gathering,
documentation, and formal public notice should be planned by the Consultant and coordinated with the ASPEN/PM. The time of
their accomplishment will overlap and parallel paths of activity should be planned to finish the development phase in accordance
with the shortest possible schedule. The type and number of meetings, documents, etc., will depend on the category and
characteristics of the project work. A project plan shall be developed by the Consultant which satisfies the requirements of the
project development. This plan must be approved by the Contract Administrator (see Section 2.01) before starting the work.
ASPEN/ Consultant
Other
PROJECT INITIATION AND CONTINUING REOUIREMENTS
A. Initial Project Scoping Meeting
x
x
Identify scope elements, responsibilities and coordination necessary to complete the work.
B. Review applicable environmental documents and requirements
Ensure that any mitigation or commitments are addressed.
C. Independent design review
x
An independent design review shall be performed on any design accomplished by others that
will be used in this project. A report identifying the results of these reviews shall be
submitted to the CDOT/PM within one week of the review.
D. Develop a Project Schedule and assign tasks
x
E. Identify design criteria.
x
Submit a copy of Appendix B -Specific Design Criteria - with the appropriate items
completed.
F. Initiate survey
x
A terrain survey of exiting features is necessary.
G. Obtain necessary Right-of-Entry and permits
a Some activities may require work on land not controlled by public entities. In such
cases the Consultant shall obtain the necessary written permission to enter the premises.
Aspen/
Other
Consultant
b Included in this written permission will be the names and telephone numbers of
persons to contact should notification prior to entry be necessary. These
written
c Permissions apply to Aspen personnel as well as Consultant personnel. CDOT
Form 730 may be used for this purpose. Signed copies of written permission
will be submitted to the ASPEN/PM prior to entering private property for
survey work.
d Some activities such as materials testing on existing pavement and structures
may require a permit. Permits will be obtained and copies submitted to the
ASPENIPM.
H. Traffic Control
Consultant field activities that interfere with traffic operations within existing
roadways will require control of traffic. The Consultant will plan and provide any
required traffic control for the survey, testing, or the design process. Traffic control
operations will be in accordance with the MUTCD. The proposed Method for
Handling Traffic (MHT) must be submitted to the CDOT/PM. Also, certification of
the Traffic Control Supervisor as a Worksite Traffic Supervisor by the American
Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) or as a TCS (Traffic Control
Supervisor) by the Colorado Contractors Association (CCA) shall be required.
1. Initial Submittals
Submit the following samples to the ASPEN/PM for approval:
a An original plan sheet that complies with this scope of work
x
x
Note:No original plan sheets or survey work will be accomplished until satisfactory samples have been received and
approved by the ASPEN/PM.
J. Progress Meetings
a Aspen and Consultant Project Managers
The managers will meet periodically as required (typically at two-week
intervals). These progress meetings will be used to coordinate and track
the work effort and resolve problems. The meetings will review the
following:
Activities required to be complete since the last meeting
11 Problems encountered/anticipated and potential solutions
1ll Project Schedule Update
IV Action Items
v Coordination required with other agencies
The consultant will provide meeting minutes.
x
x
Aspen/
Other
Consultant
b Structure Review Meeting
While the major structural design work is progressing, the Consultant shall
meet periodically with the CDOT Structure Reviewer to review the work.
These meetings may be in addition to, or in conjunction with, the P.roject
Progress Meetings. The complexity of the structure shall be considered by
the CDOT Structure Reviewer to determine the frequency of review
meetings. Other required meetings are described in subsequent sections.
K. Project Management
The Consultant will coordinate all the work tasks being accomplished by all parties
to ensure project work completion stages are on schedule.
L. Project Meeting Minutes
Project Meeting Minutes shall be completed and provided to the Aspen Project
Manager within one week of the actual meeting
2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
a Meetings
The types and number of meetings shall be flexible and determined by an
interactive process as approved by the AspenlPM. Minutes of these
meetings shall be provided to the Aspen/PM and all participants.
Progress Review Meetings
These meetings are intended to disseminate project progress information to
the public and representatives oflocal entities. Notices will be mailed at
least 14 days in advance of these meetings to those on the "contact list".
The Consultant will provide the presentation aids, and help conduct the
meeting.
3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
A. Structures
a Existing conditions
Conduct field reviews to determine the existing conditions as they pertain
to panel replacement. Obtain and review existing construction documents
and reports as to as constructed or modified conditions.
B. Utility Coordination
a Location Maps
Aspen!
Other
x
x
x
x
x
X
Consultant
Obtain utility location maps from the Utility Companies which identify
utility features in the project area. Requests and receipt of maps will be
coordinated with the CDOT Region Utility Engineer via copies of request
and transmittal letters.
b Reviews and Investigations
Conduct field reviews and utility investigations with the CDOT Region
Utility Engineer and Utility companies, as required, to ensure correct
horizontal and vertical utility data. When possible this will be done
utilizing non-destructive investigative techniques. The horizontal and
vertical locations will be shown in the FIR plans and cross sections.
c Relocation Recommendations
Submit necessary information for the relocation or adjustments of affected
utilities to the CDOT Region Utility Engineer. The CDOT Region Utility
Engineer will process the required agreements.
C. Structural Design:
a Retaining Wall Design
Retaining wall structures shall be designed in accordance with the
AASHTO Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specifications and the
CDOT Bridge Design Manual. The CDOT Structure Reviewer will
participate in coordinating this activity.
b Structural Data Collection
1 Obtain the structure site data. The following data, as applicable, shall be
collected: (Typical roadway section, roadway plan and profile sheets showing
all alignment data, topography, utilities, preliminary design plan) Right-of-Way
restrictions, preliminary hydraulics and geology information, environmental
constraints, lighting requirements, guardrail types, recommendations for
structure type, and architectural recommendations.
D. Construction Phasing Plan
A construction phasing plan shall be developed for all projects which
integrates the construction of all the project work elements into a practical
and feasible sequence. This plan shall accommodate the existing traffic
movements during construction (detours). A preliminary traffic control
plan will also be developed which will be compatible with the phasing
plan.
E Preparation for the FIR
a Coordinate, complete, and compile the plan inputs from other CDOTbranches:
materials, hydraulics, traffic, right-of-way, and Staff Bridge.
x
x
x
x
x
x
b A general layout (which has been accepted by CDOT) will be included in the
FIR plans.
c Prepare the preliminary cost estimate for the work described in the FIR plans
base on estimated quantities.
d The FIR plans shall comply with CDOT requirements and shall include: title
sheet, typical sections, general notes, plan/profile sheets, and preliminary
layouts of interchanges/intersections.
The plan/profile sheets will include the following: all existing topography,
survey alignments, projected alignments, profile grades, ground line,
existing ROW, rough structure notes (preliminary drainage design notes,
including pipes, inlets, ditches and channels), and existing utility locations.
The following items will be mandatory for the FIR plans:
A Structure genera/layouts.
n Typical plan sheet scales will be as follows:
A Plan and Profile
1 inch ~ 50 Feet (Urban)
I inch ~ 100 Feet (Rural)
I inch ~ 20 feet
B Intersections
e The plans shall be submitted to the ASPEN/PM for a preliminary review prior
to the FIR.
f The plans will be reproduced by the consultant.
g The construction phasing and the preliminary traffic control plan with proposed
detours will be included in the FIR plan set.
h CDOT form 1048 - project scoping procedures completion checklist
F. Field Inspection Review
a Attend the FIR
b The FIR meeting minutes shall be prepared by the C/PM, approved by the
ASPEN/PM, and distributed as directed.
c The FIR original plan sheets shall be revised/corrected in accordance with the
FIR meeting comments within thirty (30) working days.
d Design decisions concerning questions raised by the FIR will be resolved in
cooperation with the ASPEN/PM. The C/PM shall document the decision and
transmit the documentation to the ASPEN/PM for approval.
e A list of all deviations from standard design criteria along with the written
justification for each one shall be submitted to the ASPEN/PM.
G. Post-FIR Revisions
ASPEN/
Consultant
Other
x
x
x
The Consultant shall complete the revisions required by the FIR before this
phase of work is considered to be complete.
4 FINAL DESIGN
A. Project Review
a. Update Project Schedule
b. Coordinate Activities
c. Finalize design decisions, variances, justification process, and traffic signal
warrants.
B. Final Structural Design
During the conduct of this activity the Consultant shall participate in structural
review meetings with the CDOT Structural Reviewer. The design shall be in
accordance with the AASHTO LRFD and the CDOT Bridge Design Manual.
A. Structure final design
1. Perform the structural analysis. Provide panel design and document the
design with design notes, detail notes, and computer outputs.
11. Perform final design check from design and detail notes.
a. Preparation of structure plans and specifications
Prepare and provide the Structural Plans and Specifications, including any
revisions identified during the independent check.
b. Independent design, detail and quantity check
C. Construction Phasing Plan
A final construction phasing plan will be developed which integrates the
construction of all project work elements into a practical and feasible sequence.
This plan shall accommodate the existing traffic movements during construction,
and a final traffic control plan will be developed which shall be compatible with the
phasing plan.
D. Plan Preparation for the Final Office Review
a. Coordinate the packaging of the plans
1. Collect plans from all design elements and collate the plan package.
Include all items listed in the CDOT Project Development Manual.
11. Calculate plan quantities and prepare the tabulations and Summary of
Approximate Quantities.
ASPEN
/Other
x
Consultant
x
x
x
x
x
b. In addition to the plan sheets, the special provisions shall be provided
This will consist of those unique Project Special Provisions which have to be
written specifically for items, details and procedures not adequately covered by
CDOT's Standard Specifications and Standard Special Provisions. Also a list
of the Standard Special Provisions which are applicable to the project shall be
prepared. The Project Special Provisions shall be provided in the CDOT
format and submitted with the project plans.
c. Prepare FOR Estimate.
Item numbers, descriptions, units and quantities shall be listed and submitted to
the ASPEN/PM.
d. Submit the FOR Plans and specifications (Originals) to the ASPEN/PM for a
preliminary review prior to the FOR.
e. FOR plan reproduction ( 10) sets
E. Final Office Review
a. Attend the FOR
b. The FOR meeting minutes shall be prepared by the C/PM, Approved by the
ASPEN/PM, and distributed within two weeks of the meeting as directed.
c. The FOR original plan sheets and the specifications shall be revised in
accordance with the FOR meeting comments and submitted to the ASPEN/PM
within four (4) weeks after the FOR.
d. Submit the final revision of the plans after review.
F. Construction Plan Package
The bid plan construction contract package shall consist of the revised FOR plans
and will completely describe the work required to build the project including project
special provisions and detailed quantities.
a. Final engineering package. The consultant shall submit 2 copies, in 3-ring
binders of the following:
I. All project calculations or worksheets
n. Copies of variances, design decisions, and variance approvals
111. Project meeting minutes
IV. Environmental clearances, 404, 401, wetlands, endangered species, etc.
v. Panel construction packet
x
ASPEN/
Other
x
x
x
x
x
Consultant
x
x
x
x
x
x_
x
Includes, geometry, and quantity calculations or worksheets
VI. Any other information unique to this project and deemed important to the
effectiveness of construction.
b. Record plans sets
Two (2) record plan sets for final design will be produced which shall bear the
seal and signature of the responsible Consultant Engineer on each sheet. One
(I) set shall be retained by the Consultant for three (3) years. The other set
shall be submitted to Aspen. The original plan drawings shall not bear a seal.
SECTION 6
SERVICES AFTER DESIGN
TABLE I...SUBMITTALS
Hard Electronic Project Initiation and Continuing ASPEN/OTHER CONSULTANT
CODV CODV Requirements
PDF Oril!.
x X Periodic Reports X
X X Billings X
X X Meeting Minutes X
X X Project Schedule X
X X Completed Specific Design Criteria X
X X Survev Plan X
X X Approved MHT's X
X X Traffic Control Supervisor Certification X
X X Permissions to Enter X
X X X Initial Submittal of an Original X
Plan Sheet
X X Geology & Soils Investigation Report X
X X Pavement Design Report X
X X Foundation Investigation Report X
Table I ..SUBMITTALS rCONT.)
Hard Electronic Preliminary Design (Cont.) ASPEN/OTHER CONSULTANT
CODV CODV
PDF Oril!.
X X Preliminary Cost Estimate X
X X X FIR Plan Set X
X X List of deviations from Standard Design X
Criteria
X X X Corrected FIR Plan Set X
Final Desi2n
X X Correspondence with Agencies, Entities, and X
Public
Ril!ht-of-wav
Traffic En2ineerin2
X X Safetv Assessment X
X X X Signing/Pavement Marking Plans X
X X Signal Warrant Study X
X X X Signalized Intersection Plans & X
Specifications
X X X Traffic Control Plan X
Structure Desil!n
X X X Structure Final Review Plans & X
Specifications
X X X Construction Phasing Plan X
X X FOR Plans & Specifications X
X X FOR Cost Estimate X
X X X Final Review Revisions X
Construction Plan Packa2e
X X X Final Plans (1IXI7), Specifications (duplex) X
& Estimate Package for Ad.
X X Schedule of Quantities X
x X Deshm Decisions X
X X Variances X
X X Findin2s In the Public Interest X
X X Proiect Calculations (2 cooies) X
X X Worksheets (2 copies) X
X X Desi20 Notes X
X X Independent Design Review Renorts X
X Record Plan Sets X
SECTION 7
CONTRACT CONCLUSION (CHECKLIST)
1 SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
It is anticipated that this contract may be supplemented for:
A. Construction Services
B. Construction Engineering
C. Completion of the "as-built" plans
2 CONTRACT COMPLETION
This Contract will be satisfied upon acceptance of the following items if applicable:
A. Project Schedule
B. Project Progress Meeting Minutes
C. Traffic Control Plan(s)
D. All documents found In Research
E. All Permission to Enter forms
F. Original Field Notes
G. Completion of review of contract submittals
H. Design Plans, Specifications, and Final Estimate
May 31,2007
APPENDICES
A. REFERENCES
B. SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA
C. DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
AMERICAN ASSOCIATON OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
OFFICIALS IAASHTO) PUBLICATIONS (using latest approved versions):
A. A Policy on Design Standards-Interstate System
B. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
C. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures
D. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
E. Guide for the Design of High Occupancy Vehicle and Public Transfer Facilities
F. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
G. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing-
Part 1, Specifications and Part 11, Tests
H. Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety
1. Roadside Design Guide
2 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION PUBLICATIONS (using latest approved versions):
A. CDOT Design Guide (all volumes)
B. CDOT Bridge Design Guide
C. CDOT Bridge Detailing Manual
D. Bridge Rating Manual
E. Project Development Manual
F. Erosion Control and Storm Water Quality Guide
G. Field Log of Structures
H. Cost Data Book
1. Drainage Design Manual
J. CDOT Quality Manual
K. CDOT Survey Manual
1.. CDOT Field Materials Manual
M. CDOT Design Guide, Computer Aided Drafting (CAD)
N. Erosion Control and Storm water Quality Guide
O. Standard Plans, M & S Standards
P. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and CDOT Supplemental Specifications
Q. Item Description and Abbreviations (with code number) compiled by Engineering Estimates and Marked Analysis
Unit, CDOT
R. Right-of- Way Manual, Chapter 2, Plans and Descriptions Procedures and General Information
S. The State Highway Access Code
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
T. Utility Manual
U. TMOSS Generic Format
V. Field TMOSS Topography Coding
W. Topography Modeling Survey System User Manual
X. Interactive Graphics System Symbol Table
3 CDOT PROCEDURAL DIRECTIVES (using latest approved versions):
A. No. 400.2
B. No. 501.2
C. No. 514.1
D. No. 516.1
E. No. 1217a
F. No. 1304.1
G. No. 1305.1
H. No. 1601
1. No. 1700.1
J. No. 1700.3
K. No. 1700.5
L. No. 1700.6
M. No. 1905.1
Monitoring Consultant Contracts
Cooperative Storm Drainage System
Field Inspection Review (FIR)
Final Office Review (FOR)
Survey Request
Right-of-Way Plan Revisions
Land Surveys
Interchange Approval Process
Certification Acceptance (CA) Procedures for Location and Design Approval
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and Authorization to Advertise for
Bids under Certifications Acceptance (CA)
Local Entity/State Contracts and Local Entity/Consultant Contracts and Local
Entity/R.R. Contracts under C.A
Railroad/Highway Contracts (Under Certification Acceptance)
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Structures prepared by Staff Bridge
Branch
4 FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS (using latest approved versions):
A. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
B. Highway Capacity Manual
C. Urban Transportation Operations Training - Design of Urban Streets, Student Workbook
D. Reference Guide Outline - Specifications for Aerial Surveys and Mapping by Photogrammetric Methods for
Highways
E. FHW A Federal-Aid Policy Guide
F. Technical Advisory T6640.8A
G. U.S. Department of Transportation Order 56l0.1E
H. Geometric Geodetic Accuracy Standards and Specifications for Using GPS Relative Positioning Techniques
1. ADAAG Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
5 AREA:
A. Manual for Railway Engineering
APPENDIX B
SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA
Note: The following criteria will be developed by the consultant and coordinated with the ASPEN/PM prior to
starting the design.
1. ROADWAY
A. BASIC DESIGN
The basis for design will be the data in CDOT Form 463, Design Data. A copy of the latest
applicable design Data form will be furnished to the consultant
B. GEOMETRIC AND STRUCTURE STANDARDS
a Design Speed
b Horizontal Alignment and Curvature
Applicable Superelevation Standards
ii Minimum radius of Curvature
Hi Use of Spirals
c Vertical Alignment:
Maximum gradient - CDOT Design Guide
ii Length - CDOT Design Guide
d Sight Distance:
Stopping -
11 Passing -
III Decision-
e Superelevation, Applicable Standard
f Frontage Roads, Separation Width
g CDOT Access Code
h Airway - Highway Clearances Design Guide
Bridges and Grade Separation Structures, Clearances to Structures and Obstructions, CDOT
Design Guide
Curb and Gutters, Type
APPENDIX B
SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA (CONTINUED)
C. GEOMETRIC CROSS SECTION
a Travel Lane:
Width-
1l Cross Slope -
b Shoulder:
Width-
1l Slope -
111 PavedINonpaved
c Side Ditches:
CDOT Design Guide
d Side Slopes
Cut-Less than 3: 1
1l CDOT Design Guide
111 Clear zone
e Median:
Width-
1l Treatment -
D. INTERSECTIONS AT GRADE:
a Type-
b Special Considerations -
E. TRAFFIC INTERCHANGES:
a Type -
b Ramp Type -
c Special Considerations -
F. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURE:
a Pavement Type -
b Percent Trucks
APPENDIX B
SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA (CONTINUED)
c Economic Analysis Period -
d Design Life -
G. MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
a Fence Type -
b FEMA Category -
c Design Flood Frequency
H. ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT
a Landscaping
b Specifications for Revegetating Disturbed Areas to be provided by CDOT.
c Noise Control
d Type
e Guardrail and End Treatments
1. LIGHTING
a Type
AASHTO-
2 ADT-
3 AREA-
4 ATSSA-
5 AT&SF-
6 ADAAG-
7 BAMS-
8 BLM-
9 BNRR-
10 CA-
II CAP-
12 CBC-
13 CDOT-
14 CDOT/PM-
15 CDOT/STR-
16 CDPHE-
17 CEQ-
18 COG-
19 COGO-
20 CONSULTANT-
21 CONTRACT
ADMlNISTRA TOR-
APPENDIX C
DEFINITIONS
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials
Average two-way 24-hour Traffic in Number of Vehicles
American Railway Engineering Association
American Traffic Safety Services Association
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Act Guidelines
Bid Analysis and Management Systems
Bureau of Land Management
Burlington Northern Railroad
Contract Administrator. The CDOT Manager responsible for
the satisfactory completion of the contract by the consultant.
CDOT's Action Plan
Concrete Box Culvert
Colorado Department of Transportation
Colorado Department of Transportation Project Manager-
The CDOT Engineer responsible for the day to day direction
and CDOT Consultant coordination of the design effort.
Colorado Department of Transportation Structure Reviewer-
The CDOT Engineer responsible for reviewing and
coordinating major structural design
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Council on Environmental Quality
Council of Governments
Coordinate Geometry Output
Consultant for this project
Typically a Region Engineer or Branch Head. The CDOT
employee directly responsible for the satisfactory completion
of the contract by the Consultant. The contract administration
is usually delegated to a CDOT Project Manager.
22 C/PM-
23 DEIS-
24 DHV-
25 DRCOG-
26 D&RGW-
27 EA-
28 ElS-
29 ESAL-
30 ESE-
31 FElS-
32 FEMA-
33 FHPG-
34 FHWA-
35 FlPl-
36 F1R-
37 FONSl-
38 FOR-
39 GPS-
40 MAJOR
STRUCTURES-
APPENDIX C
DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED)
Consultant Project Manager - The Consultant Engineer
responsible for combining the various inputs in the process of
completing the project plans and managing the Consultant
design effort.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Future Design Hourly Volume (two-way unless specified
otherwise)
Denver Regional Council of Governments
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Equivalent Single Axle Load
Economic, Social and Environmental
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Aid Highway Policy Guide
Federal Highway Administration
Finding In Public Interest
Field Inspection Review
Finding of No Significant Impact
Final Office Review
Global Positioning System
Bridges and culverts with a total clear span length greater than
twenty feet. This length is measured along the centerline of
roadway for bridges and culverts, from abutment face to
abutment face, Retaining structures are measured along the
horizontal distance along the top of the wall. Structures with
exposed heights at any section over five feet and total lengths
greater than a hundred feet as well as overhead structures
including (bridge signs, cantilevers and butterflies extending
over traffic) are also considered major structures.
41 MPO-
42 MS4-
43 NEPA-
44 NGS-
45 NlCET-
46 NOAA-
47 PAPER
SIZES-
48 PE-
49 PM-
50 PLS-
51 PRT-
52 PS&E-
53 PROJECT-
54 ROR-
55 ROW-
56 ROWPR-
57 RTD-
58 T/E-
59 SH-
60 TMOSS-
61 TOPOGRAPHY-
62 UD & FCD-
63 USCOE-
APPENDIX C
DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED)
Metropolitan Planning Organization (i.e. Denver Regional
Council of Governments, Pikes Peak Area Council of
Governments, Grand Junction MPO, Pueblo MPO, and North
Front Range Council of Governments).
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
National Environment Policy Act
National Geodetic Survey
National Institute for Certification in Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
See Computer-Aided Drafting Manual (CDOT);
Table 6-13 and Table 8-1
Professional Engineer registered in Colorado
Program Manager
Professional Land Surveyor registered in Colorado
Project Review Team
Plans, Specifications and Estimate
The work defined by this scope
Region Office Review
Right-of-Way: A general term denoting land, property, or
interest therein, usually in a strip acquired for or devoted to a
highway
Right-of-Way Plan Review
Regional Transportation Director
Threatened and/or Endangered Species
State Highway Numbers
Terrain Modeling Survey System
In the context of CDOT plans, topography normally refers to
existing cultural or man-made details.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
United States Army Corp of Engineers
Note: For other definitions and terms, refer to Section 101 of the CDOT Division of Highways Standard
Specifieations for Road and Bridge Construetion and the CDOT Design Guide.
PROJECT COST WORKSHEET (STANDARD RATE OF PAY)
Project Number Buttermilk to Roundabout Bus Lane DesiQn
Location Aspen, CO
Firm Name Parsons
Name of Preparer Ralph Trapani Phone no. (970) 618-8959
Scope of Work Dale
Type of Proposal: Specific Rate of Pay Contract time 300 days
1A. SPECIFIC LABOR RATES
DIRECT
EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE SALARY INDIRECT FEE MULTIPLIER STANDARD
NAME CLASSIFICATION COST/HOUR COST (%) (%) R!\TE
( a) ( b) ( c) ( d) $/HQUR
Arent, Steve Senior Project Manager $61.03 153.40 10.00 2.787 $170.12
Baalman, Ronnie CAOD Technician $28.84 153.40 10,00 2.787 $80.39
Barker, Julia K. Structural Engineer $28.84 153.40 10.00 2.787 $80.39
Barta, Pat Administrative Supervisor $27.04 153.40 10.00 2.787 $75.37
Botruff, Gloria Senior Administrative Assistant $15.45 153.40 10.00 2.787 $43.07
Braaksma, John Senior Structural Engineer $50.35 153.40 10.00 2.787 $140.35
Childress, Suzanne Associate Planner $24.00 153.40 10.00 2.787 $66.90
Collon, Philip B. Construction Manager $68.25 153.40 10.00 2.787 $190.24
Dillon, David Senior Designer $40.25 153.40 10.00 2.787 $112.19
Doyle, Brad Project Engineer $34.20 153.40 10.00 2.787 $95.33
Erlandson, Barry Senior Traffic Engineer $51.36 153.40 10.00 2.787 $143.16
Gannon, Kimberly Senior Administrative Aide $17.84 153.40 10.00 2.787 $49.73
Hansson, Hakan J. Structural Engineer $30.00 153.40 10.00 2.787 $83.62
Herrera, Mario A. Civil Engineer $32.96 153.40 10.00 2.787 $91.87
Hoffmann, Phil Senior Project Manager $79.33 153.40 10.00 2.787 $221.12
Keahey, Kyle Transportation Planner $72.50 153.40 10.00 2.787 $202.09
Kelly, Kelli Administrative Staff $33.50 153.40 10.00 2.787 $93.38
Koester, Roger Senior Project Manager $64.26 153.40 10.00 2.787 $179.12
Krueger, Kim Senior CADD Technician $28.50 153.40 10.00 2.787 $79.44
Kurth, David Senior Project Manager $59.88 153.40 10.00 2.787 $166.91
Lee, Jonathan H. Construction Manager $50.44 153.40 10.00 2.787 $140.60
Lien, Siobhan Senior Technical Writer $31.05 153.40 10.00 2.787 $86.55
Limasalle, Paulus Civil Engineer $31.25 153.40 10.00 2.787 $87.11
Lormand, Jeff Landscape Architect $39.03 153.40 10.00 2.787 $108.79
Lynch, Hilla P. Sr. Civil Engineer-LRT $40.28 153.40 10.00 2.787 $112.28
Mayen, Todd Structural Engineer $33.00 153.40 10.00 2.787 $91.98
Morhman, Michale R. Civil Engineer $38.93 153.40 10.00 2.787 $108.51
Moores, David J Senior Hydraulics Engineer $38.50 153.40 10.00 2.787 $107.31
Mueller, Oliver Structural Engineer $32.82 153.40 10.00 2.787 $91.48
Nikolai, Paul Landscape Architect $33.50 153.40 10.00 2.787 $93.38
Pieksma, Doug Senior CADD Technician $40.00 153.40 10.00 2.787 $111.50
Proia, Kim Project Engineer $40.95 153.40 10.00 2.787 $114.14
Richardson, Kames E Structural Engineer $40.00 153.40 10.00 2.787 $111.50
Rozendaal, Steven W. Architectural Engineer $28.74 153.40 10.00 2.787 $80.11
Schneider, Sandra Structural Engineer $30,62 153.40 10.00 2.787 $85.35
Smith, Adrian Civil Engineer $29.53 153.40 10.00 2.787 $82.31
Smith, Steven Project Manager/Principal $72.13 153.40 10.00 2.787 $201.06
Stirbys, Anthony F Geotechnical Engineer $67.17 153.40 10.00 2.787 $187.23
Stelmack, Tom Senior Project Manager $61.50 153.40 10.00 2.787 $171.43
Trapani, Ralph Project Manager $64.60 153.40 10.00 2.787 $180.07
Virding, Tom E. Bridge/Tunnel Project Manager $71.64 153.40 10.00 2.787 $199.69
Weir, David B. Civil Engineer $40.70 153.40 10.00 2.787 $113.45
Zeid, Jeremy Structural Engineer $27.75 153.40 10.00 2.787 $77.35
1B. LABOR COSTS
EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE STANDARD ESTIMATED NUMBER ESTIMATED
NAME CLASSIFICATION RATE $ f HOUR OF WORK HOURS COST PER
(from1A) EMPLOYEE
( e) (fl
Arent, Steve Senior Project Manager $170.12 250.00 $42,528.76
Baalman, Ronnie CADD Technician $80.39 400.00 $32,155.45
Barker, Julia K Structural Engineer $80.39 0.00 $0.00
Barta, Pat Administrative Supervisor $75.37 72.00 $5,426.73
Bo1ruff, Gloria Senior Administrative Assistant $43.07 0.00 $0.00
Braaksma, John Senior Structural Engineer $140.35 0.00 $0.00
Childress, Suzanne Associate Planner $66,90 0,00 $0.00
Colton, Philip B. Construction Manager $190.24 0.00 $0.00
Dillon, David Senior Designer $112.19 0.00 $0.00
Doyle, Brad Project Engineer $95.33 400,00 $38,131.63
Erlandson, Barry Senior Traffic Engineer $143.16 0.00 $0.00
Gannon, Kimberly Senior Administrative Aide $49.73 0.00 $0.00
Hansson, Hakan J. Structural Engineer $83.62 0.00 $0.00
Herrera, Mario A. Civil Engineer $91,87 0.00 $0.00
Hoffmann, Phil Senior Project Manager $221.12 0.00 $0.00
Keahey, Kyle Transportation Planner $202.09 0.00 $0.00
Kelly, Kelli Administrative Staff $93.38 0.00 $0.00
Koester, Roger Senior Project Manager $179.12 250.00 $44,779.58
Krueger, Kim Senior CADD Technician $79.44 168.00 $13,346.07
Kurth, David Senior Project Manager $166.91 0.00 $0.00
lee, Jonathan H. Construction Manager $140.60 0.00 $0.00
lien, Siobhan Senior Technical Writer $86.55 0.00 $0.00
limasalle, Paulus Civil Engineer $87.11 0.00 $0.00
lormand, Jeff landscape Architect $108.79 0.00 $0.00
lynch, Hilla P. Sr. Civil Engineer-lRT $112.28 0.00 $0,00
Mayen, Todd Structural Engineer $91.98 0,00 $0.00
Morhman, Michale R Civil Engineer $108,51 0.00 $0.00
Moores, David J. Senior Hydraulics Engineer $107.31 216.00 $23,180.02
Mueller, Oliver Structural Engineer $91.48 0.00 $0.00
Nikolai, Paul landscape Architect $93.38 0.00 $0.00
Pieksma, Doug Senior CADD Technician $111.50 0.00 $0.00
Proia, Kim Project Engineer $114.14 280.00 $31,960.33
Richardson, Kames E Structural Engineer $111,50 0.00 $0.00
Rozendaal, Steven W. Architectural Engineer $80.11 0.00 $0.00
Schneider, Sandra Structural Engineer $85.35 0.00 $0.00
Smith, Adrian Civil Engineer $82.31 0.00 $0.00
Smith, Sleven Project Manager/Principal $201.06 55.00 $11,058.03
Stirbys, Anthony F Geotechnicai Engineer $187,23 0.00 $0.00
Stelmack, Tom Senior Project Manager $171.43 260.00 $44,570.53
Trapani, Ralph Project Manager $180.07 496.00 $89,312.76
Virding, Tom E. BridgefTunnel Project Manager $199.69 0.00 $0.00
Weir, David B Civil Engineer $113.45 0.00 $0.00
Zeid, Jeremy Structural Engineer $77,35 0,00 $0.00
2847
TOTAL lABOR $376,449,88
,
2A. OTHER DIRECT COST RATES (IN-HOUSE)
ITEM
ESTIMATED
UNITS
UNITS
Miles
Day
Night
ITEM
UNIT
RATES
Mileage
Per Diem
Lodging
Current Federal government rate
Actual Reasonable Cost Per Stale Fiscal Rule
Actual Reasonable Cost Per State Fiscal Rule
SUBTOTAL
28 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (OUTSIDE)
ITEM
ESTIMATED UNIT
UNITS RATES UNITS
Actual reasonable cost subject to prior approval of COOT Project Manager
Actual reasonable cost subject to prior approval of COOT Project Manager
Actual reasonable cost subject to Colorado State Fiscal Rules
Actual reasonable cost subject to Colorado State Fiscal Rules
Actual reasonable cost subject to prior approval of COOT Project Manager
Overnights/Couriers
Outside reproduction
Per Diem Meals
Lodging
Miscellaneous
SUBTOTAL
ODC TOTAL
3A OUTSIDE SERVICES RATES (SUBCONSUL T ANTS)
ESTIMATED
COST
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$3,500.00
ESTIMATED
COST
$500.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,500.00
$7,000.00
FIRM NAME ESTIMATED
COST
Yeh and Associates
Otak
Clanton
PBS&J
TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
I DECLARETH6
COMPEN$A
COMPLETE.
Steven P. Smith (Vice President)
(TYPED NAME)
$15,004.51
$44,054.50
$ 7,480.00
$ 50,000.00
$116,539.01
$499,988.89
SIGNATURE
DATE SIGNED
.
PROJECT COST WORKSHEET (SPECIFIC RATE OF PAY)
Project Number:
Location:
Firm Name"
Name of Pre parer:
Scope of Work Date"
Type of Proposal:
Aspen Buswav
Aspen,CO
Yeh and Associates. Inc
Rick Andrew
Firm phone No: (303) 781-9590
Specific Rate of Pay
Contract Time:
1A. SPECIFIC RATE OF PAY
EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE DIRECT SALARY INDIRECT FEE MULTIPLIER SPECIFIC BilLING
NAME CLASSIFICATION COST/HOUR COST (%) (%) RATE
Aichiouene, Mustapha Lab Technician $ 16.00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 44.32
Andrew, Richard Principal Scientist $ 51.35 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 142.24
Allen, Thomas Project Manager $ 40.39 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 111.88
Arndt, Benjamin Sr. Project Engineer $ 36.92 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 102.27
Amdt,Julie Field Technician $ 19.50 151.43% 10,00% 2.77 $ 54.02
Bekker, Lev Sr. Technician $ 24.00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 66.48
Burns, Troy Field Technician $ 17.50 151.43% 10.00% 2,77 $ 48.48
Canono, Arthur Staff Engineer $ 24.25 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 67.17
Cheney, Randy Field Supervisor $ 26.00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 72,02
Cole, Brent Field Technician $ 20,77 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 57.53
Ebel, Jessica Staff Geologist $ 18.50 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 51.25
Francis, Brian Staff Engineer $ 19.04 151.43% 10.00% 2,77 $ 52.74
Hays, Bobby Sr. Technician $ 22.75 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 63.02
Hunter, Jack Sr. Technician $ 22.50 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 62.33
Janini, Bob Field Technician $ 19,00 151.43% 10,00% 2.77 $ 52.63
Johnson, Richard Project Engineer $ 31.45 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 87.12
LaForce, Robert Sr. Materials Manager $ 42.00 151,43% 10.00% 2,77 $ 116.34
Long, Andy Field Technician $ 21.00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 58,17
Lovekin, Jonathan Project Engineer $ 27.12 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 75.12
Macklin, Paul Sr. Project Manager $ 46.15 151.43% 10,00% 2.77 $ 127.84
McLaskey, Stuart Sr. Technician $ 22,00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 60.94
Pihl, Roger Principal Scientist $ 45.00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 124.65
Reed, Robert Sr. Inspector $ 29.00 151.43% 10.00% 2,77 $ 80.33
Schlittenhart, Todd Project Engineer $ 27.69 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 76.70
Smith,Lee Sr. Technician $ 24.23 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 67.12
White, Sylvia Staff Engineer $ 22,00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 60.94
Yeh, Shan-Tai Principal Engineer $ 63.27 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 175,26
YU,Sam Project Engineer $ 30.00 151.43% 10.00% 2.77 $ 83,10
1 B. LABOR COSTS
SPECIFIC EST. NO. ESTIMATED COST
EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE BiLLING RATE OF WORK PER EMPLOYEE
NAME CLASSIFICATION (from1Al HOURS
Aichiouene, Mustapha Lab Technician $ 44.32 $0.00
Andrew, Richard Principal Scientist $ 142.24 30 $4,267.19
Allen, Thomas Project Manager $ 111.88 $0.00
Arndt, Benjamin Sr. Project Engineer $ 102.27 $0.00
Amdt,Julie Field Technician $ 54.02 $0.00
Bekker, Lev Sr. Technician $ 66.48 $0,00
Burns, Troy Field Technician $ 48.48 $0.00
Canono, Arthur Staff Engineer $ 67.17 $0.00
Cheney, Randy Field Supervisor $ 72,02 $0.00
Cole, Brent Field Technician $ 57,53 $0.00
Ebel, Jessica Staff Geologist $ 51.25 $0.00
Francis, Brian Staff Engineer $ 52.74 $0.00
Hays, Bobby Sr. Technician $ 63.02 $0.00
Hunter, Jack Sr. Technician $ 62.33 $0.00
Janini, Bob Field Technician $ 52.63 $0.00
Johnson, Richard Project Engineer $ 87.12 80 $6,969.32
LaForce, Robert Sr. Materials Manager $ 116.34 $0.00
Long,Andy Field Technician $ 58,17 $0.00
Lovekin, Jonathan Project Engineer $ 75.12 $0.00
Macklin, Paul Sr, Project Manager $ 127.84 $0,00
McLaskey, Stuart Sr. Technician $ 60.94 $0.00
Pihl, Roger Principal ScientIst $ 124.65 $0.00
Reed, Robert Sr.lnspector $ 80.33 $0.00
Schlittenhart, Todd Project Engineer $ 76.70 $0.00
Smith, Lee Sr, Technician $ 67.12 $0.00
White, Sylvia Staff Engineer $ 60.94 $0.00
Yeh, Shan-Tai Principal Engineer $ 175.26 $0.00
Yu, Sam Project Engineer $ 83.10 $0.00
TOTAL LABOR $11,236.51
Yeh i1ndAssociates, Inc. Confidential
5/21/2007
Page 1
-,,--,..__..,~.--,~~--_.-
2A. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (In-house):
ITEM
ESTiMATED
UNITS
UNIT UNITS
RATE
Current Federal Government Rate
ESTIMATED
COST
Vehicle Mileage
SUBTOTAL
$0.00
2B. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (Outside):
ITEM
ESTIMATED
UNITS
UNIT
RATE
UNITS
ESTIMATED
COST
Overnight/Curriers
Outside reproduction
Airfare & Travel
Per Diem Meals
Long Term Lodging
Other Lodging
Miscellenous
Actual reasonable cost
Actual reasonable cost
Actual reasonable cost subject to prior approval of COOT project manager
2
2
$39.00
$95.00
d"
d',
$78.00
$190.00
Actual reasonable cost subject to state fiscal rules
Actual reasonable cost subject ot prior approval of COOT project manager
SUBTOTAL
$268.00
ODe TOTAL
$268.00
3A. OUTSIDE SERVICES RATES (SUBCONSULTANTS):
FIRM NAME
ESTIMATED
COST
SUBTOTAL
$0.00
3B. OUTSIDE SERVICES RATES (VENDORS):
Miscellaneous drilling
Laboratory testing
Traffic control
Actual reasonable cost
Actual reasonable cost
Actual reasonable cost
ESTIMATED
COST
$3,000.00
FIRM NAME
SUBTOTAL
500
$3,500.00
OSR TOTAL
$3,500.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$15,004.51
I am a representative ofYeh and Associates, Inc., duly authorized to contractually bind the firm. My signature below constitutes formal agreement (without
further signature) to a Task Order, which is issued by the State pursuant to the tenns of this Task Order Proposal, without substantive change. I also declare
that to the best of my knowledge the wage rates and other factual unit rates supporting the compensation to be paid by the Department for the professional
services on this document are accurate, complete, and current at the time of contracting, and include no unallowable or duplicate costs.
Richard 0, Andrew
(TYPED NAME)
;/j/IIJ ~
J ,1 ,;' 4' (
. '., I
(SIGNATURE)
May 21, 2007
(DATE SIGNED)
Yeh and Associates, Inc. Confidential
5/21/2007
Page 2
PROJECT COST WORKSHEET (STANDARD RATE OF PAY:
Project Number
Location
Firm Name
Name of Pre parer
Scope of Work Date
SH 82 Bus Lane Desiqn Services
Clanton&Associates,lnc,
NancvClanton
Phone no, 303-530-7229
Type of Proposal: Specific Rate of Pa~
Contract time
1A. STANDARD LABOR RATES
DIRECT
EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE SALARY INDIRECT FEE MUL TIPLlER STANDARD
NAME CLASSIFICATION COSTfHOUR COST (%) (%) RATE
(al (bl (cl (d) $/HOUR
Nancy Clanton Principal Engineer $140.00 1.00 1.00 $140.00
Gregg Adams Senior Designer $75.00 1.00 1.00 $75.00
David Roederer Engineer $75.00 1.00 1.00 $75.00
Dane Sanders Engineer $75.00 1.00 1.00 $75.00
Jon Ehnert CAD Technician $55.00 1.00 1.00 $55.00
1 B LABOR COSTS
EMPLOYEE
NAME
EMPLOYEE
CLASSIFICATION
STANDARD
RATE $1 HOUR
(from 1A)
lel
$140.00
$75.00
$75.00
$55.00
ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF WORK HOURS
ESTIMATED
COST PER
EMPLOYEE
(f)
$1,680.00
$2,850.00
$1,425.00
$1,100.00
Nancy Clanton
Gregg Adams
Dane Sanders
Jon Ehnerl
Principal Engineer
Senior Designer
Engineer
CAOTechnician
12.00
38.00
19.00
20.00
TOTAL LABOR
$7,055.00
2A OTHER DIRECT COST RATES (IN-HOUSE)
Mileage
Per Diem
Lodging
Current government rate
Per State Fiscal Rule
Per State Fiscal Rule
ESTIMATED
UNITS
400
UNIT
RATES
$0.445
UNITS
Miles
0"
Night
ESTIMATED
COST
$178.00
TBD
TBD
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
$178.00
2B. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (OUTSIDE)
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT
UNITS RATES UNITS
Overnights/Couriers Actual reasonable cost subject to prior approvai of CDOT Project Manage
Outside reproduction Actual reasonable cost subject to prior approval of COOT Project Manage
Per Diem Meals Actual reasooable cost subject to Colorado State Fiscal Rule!
Lodging Actual reasonabie cost subject to Colorado State Fiscal Rule!
Inspection Equipmenl Actual reasonable cost subject to prior approval of COOT Project Manage
Gasoline and Misc Maintenance' at actual reasonable cost
Vehicle Renlal1 ataclual reasonable cost
Cell Phone' at actual reasonable cost
SUBTOTAL
ESTIMATED
COST
$50.00
$47.00
$15000
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$247.00
'At actual reasonable cost subject to prior approval by the CDOT Project Manager
ODC TOTAL
$425.00
3A. OUTSIDE SERVICES RATES (SUBCONSULTANTS)
FIRM NAME ESTIMATED
COST
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES
$0.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$7,480.00
NancvClanton
(TYPED NAME)
.;/.-:-:_/:;#7/(_
" ()~
SIGNATURE
May21,2007
DATE SIGNED
PROJECT COST WORKSHEET (STANDARD RATE OF PAY)
Project Number
Location
Firm Name
Name of Preparer
Scope of Work Date
SH 82 Bus lane DesiQn Services
Olak
Kate Schwarzler
Phone no.
Type of Proposal: Specific Rate of Pay
Contract lime
1A. STANDARD LABOR RATES
DIRECT
EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE SALARY INDIRECT FEE MULTIPLIER STANDARD
NAME CLASSIFICATION COSTfHOUR COST (%) (%) RATE
( a) ( b I (e) ( d) $/HDUR
Kate Schwarzler Landscape Architect II $32.21 162.44 9.00 2.861 $92.14
Jim Carlson Landscape Architeclll $26.00 162.44 9.00 2.861 $74.38
Lindsey Utter Landscape Technician I $21.39 162.44 9.00 2.861 $61.19
Linda Schuemaker Project Admin. Assistant $24.04 162.44 g.OO 2.861 $68.77
Jennifer Michaud Project Admin. Assistant $16.35 162.44 9.00 2.861 $46.77
Terry Ware Sr PM Planner $51.44 162.44 9.00 2.861 $147.15
1 B. LABOR COSTS
EMPLOYEE
NAME
EMPLOYEE
CLASSIFICATION
STANDARD
RATE $ { HOUR
(from1A)
(e)
$92.14
$74.38
$61.19
$68.77
$46.77
$147.15
ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF WORK HOURS
ESTIMATED
COST PER
EMPLOYEE
{II
$16,032.32
$0.00
$11,136.24
$5,776.57
$935.41
$8,828.94
Kale Schwarzler
Jim Carlson
Lindsey Uller
Linda Schuemaker
Jennifer Michaud
Terry Ware
Landscape Archileclll
Landscape Architect II
Landscape Technician I
Project Admin. Assistant
Project Admin. Assistant
Sr PM Planner
174.00
0.00
182.00
84.00
20.00
60,00
TOTAL LABOR
$42,709.50
2A. OTHER DIRECT COST RATES (IN-HOUSE)
Mileage
Per Diem
Lodging
Current government rate
Per State Fiscal Rule
Per State Fiscal Rule
ESTIMATED
UNITS
1000
UNIT
RATES
$0.445
UNITS
Miles
Day
Night
ESTIMATED
COST
$445,00
TSO
TSO
ITEM
SUBTOTAL
$445,00
V\d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Bentley Henderson
THRU: Steve Barwick
DATE OF MEMO: June 5, 2007
MEETING DATE: June 11, 2007
RE: Property purchase
SUMMARY: In order to memorialize the action taken by the City Council in your Executive
Session of May 29, 2007, staff is providing a resolution of approval for the purchase of 517 Park
Circle.
BACKGROUND: One of the components of our property purchase contracts is the clause that
states that contract approval is conditioned upon approval by the City Council. Action on the
enclosed resolution fulfills that contractual requirement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # Jf9 Series 2007, for
$4,105,000 for the purchase of real property located at 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RESOLUTION NO. !i!1
Series of 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ACQUISITION
BY THE CITY OF ASPEN OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY REFERRED TO
AS 517 P ARK AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, OR MAYOR TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN A CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE AND SUCH
OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CONSUMMATE THE LAND
ACQUISITION; AND TO DECLARE CITY COUNCIL'S OFFICIAL INTENT FOR THE
FUTURE USE OF THE LAND TO BE ACQUIRED.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City"), in the County of Pitkin and state of Colorado,
is a home rule municipality duly organized and existing pursuant to the constitution and laws of the
State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City is the governing body of the City; and
WHEREAS, it has been brought to the attention of the City that real estate property,
commonly referred to as 517 Park Avenue, located within the City boundaries, (the "Property") has
been made available for purchase; and
WHEREAS, the Property is strategically located for potential affordable housing
opportunities, recreational opportunities, affordable housing and other potential public uses; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the acquisition of the Property.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that certain Contract to Buy and
Sell Real Estate, Counterproposal, and Amendments made to date, copies of which are annexed
hereto as an exhibit, and does hereby authorize the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, or
Mayor of the City of Aspen to execute said contract and all other requisite documents to
consummate the contemplated purchase; PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the City Attorney has
completed the due diligence for the Property and is satisfied as to titles and other matters.
Dated:
,2007.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certifY that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held , 2007.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW- saved: 6/5/2007-376-G:\john\word\resos\517 Park Ave.doc
MEMORANDUM
Vll a.-
THRU:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~ -
TO:
FROM:
RE:
500 W. Hopkins Avenue- Landmark Designation, Second Reading of Ordinance
#21, Series of 2007, PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
June 11,2007
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 27,000 square foot lot. It is developed with the
Boomerang Lodge, which began operation in the 1950's.
The Boomerang Lodge was considered for landmark designation during the 2000 inventory
review. There was HPC support, however concerns raised by private property owners resulted in
all designations being put aside while the City revamped the preservation ordinance. At
Council's direction, staff began an on-going effort to work with the owners of post-war
properties of historical interest to see if additional landmarks could be preserved cooperatively,
however owner consent for designation was never required.
Staff and HPC have advocated for the preservation of this property, and during City Council
review of a redevelopment plan the following condition was required:
1
"Prior to filing of the final plat the owner shall initiate the designation of the East Wing of the
Boomerang Lodge for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The area
to be designated shall be finalized in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission but
shall include that area of the structural east wing along the alley Fourth Street and Hopkins
Avenue also including the outdoor pool and spa area. The designation shall not subject the
remainder of the building to HPC review. "
Approximately 113 of the resource is to be landmarked. Staff, the applicant, and HPC worked
together to agree on a boundary for the designation in order to fully encompass the western part
ofthe building and surrounding landscape. HPC recommended designation by a vote of 4-0.
Staff and HPC find that the application meets the criteria for designation on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
APPLICANT: Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, owner, represented by Michael Hoffman, Sunny Vann,
and Reno- Smith LLC.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-49-002.
ADDRESS: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots K-S, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential with LPIPUD Overlay.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030B. Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures,
an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance.
The significance of the portion of the Boomerang Lodge property under consideration for
designation will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
1. The property was constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity
of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one
or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and can be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
2
Staff Response: As detailed in Community Development's research paper on Modernism in
Aspen, Charles Paterson, architect of the Boomerang Lodge, was born Karl Schanzer in Austria
in 1929. His mother died in his youth, and his father fled Austria, taking Charles and his sister
when Hitler invaded in 1938. They traveled first to Czechoslovakia and then to France. Once
there it was decided that the only way to get the two children out of Europe entirely was to allow
them to be adopted by a family in Australia, whom Mr. Schanzer knew through business
connections. Relocated to that country in 1940, the children took on the family's name;
Paterson. Their father fought in the war and was eventually reunited with his children in New
York City, after they immigrated.
In New York City, Charles "Charlie" Paterson started engineering school, but he had an interest
in skiing and was disappointed with the conditions in the area. He moved west in 1949, stopping
in Denver. There, he worked for the Denver l\Ild Rio Grande Railroad and skied on weekends.
On one ski trip, Paterson met someone who had been to Aspen, and decided to hitchhike there a
week later. After finding a job as a bellhop at the Hotel Jerome, he decided to stay.
Within a month of his arrival in Aspen, Charlie Paterson bought three lots on West Hopkins
A venue, shortly followed by another three that comprised a full half a block between Fifth and
Sixth Streets. There he built a one-room cabin in 1949 out of leftover lumber.
Paterson returned to New York from 1950-1951 to continue his studies, then moved back to
Aspen and began expanding the cabin. In 1952, he leased a Victorian house that had been
operating under the name "Holiday House," and his father came to town to help out. This
experience got Paterson interested in running his own lodge, and led to more construction on the
Hopkins Avenue property. In 1956, he added three units and opened the Boomerang. Charlie
Paterson left Aspen in the late 1950's to study at Taliesen East, under Frank Lloyd Wright. He
returned and built the East wing and pool area, his "thesis project," from 1960-61.
The development of the Boomerang Lodge represents a number of local and national trends.
Architecturally the Boomerang Lodge exhibits a recognizable Wrightian style that swept
throughout the country during the mid-twentieth century; and it actively contributes to the
presence of Wrightian-inspired architecture in Aspen along with designs by locals Fritz Benedict
and Robin Molny.
The property is also a classic example of Aspen's original small lodges, accommodations of a
scale and intimacy that is much harder to find today. Created by Europeans who fled World War
II, like Paterson, these facilities personified European warmth and hospitality, and exemplify the
social and architectural history of the community as it began developing into an international ski
resort.
Staff finds that Criterion A is met. Although compliance with just one criterion is enough to
qualify the property for designation, the Boomerang Lodge also meets Criterion C, in that it
represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or
method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized
designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
.
3
The Lodge exhibits many Wrightian derived design concepts described below. There are specific
physical features that a property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of the
historic context. Aspen's examples of modernist buildings should exhibit the following
distinctive characteristics if influenced by Wrightian design principles:
. Low horizontal proportions, flat roofs or low pitched hip roofs.
. Deep roof overhangs create broad shadow lines across the fayade. Glazing is usually
concentrated in these areas.
. Horizontal emphasis on the composition of the wall planes accentuates the floating effect of
the roof form.
. Materials are usually natural and hand worked; such as rough sawn wood timbers and brick.
Brick is generally used as a base material, wall infill or in an anchoring fireplace element.
Wood structural systems tend more toward heavy timber or post and beam than typical stud
framing.
. Structural members and construction methods are usually expressed in the building. For
example; load-bearing columns may be expressed inside and out, the wall plane is then
created by an infill of glass or brick.
. Roof structure is often expressed below the roof sheathing
. Glass is used as an infill material which expresses a void or a structural system; or it is used
to accentuate the surface of a wall through pattern or repetition.
. There is typically no trim which isolates the glazing from the wall plane. Window openings
are trimmed out to match adjacent structural members in a wood context. Brick openings
tend to be deeply set with no trim other than the brick return.
. Structures are related to the environment through battered foundation walls, cantilevered
floors and/or porches, clear areas of glazing which create visual connections to the outside
and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane hovering over the ground.
. Decoration comes out of the detailing of the primary materials and the construction
techniques. No applied decorative elements are used.
. Color is usually related to the natural colors of materials for the majority of the structure;
natural brick, dark stained wood, and white stucco. Accent colors are used minimally, and to
accentuate the horizontal lines ofthe structure.
The East wing of the building features board formed concrete walls, a flat roof, strong horizontal
balconies, mitred windows, large overhangs with exposed roof structure, typical Wrightian color
scheme, etc. Similar concepts are carried through the pool area.
Charlie Paterson studied at Taliesen East from 1957-1959. Frank Lloyd Wright died during the
last few months of Paterson's tenure at the school. While he was part of Taliesen, projects "on
the boards" in the studio included such famed buildings as the Marin County Civic Center and
the Guggenheim Museum.
Staff finds that the Boomerang Lodge is directly connected to an architectural movement of
world wide importance and meets designation Criterion C.
Although this style was at one time more common in Aspen, there are only approximately 50
properties that staff would categorize as eligible for designation within the context of Aspen's
modernist architecture. This amounts to .02% of the parcels in town. Of the roughly 50 eligible
sites, 12 have actually been designated, so clearly very little of this important aspect of our local
4
history has been ensured to exist into the future. In staff s opinion, the Boomerang Lodge is one
of the best examples of the design philosophies and cultural history of the period.
The Boomerang Lodge meets two of the three designation criteria, which leaves the question of
integrity to be evaluated. Integrity can be measured through the scoring system that HPC has
developed, however this is an unusual circumstance in that only part of the building is being
retained. Staff has spoken to Charlie Paterson and determined that the eastern area of the property
is unaltered from the original design, other than the slight relocation of an exterior door in the
pool area. There is a high degree of architectural integrity.
Staff and HPC support landmark designation for this property finding that the review criteria are
met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council adopt Ordinance #21, Series of
2007, landmark designation of500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots K-S, Block 31, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, as defined in the exhibit to the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of2007.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance #21, Series of 2007
A. Application
B. Aspen's 20th Century Architecture: Modernism- a paper written by the Community
Development Department.
5
ORDINANCE NO. 21
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING HISTORIC
DESIGNATION FOR A PORTION OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 500 W. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS K-S, BLOCK 31, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Parcel ID #:2735-124-49-002
WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, owner, represented by Michael
Hoffman, Sunny Vann, and Reno- Smith LLC, has initiated Historic Designation review
for a portion of the property located at 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots K-S, Block 31, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process
for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a
recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets
the criteria; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her HPC staff report dated April 25, 2007, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had
been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 25, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the
review standards and recommended approval of the application by a vote of 4 to 0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application meets or exceeds all applicable
standards and that the addition of a portion of the Boomerang Lodge as a historic landmark
to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures is consistent with the
goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The City Council finds that the application is complete and sufficient to afford review and
evaluation for approval; and
Section 2
The City Council does hereby approve designation of a portion of the property located at
500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots K-S, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as
defined in Exhibit A, to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 11 th day of June, 2007, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
Section 6:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of May, 2007.
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11 th day of June, 2007.
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Exhibit A- Map of Lots K-S, Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, showing portion of
property designated as a Historic Landmark.
'."', ~
I,,) ~..
\,/ /I) /'/\'
1<;, ~ t/)
Iii; tJ/
I u: ti/J
I~ if
\~p
I ~t~
I u.,
, .s.
t
OO"[3"j
E;" 5 ,~,.
; en "<i :f>:; i,~ ..; ='
;~ - F l~
-' ~~
f,rTl,;oT""tCT ,,/
:: : :,1 ;'Ig,j~ ;.',C'.,' ~;...~. ;~-l~t>
I ,I;;:./l. _ , . ~ r
_ } I \'l:tr ~, ~ :
I I Ho, 1
"^' ' I " 1~i:! :'r
i r. ;',1 :, '( '~/I~~
e :'. , , ,. ;,
,n !l,' !~;~/ :. il!,
Gli "" ]"1;
I.": iUI, , ~ ~~
'.f!. " ....~.
" e II! \f~~) 'T'ji\~~:
" G~, ..",..1-.;/ ",i~\i'j
g i ~: ....e ~~,\);7":/Y
,. ,GI!: .'~fi){J"
~el:" " .,:,~:!(.~"
,-~ "'''''''':.l>
):i. . ~ -, '.' t' .
;;1" r'L~~::,
I-:"j :....,:
....../.i! .....
, ,
.1';:':;;';:<',
;
<;.,
';
,.
r:L
:;HJ
~~~
..u.~__u__
+
~~i\;:
';11 ,fl"!
".-~
...., .,- ,.:
4-;~-.;:,-_U
'. .
''"'' ,u..nn" _
\ ~ /JYJ'i~)'::,,>
~"l":;ll'"''
;: ~.?~-~~~Hl~~__.__
~. ~,':'
;:; ~ ~:l~
I)~'
" ~ v:>
:',i::
'::<
0:
^.r...c.'"'....""
~\l1\+ A
Sw1.
J:
I
,
;.,
;;: ~I;~>@('
~
.~
'"
r
/
Q:l. 00:$ ()
: Cll'l...
~ .~
$.~
UOOMERANG LODGE REMODEL
....w.""~""....",,.
1!lul>l>l>!,!D'~.'
r~ ': ~
,
-~ c><
"iL!\
LAW OFFICE OF
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.c.
106 SOUTH MILL STREET
SUITE 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FACSIMILE
(970) 920-1019
E-MAIL
Mhoffman@emhlaw-aspen.com
TELEPHONE
(970) 544-3442
February 9,2007
Mrs. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Application for Historic Designation of Boomerang Lodge
Dear Amy:
This correspondence represents the application of Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC ("AF A"), the current
owner of the Boomerang Lodge, for landmark designation of the "East Wing" of the hotel
pursuant to Section 26.415.030 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code ("the Code"). AFA
promised to seek designation for the East Wing at the time it received approvals from the City
for redevelopment of the Lodge and rezoning, subdivision exemption and growth management
approvals for the property across the street from the existing hotel. AF A received the last of
those approvals in October of 2006. Section 17 of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 (the
"Approval Ordinance"), which memorialized the approval of AFA's redevelopment proposal for
the Lodge, required the owner to initiate historic designation of the East Wing prior to filing of
the final plat. This application is meant to satisfy the requirements of Section 17 ofthe Approval
Ordinance and fulfill the promise made by AFA during the review process.
1. Technical Elements of Application.
The following additional information is included with this application pursuant to Section
26.303.030 ofthe Code:
1. A letter of authorization from AF A is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. The street address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property are
as follows: 500 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, AND S , Block 31, City and Townsite of
Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Parcel ID No. 2735.124.49.002
3. A copy of a current title insurance commitment, reflecting the information required by
Section 26.303.030(B)(3) of the Code, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Aspen Community Development Department
February 9,2007
Page 2
4. A vicinity map, showing the location ofthe Property, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
5. A site plan in the form required by Section 26.303.030(B)(5) of the Code, is attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
6. A certified site improvement survey is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
7. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of the historic significance of
the East Wing is found below, in the main body of this correspondence.
Please keep in mind while reviewing this application that the request is for the East Wing only,
and not the balance of the property. The balance of the property will not be subject to HPC
authority. Section] 7 of the Approval Resolution provides that "[t]he designation shall not
subject the remainder fo the building to HPC review."
2. Substantive Aspects of Application.
In a letter dated November 2, 2005, AF A reiterated an oral offer it made in October of 2005 to
give the HPC an opportunity to review and provide comments on the owner's development plans
for the East Wing. A copy ofthe November letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
Steve Stunda of AFA, Augie Reno of Reno Smith Architects and Craig Ward of Morris &
Fyrwald Real Estate presented the owner's plans for the redevelopment of the East Wing to the
Historic Preservation Commission at a work session held on February 22, 2006. Those plans,
dated November 30, 2005, showed the intent of the owner to add five new lodge units to the
third floor of the East Wing, to expand the multipurpose room located on the north end of the
structure and to install a rooftop deck above the third floor units, among other things. A copy of
the original site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
The staff memorandum (the "Staff Memorandum") which accompanied AFA's application when
it was considered by City Council on June 26, 2006, reported the following facts to the Council
concerning the February 22, 2006 work session:
Generally, the HPC does not prefer the addition of a third floor on the east wing
and would like to see this portion of the project remain more true to its original
(current) form and receive only minor alterations. If the east wing did incorporate
an addition, the HPC suggested it be recessed and of a clearly different
architectural character (not mimicking the original wing) so that old and new
components could be easily identified. [ ] The applicants have agreed to
addressing the concerns of the HPC relating to a different type of material for the
3'. floor.
Based largely on these comments, City Council elected to approve the project, but to deny the
owner the right to build the third floor units over the existing East Wing. Council did, however,
allow some modification of the East Wing, In particular, the plan approved by Council included
Aspen Community Development Department
February 9,2007
Page 3
an expansion of the multipurpose room. The expansion of the multipurpose room is shown on
Exhibit G, which shows the new dimensional parameters of the East Wing. (Page 1 of Exhibit G
depicts the new footprint of the East Wing. Pages 2 and 3 of the Exhibit show the programmatic
use of the first and second floors of the East Wing, as approved by City Council.) The approved
expansion of the multipurpose room will eliminate an open, landscaped area and a small portion
of the patio located to the north of the pool. A hot tub is also being added to the west of the
pool, in an area which is currently lawn.
The question to be answered by the HPC is whether the East Wing, as reconfigured by the
changes approved by Council, qualifies as a landmarked structure under Section 26.415.030 of
the Code and the introductory section of the City's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
AF A believes the East Wing is still worthy of historic designation because the integrity of the
structure is largely being preserved and because the architecturally-significant portion of the East
Wing, which is the eastern fayade, will be retained without modification. Please see the
photographs found in Exhibit H, which clearly indicate the iconic nature of the eastern fayade.
3. Merits of Historic Designation of the East Wing.
Under Section 26.415.030(B) of the Code, a property is eligible for designation on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures if it has "a demonstrated quality of
significance."
The significance of properties will be evaluated according to the following
criteria:
2. A property constructed at least forty (40) years prior to the year in which
the application for designation is being made that possesses sufficient
integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and
association and is related to one or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution
to local, state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or
national history is deemed important and be identified and
documented,
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical
or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or
design philosophy that is deemed important.
The Boomerang's East Wing was constructed over 40 years ago, currently possesses and will
possess the integrity required by the Code and is related to subsections a. and c. of Section
26.415.030(B)2. of the Code.
Aspen Community Development Department
February 9,2007
Page 4
A. The Creation of Small, Privatelv-Owned Lodges Was A Trend Which Helved
Make the 1950s and 1960s A Unique Period of Asven's Historv.
As discussed at length in Asven's 20th Centurv Architecture: Chalet Style Buildings, published
on the Internet by the City's Community Development Department, the City experienced a
period of rebirth between 1936 and the early 1980s centered on the development of the ski
industry. Tom Flynn, Billy Fiske and Ted Ryan were the first to develop a privately-owned ski
hotel when they opened the Highland Bavarian Lodge in 1936. The Prospector Lodge, located at
301 E. Hyman, was another small, privately-owned hotel built in 1947. Other hotels and guest
accommodations of the same type included the Norway Lodge (built in 1954), the Skiers Chalet
and Steak House (I 955), the Holland House (I 956), Mountain Chalet (1958) and the Edelwiess
Inn.
Charles Paterson arrived in Aspen in 1949. He bought the property which later become the
Boomerang Lodge in the same year. In 1956 he built three simple lodge rooms on the property
and opened the hotel.
Mr. Paterson reported to the undersigned that he designed the East Wing while studying at
Taliesen East in 1959. He presented the plans to the widow of Frank Lloyd Wright and his older
apprentices at the institute's annual commemoration of the birth of the famed architect. The
plans, which were clearly influenced by Mr. Wright's "organic architecture" style, were well
received, according to Mr. Paterson.
Mr. Paterson began construction of the East Wing in the fall of 1960 and completed the work in
1961. For five years, the East Wing, along with four original lodge rooms, made up the
Boomerang Lodge. (During this period Mr. Paterson used the old cabin located in the center of
the property as his personal residence during the winter and rented it to the Aspen Music Festival
in the summer.)
To his knowledge, Mr. Paterson was the first to finance a hotel project located in the Roaring
Fork Valley using a loan guaranteed by the fledgling Small Business Administration. The SBA
was hesitant to lend in the Valley because it viewed the resort economy as too volatile to meet
conservative investment parameters. Mr. Paterson believes the staff of the agency was
impressed in 1964 or 1965 when he paid off the loan before the stated due date. After Mr.
Paterson's experience, the SBA guaranteed loans for the construction of projects located in
Aspen and promoted by Ralph Melville and Whip Jones, among others.
Mr. Paterson's participation in the trend which culminated in Aspen's vibrant tourist economy of
the 1960s and 1970s is manifest.
Aspen Community Development Department
February 9, 2007
Page 5
B. The Boomerang's East Wing Represents the Technical or Aesthetic
Achievements of the Architecture of Charles Paterson And. by Implication. Frank
Lloyd Wright.
The significance of Mr. Paterson's architecture in Aspen is described in the following excerpt
from Aspen's 20th Centurv Architecture: Modernism, which is also published on the Internet by
the City's Community Development Department:
The [Boomerang LJodge's lounge, 12 more rooms, and a pool were added in
1960. The noted underwater window, which allows guests in the lounge to look
into the pool, was featured in Life Magazine in the 1960's. In 1965 and 1970
other expansions took place on the property.
Although Paterson has designed relatively few buildings, among them his own
business, structures at the Christiania Lodge, and a residence in Basalt, the
Boomerang is his master work, exhibiting strong influences ofWrightian
architecture. Paterson designed, helped to build, and financed the structure, and is
still its host and manager today. [This is no longer true. J It has been described as
".. .timeless, ageless" and ".. .almost futuristic.'"
Other contributions to local organizations made by Paterson include being a
member of the Board of the Music Associates of Aspen for 20 years, Chairman of
the Aspen Hall of Fame for 2 years and of the Aspen Board of Adjustment for 20
years and counting. He has also served on the Aspen Chamber Resort Association
Board of Directors. Paterson worked for the Aspen Skiing Company as an
instructor from 1952 to 1969.
4. Conclusion.
We look forward to discussing the merits of this application with the Historic Preservation
Commission at a public hearing. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further
information.
t Scott Dial, "The Boomerang Lodge: The Lodge That Charlie Built, and Built, and Built,"
Destination Magazine.
Aspen Community Development Department
February 9, 2007
Page 6
Sincerely,
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.C.
L---
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Letter of Authorization
Exhibit B - Title Commitment
Exhibit C - Vicinity Map
Exhibit D - Site Plan
Exhibit E - Certified Survey
Exhibit F - Letter to City dated November 2, 2005
Exhibit G - Approved Plans of East Wing
Exhibit H - Photographs of East Wing
FEB 02,2007 09:56A
000-000-00000
page 1
C.,r4,"t,f A.
ASPEN FSP-ABR, LLC
c/o Steven R. Stunda
602 N. Fourth Street
Aspen, Colorado 8161 J
January 31, 2007
Community Development Dcpartment
Altn: Amy Guthric
J 30 S. Galena Slreet, Thrid Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
As Development Manager Partner of Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, I hereby authorize thc
following individuals to submit and process on our behalfan Application for Historic Designation
ofthe East Wing of the Boomerang Lodge. The names and relevant contacts are as follows:
E. Michael Hoffman
E. Michael HolTman
106 South Mill Street, Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado X 1611
(970) 920-1018
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, LLC
230 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado XI611
(970) 925-695X
Augie Reno and Xiangdong Shi
Reno--Sm ith, LLC.
605 W. Main Street, No. 002
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-5968
Thank you for your consideration in this Application. If you have any questions or require
any additional informatinn, ple.se do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
ASl'EN rsp BR, LLC,
a Delaware .mited liability company
Steven R. Stunda
Development Manager I'artner
By:
Land Title Guarantee Company
~
Land TItle
c.;UI\~M.nEt C:OMl'ANY
Date: 01-08-2007
Our Order Numb..-: Q387506-2
Property Addr...:
500 WEST HOPKINS A VENUE ASPEN, CO 81611
Buy..-/Borrower:
TBD
Seller/Owner:
ASPEN FSP.ABR, LLC.. A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
..*****...........................................................
Note: Once an original commitment bas been issued, any subsequent
modifications wiD be ompbasized by underlining.
....**...........................***.....................**.......
Need a map or directions forlour upcomillll closing? Check out Land Title's web site at www.ltge.com
for directions to an of our 5 office locations.
ESTIMATE OF TITLE FEES
TBD Commitment
$194.00
;C~ z..m.d T1l::~. Guaraat.. CgapaDy ..j~l b. clo.;i.ng thi.ill triLD.action, abc7tr. fees ...ill b.- col1.cted at that: t:......
TOTAL
$194. 00
...._~(I'/04
TIlANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDERI
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
ALTA COMMITMENT
Our Order No. Q3875116-2
Schedule A
Cust. Ref.:
Pcoperly Address: ,
500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611
1. EITectlve Date:
lanuarv 08 2007 aI5:00 P.M.
2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured:
"TBD" Commibnent
Proposed Insured:
TBD
3. The estate or interest in the land described 0[" referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Tide to the eslate or interest covered herein is at the elTective date bereof vested in:
ASPEN FSP-ABR. LLC., A DELAWARE UMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOTS K, L. M, N. 0, P. Q. R, AND S
BLOCK 31
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-1
(Requirements)
Our Order No. Q387506-2
The foUowlng are the requirements to be complied with:
Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
Proper instrumeot(s) creatiog the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit:
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED
PURSUANT HERETO.
NOTE: ADDmONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE
BUYERS NAMES ARE ADDED TO TIllS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND/OR CHARGES
REFLECTED HEREIN, IF ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF TIlE
CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE AND ANY AMENDMENTS TIlERETO.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Schedule B-2
(Exceptions)
Our Order No. Q387506-2
The polIcy or policies to be issued wID contain exeeptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
I. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, nol shown by the pnblic records.
3. Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and
inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien. for services, labor or material theretofore Dr hereafter furnished, imposed by law and
not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, Iieus, encumbrances, adverse claims or other muliers, if any, created. fIrsl appearing in the public records or
attaching subsequent to lhe effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for
value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and speciaJ assessments Dot yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments againsl said land.
8. Ueus for unpaid water and sewer charges, If aoy.
9. DEED OF TRUST DATED JUNE 28.2005, FROM ASPEN FSP-ABR, LLC.. A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE
USE OF BANK MIDWEST, NA TO SECURE THE SUM OF 00 RECORDED JUNE
29,2005, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 511778.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
RECORDED JUNE 29. 2005, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 511779.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNMENT OF ENTITLEMENT
DOCUMENTS AND CONTRACTS RECORDED JUNE 29, 2005, UNDER RECEPTION NO.
511780.
10. FINANCING STATEMENT WITH, BANK MIDWEST, NA THE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED JULY
12, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 512253.
11. RESERVATIONS AS CONTAINED IN PATENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
12. RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED IN DEEDS RECORDED JANUARY 3,
1888 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 378 AND RECORDED JULY 30, 1889 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE
ALTA COMMITMENT
Scbedule B-2
(Exceptions)
Our Order No. Q387506-2
The po6cy or policies to he issued wID contain exceptions to the foUowing unless the same.... disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
576 PROVIDING, "THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF
GOLD. SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR
POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THIS DEED
IS MADE AND DECLARED TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS. LIMITATIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2386 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE
UNITED STATES."
13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.2, SERIES 1997 TO REZONE
SPECIFIC PROPERTIES RECORDED SEPTEMBER 03, 1997 AT RECEPTION NO. 407979.
t4. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION 08, SERIES 1997 GRANTING A
VARIANCE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23. 1997 AT RECEPTION NO. 408741.
IS. TERMS. CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF CITY OF ASPEN ORDINANCE '26. SERIES OF
2006 RECORDED JANUARY 02.2007 AT RECEPTION NO. 532933.
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and MERIDIAN LAND TITLE, LLC
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note: Puniuant to CRS 10-11-122, ootice is hereby given that:
A) The subject real property may be located ia a special taxing district.
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due llstillg each taxing jurisdiction may be ohtained from the County
Treasurer's authorized agent.
C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from
the Board of County Commissioners, tbe County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
Note: Effective September I, 1997, CRS 30-10.406 requircs that all documents received for recording or filing
in the clerk and recorder's omce shall contain a top margin nf at least one inch and a left, right and bollom
margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse 10 record or me any documenl thai
does not confmm, except tbat, the requirement for the lop margin sball not apply to documents using forms
on which space is provided for recording or filiog information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division oflnsurance Regulatioos 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requIres that "Every
title entity shall be respoosible for all malters which appear of record prior to the time of recordillg
whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is respoosible for recording or filing of legal
documents resulting (rom the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee
Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the
legal documents from the transllction. exception number 5 wiD not appear on the Owner's Title
Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued.
Note: Affinnative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically hy deletion
of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to he
issued) upon compliance with tbe following conditions:
A) The land described ill Schedule A of this commitment musl be a single family residence which
includes a condominium or townhouse unit.
B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of
construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment wilhin the past 6 months.
C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against nn-filed
mechanic's and material-men's liens.
D) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased
within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage
for unrecorded liens will include: disclusure of certain construction information: fmancial infonnation
as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully
executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company. and, any additional requirements
as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured
has contracted for or agreed to pay.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10.11-123, notiee is hereby given:
This notice applIes to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument
exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, SecUon 2.
A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased. or otherwise
conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party
holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy iIIlhe property; and
B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the
swface owner's permission.
Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages
referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied.
FOIITl DIso..osURE 09/01/02
JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. GRAND JUNCTION,
LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY
This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company and Meridian Land Title,
LLC, as agents for Land Title Insunonee Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
We want you to know lhat we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal
and slate privacy laws. Infonnation security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your
lrust and confideoce is lbe bedrock of our business. We maintain and regnlarly revIew Interoal and external
safeguards against unaulborlzed access 10 non-public personal information ("Personal Information").
In the course of our business. we may collect Personal Information about you from:
" applications or other fonns we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, OUf
web-based transaction management system;
" your transactions with. or from the services being performed by. us, our affiliates. or others;
" a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connedian with your transaction;
and
. lbe pnblic records maintained by governmental entities lbat we either obtain directly from those entities,
or from our affiliates and non-affiliates.
Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Infonnation are as
follows:
.. We restrict access to 31] Personal Information about you fo those employees who need to know that
infonnaUon in order to provide products and services fa you.
. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards lbat comply with federal standards 10
protect your Personal InfonnatloR from unauthorized access or intrusion.
. Employees who violate our Slrlct policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to dIsciplinary
action.
.. We regularly access security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal
Information.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR
ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT PERMllTED BY LAW.
Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some sllnalIons In which Personal Information may be
disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are
required by law fa do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we SUSpecf fraudulent or
criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permiUed by applicable
privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement,
transaction or relationship with you.
OUf policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our
privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shaD be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American
Arbitration Association, andjudgmcnt upon the award rendered by the arbitratOT(s) may be entered in any court
having jurisdiction thereof.
Fonn PRIv.POL.em
/" -"',
u
"(
Iii;
q',
,
..
1,-,
I ~ ,;;
1\'<1
I Ii
,
,.
I
~
nl'r..".I<:LL.
":'
"jliZ .....i., ,;H "i;'1f1',
I . ~II\ '., !), ;'~;, ;'~j~"
~ i ','I,: i ~,t ,t
6 . ..... :;!i :: ,'IL
'\) ":'----:7f
A.+"" ::--~ ,AL
tt~jfij i
\,::,:;s" II'
-fii)i~;.:. --
~~,:;';t;';r, "-..'
~:
/
7Z-~
&/"""('"
\1Il?',_~.:'\n/_" :
----I
I
I
i
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
I
I
"
"
"
"
,"
n,
:.ill
~1\~
..;
q<" 0:0:8 (>
; <J l'>. ~
~[j'1
!r;; ! ~;.,
~ ~ ~;;!~
; ::; "< ~E
- .~
i: !I!
.~ .~
"
:~~: . :~
..-@
-----'i,~-
,,!t:l1
1-.
';,.-.""-',,,,',;""-[C;;
I,j!~
~e:
..,
'"
A'r""<:'.'".40.'611
BOOMERANG LODGE REMODEL
,,;.0
.~ , "
:;; ~ ~~~
...W.II.p.'...A......
m C]N>l>j .1.[---.
!H ~ -:
!:f
;
,t ',11 .i1;:;wtWif:~1i" ~1.~"li""Ir~'.)!1fk". ti~llfc:r
:r:tl~
:~~
.,"~
w~
1iI~tl:
"hit
:1Jlif
;/!t1
~l '
m
X
::T
rr
..,
J
1,:
m
,'~
I
~.IJ~:.~';"<,,, ,:~~!
_!! ~ ";,_ _ ~t~.
;-~ J!::,; t- t
".3- c. 0i~.-~;
{' .'
,
c
<,
q:?" a .. --.....
LAW OFFICE OF
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.c.
106 SOUTH MILL STREET
SUITE 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
F ACS[MILE
(970) 920-10[9
E-MAIL
Mhoffman@emhlaw~aspen.com
TELEPHONE
(970) 544-3442
November] , 2005
Chris Benden, Director
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Historic Preservation Concerns in the
Redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge
Dear Chris:
Thanks for meeting with me last Thursday. As you know, I represent Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC ("the
LLC"), the owner of the Boomerang Lodge and the undeveloped land located across West Hopkins
Street from the lodge (the "souths ide property"). We met to discuss the City's interest in preserving
those sections of the Boomerang Lodge which appear to have local historic or architectural
significance. Amy Guthrie also attended our meeting and offered her perspective on the potential
preservation of the lodge.
Last spring you and other members of the Community Development staff met with Steve Stunda,
the owner's local representative, to discuss potential development alternatives for both the
Boomerang and the souths ide property. That meeting occurred as part ofthe LLC's due diligence
related to its purchase ofthe project. Atthe meeting the City's representatives made clear that some
members of City government believe that the Boomerang has historic importance even though it is
not listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures (the "Historic Inventory"). Steve
made clear that neither the LLC nor the then-current owner of the property believed that the
Boomerang Lodge had any historic significance. Steve observed that, although the east wing is the
most architecturally prominent section of the hotel, there is nothing about it which warrants
preservation. However, Steve did offer to retain the east wing as part of the redevelopment plan if
its preservation could be accomplished without harming the project as a whole.
Following his meeting with you last spring, Steve informed the ownership group of the substance
of the discussion. He was able to persuade the group that a benefit could be achieved by integrating
the east wing into the redevelopment plan, if a synergistic design solution could be achieved.
Mr. Chris Benden
November I, 2005
Page 2
The only part of the lodge which is older than the east wing is the cabin located in the center ofthe
project. Even if the LLC believed it was appropriate to retain the cabin as part ofthe redevelopment
(which it does not), the ownership group ;;annot offer to retain the cabin because it is contractually
obligated to release that structure to the former owner of the property prior to construction of the
new project.
In keeping with representation he made to you last spring, Steve directed the LLC's architects to
create a redevelopment plan for the Boomerang Lodge which preserves the east wing and the
adjacent 1950's-vintage swimming pool and recreation area. The balance of the existing
improvements on the Boomerang Lodge property are to be demolished and replaced with a new
condominiumized hotel which the LLC believes will meet the demands of current Aspen visitors.
The interior of the east wing will be substantially renovated to match the quality of the new
construction. A third floor will be added to the east wing which will house five lodge units. The
City should receive within the next few weeks the LLC's land use application for this plan.
At our meeting of October 27,2005, I described the LLC's position as follows:
It is not practicable to transfer development potential from the Boomerang Lodge site to the
southside property. The ownership group firmly believes that the proposal described in its
current application for the souths ide property represents the highest and best use for that
property. A transfer of development potential to that site from the'hotel would harm both
parcels.
2 Only the east wing of the existing Boomerang Lodge appears to have any architectural
importance. The other sections of the hotel were built in the 1960s, '70s and '80s and have
no real historic or architectural significance.
3 The LLC will make every effort to preserve the exterior of the east wing of the Boomerang
Lodge as well as the swimming pool and the cement decking surrounding the pool. There
may be some slight modifications which willbe discussed during the review process.
4 Unfortunately the benefits offered in the Aspen Land Use Code to owners of potentially
significant structures do not outweigh the loss of revenue the LLC would suffer by the loss
of the five lodge units to be located on the third floor of the east wing. This includes
potential benefits provided through exclusions from the growth management system and
reduced employee housing requirements.
The LLC has offered to include the renovated east wing of the Boomerang Lodge on the local
Historic Inventory at the time it receives final approval for both of those applications, provided the
City's Historic Preservation Commission will have no authority over any other part of the
redeveloped Boomerang Lodge. To facilitate the eventual listing of the east wing, the LLC will
agree to submit its plans for that section of the lodge for review by the HPC as part of the City's
Me. Chris Benden
November 1, 2005
Page 3
consideration of the application for redevelopment of the hotel. HPC will have the right to review
and make comments on the proposal as it concerns the east wing only, but will have no right to
approve or disapprove the application, or any part of the application.
Based on the support you voiced last week for the approach outlined above, the LLC will submit its
application for the redevelopment ofthe Boomerang Lodge within the next few weeks. If you have
a different understanding of the outcome of our meeting of October 27,2005, please let me know
at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.c.
IItJi
E. Michael Hoffman
cc: Steve Stunda
Sunny Vann
tIC 'to (c+ 6-
fe..,'L I
r
\
..r..............
~Jij ....1
I
II ~I
I:
lL .____
~'~.- -^----
,
I
.--
1
,~<.,
f.1<:~ ('t,.f if
f~) e.. Z-
~"
~,. ,."::,
..-....1' f
"
Ii i
:: i.
Ii i
.%D' ~'
.;::::-~.."
,,/
,
! I
r:"">?>
~.
$
f... c...c< (-I- G-
(?e.. ) ~ 3
/'
Sj" . .,.
, .' . '0-
, ,
! Ii
,
i
i'
il
C.ORR::C'O,",
..,,,,,,,=:::;;:;;
. ~.m.
'-"
,&
l_
~
~
~.~ ~.~
~:~~~~~,:}~: .
,...~,._,,~;.;,.,,:<.,~';; ""''';'';&O~",
--,.!!If""""' .'
;;'C"^"~('"l'''
"."..,,",' .,,",,~,-,..,.-
:,. . T', ~~~"'"' ~ ~,",;<-~...---.
r
:0.
1
I.
!
\t-
,
i
j
::'-.'<';
..J..,
.
,
I NUL T PURPOSE
/ AC~c:~--I! I
~J~ ii
Ii)
\~C55/~~'~
/.'
.-.." I I
...' I
,
.;~
r',y
-p
//
_____,i
~,
(~~
~t9
,
/
""""'l.
'r
"
""=i~RR::'OR
I.)'
"",' "
\\
. \)
205
\
"
i;--''=::::;:::
f'
x
/
I'
"
;,>'
,i
"
'I I'
L1,','
t: = :::.,~'/
~I::'-J>'
---_.;,.,-
,
//
;/
~
@
ASPEN'S 20TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE:
MODERNISM
The Modernist Movement
Modernism as a style of architecture describes the works that were produced
beginning in the 20th century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design practices
and attitudes, and incredible changes in building technology. The roots of this style can
be attributed in great part to the Industrial Revolution, which led to dramatic social
changes, and an inclination to react against all that had come before. In addition there
was a new abundance of raw materials, including bricks, timber, and glass; and stronger
materials, particularly metals, which allowed structural innovations.
Initially, the modem technologies were employed in ways that reflected much of
the preference for decoration and organic design that had preceded the 20th century, for
instance in the Arts and Crafts Style of the 1920's and the influential designs of Frank
Lloyd Wright. As the century progressed, however, the demands of the automobile, and
the need for buildings to serve uses preyiously unknown, such as airports, led to the
search for a new architectural vocabulary. The streamlined and austere became more
relevant. "Functionalism" and "Rationalism" were terms used to describe architectural
philosophies related to this period. "Modem building codes had replaced rules of
thumb.'"
"Architecture was seen primarily as volume and not mass. So the stress was on the
continuous, unmodulated wall surface- long ribbon windows without frames, cut right
into the wall plane, horizontally or vertically disposed; flush joints; flat roofs. Comers
were not made prominent. Technically, the argument went, materials like steel and
reinforced concrete had rendered conventional construction- and with it cornices, pitched
roofs, and emphatic comers-obsolete. There would be no applied ornament anywhere,
inside or out...A house was a machine made for living Le Corbusier provocatively
declared in 1923 in his Towards a New Architecture, which has proved the most
influential book on architecture in this (the 201h) century.,,2
The period between the Silver Crash in 1893 and the end of
World War II saw little new construction in Aspen. This changed
when interest began to grow in developing a major ski resort, and
when Walter Paepcke envisioned the town as the ideal setting for a
community of intellect, cultural institutions, and pristine natural
environment. As a result of this renaissance taking place, many
Modernism in Aspen
Walter Paevcke
t Robert Frankeberger, and James Garrison, "From Rustic Romanticism to Modernism, and Beyond:
Architectural Resources in the National Parks," Forum Journal. The Journal of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation Summer 2002, p. 16.
2 Spiro Kostof, A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals, (New York:Oxford University Press, 1985),
p.701.
important architects were drawn to live and work here and left an imprint of the
philosophies of the modernist period on the town. The two masters who had the largest
influence on Aspen, Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer, are discussed at length in this
paper, along with a number of others who completed notable works here.
FRITZ BENEDICT
Frederic "Fritz" Benedict (b. 1914- Medford, Wisconsin,
d. 1995- Aspen, Colorado) was the first trained architect to arrive
in Aspen at the end of World War II. Benedict had earned a
. Bachelor's Degree and Master's Degree in Landscape
Architecture at the University of Wisconsin before being invited
to Frank Lloyd Wright's school, Taliesen, in Spring Green,
Wisconsin in 1938. Initially, Benedict's role at Taliesen was as
head gardener, but his interest in Wright's philosophy of the
integration of architecture and landscape led him to study design
at both Taliesen and Taliesen West in Phoenix, Arizona for the
next three years.
Fritz Benedict
Benedict, an avid skier, first visited Aspen as a participant in the National Skiing
Championships held here in 1941, apparently told of the charms of the town by Frank
Mechau, an artist whom he met at Taliesen and who resided in Redstone, Colorado. In
1942, Benedict was drafted to serve with the 10th Mountain Division troops, an elite
group of skiers who trained at Camp Hale, north of Leadville, Colorado. On weekends,
the soldiers would often travel to Aspen for recreational skiing.
Benedict saw active duty in Italy and served with the 10th Mountain Diyision until
the end ofthe war in 1945. He returned to Aspen and purchased a ranch at the top of Red
Mountain, focusing on operating the property as his livelihood for some time. According
to Benedict, "The place (Aspen) was so dead and was starting to be a resort so slowly that
there wasn't much to do in the way of design.,,3
This situation changed for good after 1946, when noted artist Herbert Bayer
arrived in Aspen with Walter Paepcke, and the duo's plans for the town brought more
people and a new period of construction. Through Herbert Bayer, Fritz met his future
wife, Fabienne, the sister of Bayer's wife Joella. Fabi persuaded Fritz to quit ranching
and pursue architecture, which he did after being awarded a license under a grandfather
clause that allowed architects to be licensed based on experience, rather than on testing.
Benedict was known for setting buildings into the landscape in an unobtrusive and
harmonious way, clearly derived from his landscape architecture education and the
influence of Frank Lloyd Wright. He placed a high priority on creating an intimate
relationship between a house and its garden. Benedict was a pioneer of passive solar and
3 Adele Dusenbury, "When the Arehitect Arrived After the War," The Asoen Times July 31, 1975,
p. I-B.
earth shelter design. He experimented with car-free village design, sod roofed structures,
and solar buildings. His master work, the
Edmundson Waterfall house, which was
strongly related to Frank Lloyd Wright's
Fallingwater, exhibited many of these qualities
and all of the central characteristics of
Wrightian design, including a low pitched roof,
strong horizontal emphasis of the structure, arid
the use of mitred windows at building comers.
The most important of Benedict's works may
best be defined by the examples that clearly
represent Wrightian ideas, or where innovation
was key. Waterfall House, on Castle Creek
Road, Pitkin County,1960
Benedict's earliest projects in Aspen were
residences. In collaboration with his brother-in-
law, Herbert Bayer, he also helped to design the
buildings of the Aspen Institute, the intellectual ,
center of Paepcke's facilities. Other known works
by Benedict include the cabin at 835 W. Main
Street (\947), the John P. Marquand studio on Lake
Avenue (\950, since demolished), the Copper
Kettle (1954, 845 Meadows Road), Bank of Aspen
(1956, 119 S. Mill Street), 625 and 615 Gillespie
Avenue (1957), the original Pitkin County Library
(1960, 120 E. Main Street), the Aspen Alps (1963,
777 Ute Avenue- the first luxury condominiums in
the Rocky Mountains), the Bidwell Building, (\965, 434 E. Cooper Avenue), Aspen
Square (\969, 617 E. Cooper Avenue), The Gant (1972, 610 S. West End Street), the
Benedict Building (1976,1280 Ute Avenue), the Aspen Club Townhouses (1976, Crystal
Lake Road), and Pitkin County Bank (1978, 534 E. Hyman Avenue) In total, Benedict
designed and renovated over 200 homes and buildings in Aspen and Snowmass.4
835 W. Main Street. 1947
434 E. Cooper Avenue, 1965
The Copper Kettle, 1954
4 Mary Eshbaugh Hayes. Dedication plaque on "The Benedict Suite," Little Nell Hotel, Aspen, Colorado.
Benedict's works in Pitkin County, outside of Aspen's city limits, include two personal
residences, the Waterfall house (1960, since demolished), the Aspen Music School
campus, and the Aspen Highlands base lodge (since demolished). Benedict also did the
master plan for Snowmass (1967), Vail (1962) and Breckenridge (1971.)
Fritz Benedict was inducted into the College of Fellows of the American Institute
of Architects in 1985, by election of his peers. This is a lifetime honor bestowed on
registered architects who have made outstanding contributions to the profession, and only
5% of the profession receive this honor. The nomination submitted stated that "Frederic
'Fritz' Benedict left a legendary influence on design and construction in the Rocky
Mountain West...(creating) classics of the mountain vemacular."s He was given the
Greg Mace Award in 1987 for epitomizing the spirit of the Aspen community, was
inducted into the Aspen Hall of Fame in 1988 and the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame in
1995, and was given the "Welton Anderson" award for his contribution to Aspen's built
environment by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in 1993. In all cases
Benedict was recognized for being a pioneer of Aspen's rebirth as a resort community.
Many quotes from his memorial service in 1995 attest to the community's respect for his
role in Aspen's history. Bob Maynard, former president of the Aspen Skiing Company
stated "Aspen was fortunate fifty years ago to be wakened from her sleep by visionaries.
The trio of Benedict, Bayer, and Paepcke combined dreams and hope and reality uniquely
to restore a community ravaged by mining, trapped in poverty- yet willing to follow the
dreamers.,,6 Similarly, the Aspen Times stated at his death, "Along with the late Walter
and Elizabeth Paepcke and his Bauhaus trained brother-in-law Herbert Bayer, all of
whom came to Aspen with a rare vision in the traumatic wake of World War II, Benedict
was one of the fathers of modem Aspen, a man whose architecture not only helped shape
the city aesthetic, but whose personal commitment to the original dream of a special
'Aspen Ideal' made him the guarantor of the city's very soul.,,7 Local resident and fellow
student of Taliesen, Charles Paterson stated, "Whatever he was building was one jump
ahead. ,,8
Aside from his architectural contributions, Benedict influenced the Aspen
environment in several other ways. Benedict and his wife donated more than 250 acres
of land within Pitkin County for open space. He was the father of the 10th Mountain Hut
system (established in 1980), and served as the first chairman of Aspen's Planning and
Zoning Commission, developing height and density controls for the City, open space
preservation, a City parks system, a sign code, and a ban on billboards. He played a
significant role in the founding of the Aspen Institute, and the International Design
Conference. He served on the board of the Music Associates of Aspen for 35 years.
, Joanne Ditmer, The Denver Post, as reprinted in the program for the Fritz Benedict Memorial Service.
6 Robert A. Maynard, Remarks given at Fritz Benedict's Memorial Service.
7 Mary Eshbaugh Hayes, "Fritz Benedict, 1914-1995: The Passing of a Local Legend," The Aspen Times
July 15 and 16, 1995, cover page.
S Charles Paterson, Remarks given at Fritz Benedict's Memorial Service.
HERBERT BAYER
Herbert Bayer (b. 1900- Austria, d. 1985- Santa Barbara, California) was an artist
of many disciplines. He apprenticed with architects in his native country Austria, and in
Germany, starting at the age of 18. In 1921 he entered the most reknowned art and
design school of the 20th century, the Bauhaus in Weimar, Germany.
The Bauhaus, which existed from 1919 to
1933, was begun in a spirit of social reform and
represented a rejection of many design ideas that
preceded it. "From skyscrapers to doorknobs,
modem design was born, really, at the Bauhaus. The
ideas of the Bauhaus shaped whole cities, changed
architecture, modified the nature of furniture design
and transformed the essential implements of daily
life." 9 Bayer was named the head of the typography
workshop at the Bauhaus in 1925 and was ultimately
one of three masters named by director Walter
Gropius, the other two masters being the gifted Josef
Albers and Marcel Breuer. In 1928, Bayer left the school and established his own studio
in Berlin, then becoming the art director for Vogue magazine.
'''''\
,1""
"
Herbert Bayer
As Nazism gained strength in Germany, Bayer fled the country and immigrated to
New York City in 1938. There, he had his first show with the Museum of Modem Art,
and began to work as art director for corporations and ad agencies. By 1946, all of his
work was for Walter Paepcke at the Container Corporation of America and Robert O.
Anderson at the Atlantic Richfield Corporation, both of whom had an interest in Aspen
and the establishment of the Aspen Institute.
Walter Paepcke brought Herbert Bayer to Aspen in 1946 to serve as the design
consultant for the Institute, a role in which he served until 1976. Bayer was offered the
chance to design a planned environment, where the goal was total visual integration.
A_ ,""i.
"'.....~
On April I, 1960, Bayer receiyed a
license to practice architecture in Colorado,
without examination. He had no formal training
in the discipline, so he generally worked
in association with another firm, particularly
with Fritz Benedict. The Sundeck on Aspen
Mountain (1946, since demolished) was the first
of his designs that was ever built. At the
Institute, Bayer designed the Seminar Building
and it's sgraffito mural (1952, the first building
Guest Chalets (1954, since demolished and
The Sundeck. 1946
on the grounds), Aspen Meadows
9 Beth Dunlop, "Bauhaus' Influence Exeeeds It's Life," The Denver Post April 20, 1986.
reconstructed), Central Building (1954), the
Health Center (1955), Grass Mound (1955,
which pre-dates the "earthwork" movement
in landscape design by 10 years and was one
of the first
environmental sculptures in the country), the
Marble Sculpture Garden (1955), Walter
Paepcke Memorial Building (1962), the
Institute for Theoretical Physics Building
(1962, since demolished), Concert Tent
(1964, removed in 2000), and Anderson
Park (c. 1970.) Bayer also led the design for the
rehabilitation of the Wheeler Opera House
(1950-1960), designed two personal residences
on Red Mountain (1950 and 1959), and other
homes in Aspen, including those still in
existence at 240 Lake Avenue (1957) and 311
North Street (1963).
Aspen Institute Seminar Building, 1952
Aspen Meadows Health Center, 1955
The period during which most of
Bayer's architecture was designed is confined
to 1946-1965. Important characteristics of his
buildings were simplicity and the use of basic
geometrical shapes and pared down forms. He
was heavily influenced by Bauhaus and
The Marble Sculoture Garden. 1955 International Style principles. Color was an
important component to some of his work, and
he often used primary red, blue and yellow graphics.
Bayer paint scheme
Bayer believed in the concept of designing the total
human environment and that art should be incorporated into
all areas of life. He drew logos and posters for the Aspen
Skiing Company, and even designed signs for small Aspen
businesses. He provided the paint color schemes for certain
Victorians that Paepcke's Aspen Company decided should
be saved in the 1940's. A strong blue color, known locally
as "Bayer Blue" was one of his selections and can still be
seen on the former ElIi's building (101 S. Mill) and other
locations in town. His choice of a bright pink for Pioneer
Park (442 W. Bleeker) and a bold paint scheme that once
existed on the Hotel Jerome will also be remembered.
Bayer spent 28 years living in Aspen and was one of the first artists to make his
home here. A Rocky Mountain News article from 1955 stated "Even in competition with
millionaire tycoons, best-selling novelists, and top-ranking musicians, Herbert Bayer is
Aspen's most world-famous resident."lo During his years in Aspen, he resided at times at
234 W. Francis, a Victorian home in the West End, in an apartment in a downtown
commercial building, 50 I E. Cooper Avenue, and in his home on Red Mountain. Bayer
moved to Santa Barbara for health reasons in 1975 and died there ten years later, the last
surviving Bauhaus master.
Notable among Bayer's many achievements include his credits in
typography. He designed the "universal" type font in 1925 and was
credited with "liberating typography and design in advertising and
creating the very look of advertising we take for granted today."ll Much
of modem print design reflects his ideas. He was the inventor of
photomontage. Bayer created the "World Geo-Graphic Atlas" in 1953,
which was described as one of the most beautiful books ever printed in
this country by the Atlantic Monthly and the greatest" world atlas ever Poster. 1946
made in the United States by Publisher's Weekly.
Bayer created the famed "Great Ideas of Western Man" advertisement series for
the Container Corporation of America and had more than 50 one-man exhibitions of his
artistic works. His paintings are represented in the collections of at least 40 museums.
He spent six decades of his life working as a painter, photographer, typographer,
architect, sculptor, designer of graphics, exhibitions, and landscapes. His last work was
the 85 foot tall, yellow articulated wall sculpture at the Denver Design Center, which can
be viewed from 1-25, near Broadway in Denver.
Bayer founded the International Design Conference in Aspen in 1950 and was
named a Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies in 1953. He was the Chair
of the City and County Zoning Committee for five years and was very concerned with the
issues of sprawl. Bayer promoted increased density in town, put the original tree
protection ordinance in place, and helped institute the ban on billboards.
ARCHITECTS OF NOTE
Charles Paterson was born Karl Schanzer in Austria in 1929. His mother died in
his youth, and his father fled Austria, taking Charles and his sister when Hitler invaded in
1938. They trayeled first to Czechoslovakia and then to France. Once there it was
decided that the only way to get the two children out of Europe entirely was to allow
to Robert L. Perkin, "Aspen Reborn: Herbert Bayer Changing the Town's Face," The Rockv Mountain
News September 27,1955.
II Joanne Ditmer, "Schlosser Gallery Host to Major Bayer Show/Sale," The Denver Post Oetober I, 1997,
p. lOG.
them to be adopted by a family in Australia, whom Mr. Schanzer knew through business
connections. Relocated to that country in 1940, the children took on the family's name;
Paterson. Their father fought in the war and was eventually reunited with his children in
New York City, after they immigrated.
In New York City, Charles "Charlie" Paterson started engineering school, but he
had an interest in skiing and was disappointed with the conditions in the area. He moved
west in 1949, stopping in Denver. There, he worked for the Denyer and Rio Grande
Railroad and skied on weekends. On one ski trip, Paterson met someone who had been to
Aspen, and decided to hitchhike there a week later. After finding a job as a bellhop at the
Hotel Jerome, he decided to stay.
Within a month of his arrival in Aspen, Charlie Paterson bought three lots on
West Hopkins Avenue, shortly followed by another three that comprised a full half a
block between Fifth and Sixth Streets. There he built a one-room cabin in 1949 out of
leftover lumber.
Paterson returned to New York from 1950-1951 to continue his studies, then
moved back to Aspen and began expanding the cabin. In 1952, he leased a Victorian
house that had been operating under the name "Holiday House," and his father came to
town to help out. This experience got Paterson interested in running his own lodge, and
led to more construction on the Hopkins Avenue property. In 1956, he added three units
and opened the Boomerang. Convinced by Fritz Benedict to study architecture, Paterson
left again to spend three years at Taliesen East in Wisconsin, under Frank Lloyd Wright's
instruction, during which time he drew some of the plans for the Boomerang Lodge as it
is known today.
The lodge's lounge, 12 more rooms, and a pool were added in 1960. The noted
underwater window, which allows guests in the lounge to look into the pool, was featured
in Life Magazine in the 1960's. In 1965 and 1970 other expansions took place on the
property.
Although Paterson has designed relatively
few buildings, among them his own business,
structures at the Christiania Lodge, and a residence
in Basalt, the Boomerang is his master work,
exhibiting strong influences of Wrightian
architecture. Paterson designed, helped to build,
and financed the structure, and is still its host and
manager today. It has been described as
" . I I" d" I t fu . . ,,12
... tIme ess, age ess an ...a mos turlStIC.
Boomerang Lodge
Other contributions to local organizations
made by Paterson include being a member of the
t2 Scott Dial, "The Boomerang Lodge: The Lodge That Charlie Built, and Built, and Built," Destination
Mal!azine.
Board of the Music Associates of Aspen for 20 years, Chairman of the Aspen Hall of
Fame for 2 years and of the Aspen Board of Adjustment for 20 years and counting. He
has also served on the Aspen Chamber Resort Association Board of Directors. Paterson
worked for the Aspen Skiing Company as an instructor from 1952 to 1969.
Eleanor "Ellie" Brickham graduated from the University of Colorado's School
of Architecture. Construction was a family business, so Brickham's motivation to be a
designer began as a child. She moved to Aspen in 1951, attracted by the skiing, but once
there, found herselfthe only female architect in town.
Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict's office and collaborated
on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in the work going on at the Aspen
Institute. During her time in that office, and later p..
with her own firm, she designed a number of I[~
residences and commercial structures in town, ...--<"
including houses for several Music Festival artists
in Aspen Grove, the Strandberg Residence (1973,
433 W. Bleeker Street), and the Patricia Moore
Building (1969, 610 E. Hyman Avenue.) Within
Pitkin County, Brickham designed numerous
homes in Starwood, on Red Mountain, and in
Pitkin Green. Her works total at least 50
buildings in the Aspen area. 433 W. Bleeker Street, 1973
Brickham's designs have been characterized by spare, simple forms and detailing,
and she has an interest in passive solar techniques. Still practicing today, Brickham's
projects focus on an "impeccable sense of proportion and feeling oflightness."IJ
Victor Lundy designed a second home for
his family in Aspen, which they have occupied at
300 Lake Avenue since 1972. Like Benedict,
Lundy is a Fellow in the American Institute of
Architects. He received his degree in architecture
from Harvard, studying with former Bauhaus
director Walter Gropius and Bauhaus master Marcel
Breuer and was later awarded two prestigious
traveling scholarships by the Boston Society of
Architects and Harvard University.
300 Lake Avenue. 1972
Lundy has been in practice, most recently in Texas, since 1951 and has designed
many notable government, commercial, office, and educational buildings throughout the
world. He has received a Federal Design Achievement award, the highest honor in
design given by the National Endowment for the Arts.
13 Bill Rollins, "Brickham: Simplieity, Lightness, and a Sense of Proportion," The Aspen Times.
Robin Molnv (b.1928- Cleveland, d. 1997- Aspen) apprenticed at Taliesen in the
1950's. In Aspen, he served on the Planning and Zoning Commission and was the
designer of Aspen's downtown pedestrian malls. He also designed several notable
commercial buildings, including the Hearthstone House (1967, 134 E. Hyman Avenue)
and the 720 E. Hyman Avenue building (1976) along with area residences.
Well known architect Harry Weese also
contributed a building to Aspen in the Given Institute
(1973, 100 E. Francis Street). Weese, of Harry Weese
and Associates, Chicago, was an internationally known
architect responsible for a number of significant projects
throughout the United States, including major historic
preservation projects in the Chicago area, and the design
of the Washington, D.C. subway system. A graduate of
MIT, he studied with famed architect Eliel Saarinen at
Cranbrook Academy in Michigan, and then joined 100 E. Francis Street. 1973
Skidmore, Owing, and Merrill for a short time. In 1947 he opened his own office.
Weese was recruited by the Paepcke's, who donated the land where the Given is located,
to design the building.
Eligibility Considerations
There are specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to
reflect the significance of the historic context. Aspen's examples of modernist buildings
should exhibit the following distinctive characteristics if influenced by Wrightian design
principles:
. Low horizontal proportions, flat roofs or low pitched hip roofs.
. Deep roof overhangs create broad shadow lines across the fas;ade. Glazing is usually
concentrated in these areas.
. Horizontal emphasis on the composition of the wall planes accentuates the floating
effect ofthe roofform.
. Materials are usually natural and hand worked; such as rough sawn wood timbers and
brick. Brick is generally used as a base material, wall infill or in an anchoring
fireplace element. Wood structural systems tend more toward heavy timber or post
and beam than typical stud framing.
. Structural members and construction methods are usually expressed in the building.
For example; load-bearing columns may be expressed inside and out, the wall plane is
then created by an infill of glass or brick.
. Roof structure is often expressed below the roof sheathing
. Glass is used as an infill material which expresses a void or a structural system; or it is
used to accentuate the surface of a wall through pattern or repetition.
. There is typically no trim which isolates the glazing from the wall plane. Window
openings are trimmed out to match adjacent structural members in a wood context.
Brick openings tend to be deeply set with no trim other than the brick return.
. Structures are related to the environment through battered foundation walls,
cantilevered floors and/or porches, clear areas of glazing which create visual
connections to the outside and the inside, and the effect of the roof plane hovering
over the ground.
. Decoration comes out of the detailing of the primary materials and the construction
techniques. No applied decorative elements are used.
. Color is usually related to the natural colors of materials for the majority of the
structure; natural brick, dark stained wood, and white stucco. Accent colors are used
minimally, and to accentuate the horizontal lines of the structure.
Aspen's examples of modernist buildings should exhibit the following distinctive
characteristics if influenced by Bauhaus or International Style design principles:
. Simple geometric forms, both in plan and elevation
. Flat roofs, usually single story, otherwise proportions are long and low, horizontal
lines are emphasized.
. Asymmetrical arrangement of elements.
. Windows are treated as slots in the wall surface, either vertically or horizontally.
Window divisions were made based on the expression of the overall idea of the
building.
. Detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects. No
decoratiye elements are used.
. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate
itselffrom style and sentimentality.
. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized. The "hand" is removed from
the visual outcome of construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at
window jambs, grade, and at the roof edge.
. Entry is generally marked by a void in the wall, a cantilever screen element, or other
architectural clue that directs the person into the composition.
. Buildings are connected to nature through the use of courtyards, wall elements that
extend into the landscape, and areas of glazing that allow a visual connection to the
natural environment. This style relies on the contrast between the machine made
structure and the natural landscape to heighten the experience of both elements.
. Schemes are monochromatic, using neutral colors, generally grays. Secondary color
is used to reinforce a formal idea. In this case color, or lack there of, is significant to
the reading of the architectural idea.
Although modernism has likely changed the course of architecture forever, it is
possible to set a date when the style in its purest form began to wane: around the mid
1960's nationally, and into the early 1970's in Aspen. At this point, there was a growing
unease with some ways the Modem Movement had reshaped cities and resulted in
"towers and slab blocks,,14 followed by a move away from the design principals that had
guided the mid-century. The period of historic significance for buildings of this style in
14 Kostof, p. 743.
Aspen, a term used to define the time span during which the style gained architectural,
historical, or geographical importance, is 1945 until approximately 1975.
Aspen has been fortunate to have drawn the talents of the great minds in many
professional fields since the end of World War n. The architects described above had
made important contributions to Aspen's built environment that continue to influence its
character today. While there are numerous towns in Colorado that have retained some of
the character of their 19th century mining heritage, few or none are also enriched by such
an excellent collection of modernist buildings as exist here.
Bibliography
Chanzit, Gwen F.
Gallerv/Paepcke
December 2000.
"Herbert Bayer and Aspen," Exhibition Notes. Adelson
Building. Aspen Institute, Aspen. Colorado. December 1999-
Cohen, Arthur Allen. Herbert Bayer- Limited Edition: The Complete Works. MIT Press,
1984.
Dial, Scott. "The Boomerang Lodge: The Lodge that Charlie Built, and Built, and Built,"
Destination Magazine.
Ditmer, Joanne. "Schlosser Gallery Host to Major Bayer Show/Sale." The Denver Post.
October 1,1997.
Dunlop, Beth. "Bauhaus' Influence Exceeds Its Life," The Denver Post April 20, 1986.
Dusenbury, Adele. "When the Architect Arrived After the War," The Aspen Times July
31,1975.
Frankeberger, Robert and James Garrison. "From Rustic Romanticism to Modernism,
and Beyond: Architectural Resources in the National Parks," Forum Journal, The
Journal ofthe National Trust for Historic Preservation Summer 2002.
"Fritz Benedict." Retrieved from http://www.vailsoft.com/museum/index.html. the
Colorado Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame website.
"Fritz Benedict Honored by Peer Group of Architects." The Aspen Times June 20, 1985.
Fritz Benedict Memorial Service Program, July 25, 1995.
"Harry (Mohr) Weese." Retrieved from www.artnet.com.
Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. "Bendict's House in the Hill," The Aspen Times March II,
1982.
Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. Dedication plaque on "The Benedict Suite," Little Nell Hotel,
Aspen, Colorado.
Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. "Fritz Benedict, 1914-1995, The Passing ofa Local Legend,"
The Aspen Times July 15 and 16, 1995.
Kostof, Spiro. A Historv of Architecture: Settings and Rituals. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1985.
Laverty, Rob. "50 Years of Benedict: A Forefather of Modem Aspen Looks At What Has
Been Wrought," High Countrv Real Estate, Aspen Daily News February 6-12, 1999.
"Noted Designer Herbert Bayer Dies." The Aspen Times October 3, 1985.
Perkin, Robert 1. "Aspen Reborn: Herbert Bayer Changing the Town's Face," Rocky
Mountain News September 27, 1955.
Rollins, Bill. "Brickham: Simplicity, Lightness, and a Sense of Proportion," The Aspen
Times December 22, 1977.
"Transitions: Robin Molny Changed Aspen- and Made His Friends Laugh," Aspen
Times, January 10-11, 1998.
Urquhart, Janet. "Histo:-l Richochets Through the Boomerang," The Aspen Times
November 161h and 17',1996.
Yl\t::>
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner
Chris Bendon, Director Community Development ~
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
June 5, 2007
MEETING DATE:
June 11,2007
RE:
Second Reading of Ordinance No, 26, Series 2007
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: A six month extension of the 2nd moratorium, due to expire
on June 12th.
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, established a temporary
moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the Commercial Core Zone District,
and was adopted on December 12, 2006. This moratorium is due to expire on June 12,
2007, and is informally known as Moratorium No.2. (The first moratorium on all land
use applications is set to expire on June 22nd.)
Under Moratorium No.2, staff has worked with a consulting team on potential code
amendments with regard to the historic designation of interior elements, and with regard
to the possible regulation of the mix of commercial uses.
DISCUSSION: Although significant progress has been made, due to the focus necessary
under Moratorium No. I, there was not sufficient time for the current Mayor and Council
to consider potential code amendments related to Moratorium No.2. Also, the new
Mayor and Council are scheduled to take office on June II th and sufficient time and a
delayed expiration date should be provided to allow for a reasoned discussion of the
issues involved.
In addition to requesting an extension, staff has found that Moratorium No.2 may be
resulting in unforeseen impacts that are contrary to the original spirit and intent of the
moratorium. Staff may pose an amendment for Council's consideration during second
reading. This additional amendment would allow for the expansion of existing uses into
adjacent commercial spaces that have been vacated since December 12, 2006.
Staff is proposing this ordinance be adopted as an "emergency" ordinance so that it will
become effective immediately upon passage (as opposed to a 30-day delay period). In
this way, there will not be a "gap" between expiration of the current moratorium and the
effect of the extension. Adoption of an emergency ordinance does not require a public
hearing, although staff will place this item on the public hearing portion the June 11 th
agenda.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council extend Moratorium No.
2 by six months to December 12, 2007.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not want to approve staffs recommendation,
Moratorium No. 2 will expire almost simultaneously with the swearing in of the new
Mayor and Council. If the Council extends Moratorium No.2, there will be time for staff
to meet with the new Mayor and Council to obtain direction regarding the issues
identified in Moratorium No.2.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I moye to approve Ordinance No. 26, Series of2007."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ORDINANCE NO. 26
(Series of 2007)
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 51, SERIES OF 2006, AND AS
AMEDED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO.2, SERIES OF 2007.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City") is a legally and regularly created,
established, organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article
XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the
"Charter"); and
WHEREAS, Section 4.11 of the Charter authorizes the City Council to enact
emergency ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety upon
the unanimous vote of City Council members present or upon a vote of four (4) Council
members; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits
in accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq. of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its
Home Rule Constitutional authority and the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling
Act of 1974, as amended, 9929-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen enacted a temporary
moratorium pursuant to Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to
Ordinance Number 2, Series of2007; and,
WHEREAS, Section 7 of Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, allows for the
termination date of the moratorium to be extended by City Council through the adoption of
an ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reaffirms the reasons for implementing the
moratorium, specifically that recent land use applications seeking Development Orders in
various City Zone Districts do not appear to be consistent with the goals and vision as
expressed by the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan and are having the following negative
effects upon the community:
. Recent development activity indicates potential negative impacts on the
preservation of the unique historic character of certain structures, including
their interiors and current uses;
. Recent development activity indicates potential negative impacts on the
aesthetic beauty of the City of Aspen, its historic and community character
and the unique character of the uses of buildings and structures within the
commercial core of the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department
require an additional period of time in which to review all existing land use codes and
Ordinance No. 26,
Series 2007
Page I
regulations as they affect land use development in certain Zone Districts within the City of
Aspen to ensure that all land use development proceeds in a manner that is consistent with
the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department
require an additional period of time in which to conduct a thorough analysis and assessment
of the Land Use Code and regulations affecting the development ofIand within certain Zone
Districts of the City of Aspen with particular attention to the preservation of historic interior
elements, and with particular attention to a diverse, healthy and vibrant mix of commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department
require an additional period of time in which to investigate methods and procedures to
insure the preservation of historic interior elements, and to insure a diverse, healthy and
vibrant mix of commercial uses; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to declare an
emergency for the preservation of public property, health, peace, and safety with the
extension of the termination date of a moratorium; and,
WHEREAS, an extension of the moratorium termination date will enable a
reasoned discussion of the desired character and rate of development and redevelopment and
consideration of amendments to the Land Use Code without creating a rush of deyelopment
applications and the related impacts upon the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1- Extension of Moratorium Termination Date:
The termination date of the temporary moratorium enacted through the adoption of
Ordinance Number 51, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 2, Series
of2007, is hereby extended to terminate on December 12, 2007.
Section 2 - Chanees to Moratorium:
Ordinance Number 51, Series of2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 2, Series
of 2007, shall continue in its full force and effect and nothing in this Ordinance shall be
construed to alter the substantive content of Ordinances 51 and 2, except as follows:
. The termination date shall be extended as described in Section I, above.
Section 3 - Emereencv Declaration
It is hereby declared that, in the opinion of the City Council, an emergency exists; there is a
need for the immediate preservation of the health, safety, peace, and welfare of the City of
Aspen, its residents, and guests; and, this temporary moratorium provides the time necessary
to prepare a review of all current land use and building code regulations and for the City
Ordinance No. 26,
Series 2007
Page 2
Council and staff of the City of Aspen to consider amendments, if any are required, to the
Land Use Code or Building Code of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 4 - Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage.
Section 5 - Publication,
The City Clerk is directed that publication of this ordinance shall be made as soon as
practical and no later than ten (10) days following final passage.
Section 6:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by yirtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 7:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held inyalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the yalidity of
the remaining portions thereof.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 8:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the II th day of June, 2007, at a meeting
of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED AND READ as provided by law as an emergency Ordinance by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 29th day of May, 2007.
ATTEST:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Ordinance No. 26,
Series 2007
Page 3
MEMORANDUM
X\ a
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Tyler A. Christoff, Project Manager, Engineering.
THRU:
Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager
Tricia Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: June 5, 2007
MEETING DATE:
June 11, 2007
RE:
Rio Grande Recycle Center and Skate Park Expansion Proj,ectid:9' d-
design Contract Approval att4 S~.p/et<Au.-1tJ.i FV-.ult d' b .,e,
SUMMARY:
Aspen's Recycle Center has served our community well for many years. The site provides a
central location which encourages community recycling and showcases Aspen's commitment to
environmental excellence. Various parties have expressed interest in developing a recycle center
that is ascetically pleasing, easy to maintain, safe, clean, and able to provide access to all
residents. The design of the Recycle Center will accommodate plans for a future expansion of
the existing skateboard park. This accommodation will ensure that minimal disturbance to the
park occurs during construction
DISCUSSION:
The Recycle Center design will maximize the existing space of the current center and showcase
the use of green materials; all with out interfering with future development in the Rio Grande
Park. Using creative landscaping and earthwork the new design will allow us to better screen the
site from the park and near by residences. This design will also provide for better access,
maintenance and improved traffic safety in the area. Our hope is that the new center will
continue to grow the already successful recycling program and provide a landmark for Aspen's
commitment to environmental stewardship.
Staff has received a comprehensive design estimate from WRC Engineering, Inc WRC has
proposed $50,100.00 for the conceptual and final designs associated with this project.
Additionally WRC has contracted Durmett Design to provide landscape design for the project.
This team will provide an innovative design that will further enhance Rio Grande Park.
BACKGROUND:
WRC has been inyolved in various City stormwater improvement projects. These projects
include phases I and II of the Rio Grande stormwater plan as well as the stormwater treatment
vault located in the current Recycle Center. WRC Engineering, Inc has experience in the City
with stormwater improvements and has performed well in previous contracts. The sub consultant
Dunnett Design has been involved with the Rio Grande Park master plan as well as various other
Parks projects. Dunnett has performed well in these previous contracts. Staff thinks that it is in
the City's best interests to award the final design contract to this vendor.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council passed Ordinance No. 18 (series of2003) on April 14, 2003 granting Land Use approval
and a Development Order for the Obermeyer Place COWOP project. Section 13 of Ordinance
No. 18: Recycling Center, identifies funds, provided by the Project Developer, for the purpose of
various permanent improvements including the recycle center. (See Attachment D: Ordinance
No. 18 and Amendment #2)
Council approved Resolution No. 19 (Series 2006) on April I 0, 2006 to begin the COWOP
process and set the Rio Grande location as the location for the redeveloped recycle center.
Council also gave the task force direction on location and cost at a work session April 17, 2006.
Council determined that the Rio Grande location is the most appropriate location for the recycle
center, and directed staff and the COWOP task force team to continue with design plans and to
not consider alternative locations. Council also directed staff and the COWOP task force to
pursue a state of the art design for the recycle center that would be a showcase of environmental
excellence in building, with an accompanying cost structure.
Council passed Ordinance No. _22_, Series of2006 on June 26, 2006 approving design
recommendations provided by the COWOP task force team.
Ordinance No, 22, Series of2006 was voted down in the November 2006 election.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
A supplemental funding request was approved for $49,000.00. An additional supplemental will
be submitted to cover project management and the remaining design costs not covered in the
initial request.
Funding Requested
Design
Project Management
$50,100.00
$10,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $60,100.00
Approved Supplemental Request
Additional Supplemental Funding (to be requested)
TOTAL FUNDING
$49,000.00
$11,100.00
$60,100.00
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Recycle Center - The aim ofthe redevelopment of the
Recycle Center is to enhance the aesthetics and usability of the site. Design plans include a
desire to pave the site and proyide ramps. Although the site will continue to be outside and
subject to the weather, paving will help alleviate some of the issues associated with inclement
weather - i.e. it will be easier to plow and remove snow, and large puddles and mud will be less
of an obstacle for users of the site. Providing ramps will allow persons with disabilities to now
make use of the site. Redevelopment also incorporates space for an additional recycle bin for
grass and leayes, thus expanding the number of services offered at the site, Increasing the
usability and services offered at the Recycle Center, made possible by the redevelopment, should
lead to more overall use, thus increasing the environmental benefits that come from recycling.
Redevelopment plans also include an educational narrative component ~ this will help educate
the public and hopefully encourage them to recycle more. (Although design plans are not yet
final, they will be efforts made to incorporate environmentally friendly or recycled content
building materials.)
Design plans also contain provisions to capture and provide primary treatment of stormwater
before it gets to the river, thus reducing the suspended solids entering the Roaring Fork River.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approves the contract for WRC
Engineering Inc as mentioned above.
ALTERNATIVES: If the project is not approved the City would continue to work with Pitkin
county to maintain the area to provide the best service to the community on this site.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No.!i-JL, Series of2007."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
A - WRC Engineering Inc Proposal for Rio Grande Recycle Center and Skate Park Expansion
RESOLUTION #46
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND WRC ENGINEERING SETTING FORTH THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING RIO GRANDE SKATE PARK
EXPANSION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and WRC Engineering, a copy of which
contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and WRC Engineering regarding Rio
Grande Recycle Center and Skate Park Expansion, a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the
City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held June 11,2007
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Attachment A
WRC Engineering Inc Proposal for Rio Grande Recycle Center and Skate Park Expansion
Redevelopment
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and WRC Engineering, Inc, ("Professional").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional
manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt
of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as
expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work
in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be
completed no later than 9/1/2007. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's
approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as
required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by
the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities
having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for
reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay
Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work
performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "A" appended
hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional
shall not initially exceed $50,100.00 . Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work
performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the
City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for
personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written
consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the
responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely
responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers,
agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee
of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to payor be
liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor.
5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement,
without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party,
specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of
the termination. Upon any termination, all fInished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys,
drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional
-
PS2-971.doc
Pagel
pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above,
Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by
virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any
payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the City from the Professional may be determined.
6. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has
not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the
Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company
or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or
any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract.
7. Indevendent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood
by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing
an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor
who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent,
employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or
servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner
and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits
provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance
and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of
Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of
Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this
contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and
shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions
imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with
respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services
agreed to herein.
8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims,
and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising
from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other
loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if
such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or
in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the
Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or
agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any
workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any
subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to
provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense ofthe Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the
defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
-
PS2-971.doc
Page 2
its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable
to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at
its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims,
demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such
insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by
law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations
assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by
reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All
coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other
obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-
made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to
maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workmen's Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract,
and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOU-
SAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified
self-insured status maybe substituted for the Workmen's Compensation requirements of this
paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single
limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and
operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage
(including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and
employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed
operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,00-
0.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles
assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a
severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the
requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing
services to the City under this contract.
-
PS2-971.doc
Page 3
(iv)
DOLLARS
aggregate.
Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION
($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000)
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's
officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insur-
ance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided
through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that
provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall
contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The
Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the
Professi,onal's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, condi-
tions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the
City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certifi-
cate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall
not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice
has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract
upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or
renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums
in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon
demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00
per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided
by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to
time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of
the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the
CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of
Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business
hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by
CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or
participation in CIRSA.
-
PS2-97l.doc
Page 4
y
II. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement
contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no
verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaimng to the project matter
thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing.
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to
the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt
requested, to:
City:
City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Professional:
Alan J. Leak, P.E.
WRC Engineering, Inc
950 S. Cherry Street, Suite 404
Denver, Colorado 80246
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex,
marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry,
handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this
contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-
98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof
shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term,
covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City,
and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of
any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and,
until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be
entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such
forbearance or indulgence.
15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all
parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
16.
General T errns.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions,
conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or
limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof
-
PS2-971.doc
Page 5
and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing
signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as
from time to time in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on
the date hereinafter written.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
-
PS2-971.doc
Page 6
ATTESTED BY:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
By:
Title:
Date:
PROFESSIONAL:
-J:b
'7n If- Ifl rYl. .' U!jd'
By:
WlZ <:. ~U\'I\('e,..;":::J .' iM .
~t \.Ukj)
CYY\:;"~;~~9 ,I CEo
S -1 -~t>o7
WITNESSED BY:
Title:
Date:
-
PS2-971.doc
Page 7
EXHmIT "A" to Professional Services Agreement
WRC Engineering, Inc Proposal File: P-1459R
(To be completed prior to execution of Agreement)
-
PS2-971.doe
Page 8
~
w~c ~NGIN~~~ING, I~'
April 27, 2007
Mr. Tyler Christoff
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
WRC File: P-1459R
RE: Proposal for Design of the City of Aspen
Redeveloped Recycle Center
Dear Mr. Christoff:
WRC Engineering is pleased to submit this proposal for design of the City of Aspen's Redeveloped
Recycle Center. Our understanding is that the City desires to redevelop and replace the existing recycle center with
a formalized and ADA accessible Recycle Center. Our understanding of the tasks involved in preparation of this
design is based upon our discussions with you and Mr. Scott Chism, our familiarity with the site, and our previous
design work in and around the site. As pan of this contract Dunnett Design Group (DD) will provide landscape
architecture and schelIllltic design services in accordance with our discussions. Issues which will be addressed
as part of our and DD's scope-of-services include:
Site safety related to access, snow and ice, freeze/thaw, drainage, and ADA requirements and
guidelines.
Site maintenance related to access, snow storage and removal, debris collection, and life cycle costs.
Aesthetics related to debris containment and visual screening consistent with the overall Rio Grande
Park aesthetics and functions.
Site drainage including the proposed skate park expansion.
Replacement hatches for the Rio Grande sedimentation basin.
Skate Park landscaping and adjacent grading.
Based upon this understanding, we propose the following scope-of-services.
1. Project Coordination Meeting.
WRC and our landscape architect will meet with the City initially to review the recycle center concept
plan, obtain input on the project components and finalize project expectations and necessary design
requirements. WRC will also present a refresher on the proposed Rio Grande Park Water Quality
Improvements. We will also discuss how to integrate the recycle center storm water components and the
proposed skate park expansion into the proposed Rio Grande Park Water Quality Improvements. WRC
will also conduct a field review of the site and the existing hatches to the Rio Grande sedimentation basin.
WRC will also review any information available at the City for the existing batch and vault design. This
task also includes Task 1.0 of DD's proposal (attached).
2. Geotechnical Investigation.
WRC's geotechnical sub-consultant will conduct a field investigation including three exploratory borings
and laboratory tests to classify the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for facilities and
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
950 SOUTH CHERRY STREET' SUITE 404' DENVER, COLORADO 80246. (303) 757.8513' FAX (303) 758-3208. wrce@wrceng.com
Mr. Tyler Christoff
City of Aspen
WRC File: P-1459
April 27, 2007
Page 2
pavement design.
3. Scltematic Design
WRC will refine the City's current schematic design of the Recycle Center and provide said refined
schematic design as well as a schematic landscape plan to the City for review and comment. As part of
the schematic design phase, WRC will provide a schematic design and cost analysis of fixed vs. modular
ramp systems for access to the recycle center containers. This task also includes Task 2.0 of DD's
proposal.
4. Hatch Design
WRC will design a replacement hatch and supporting concrete and steel improvements (as needed) in
accordance with loading requirements as determined with the City. For this design, WRC assumes that
the as-constructed improvements did not meet an HS-20 design load requirement.
5. Drainage Design
WRC will revise the current Rio Grande Water Quality Facilities Design to include only that portion of
work from existing Manhole STMH7 or STMH 8, including outfall to an existing pond. WRC estimates
the amount of work to be approximately equal for either option. This work will also include any
additional design required for temporary or permanent outfall to the existing ponds.
6. Draft Final Design.
WRC will prepare a draft final design of the recycle center redevelopment which will include the
following:
Demolition Elements
Site Layoui and Control
Pavement Design
Stormwater Facilities (including skate park expansion drainage)
R<;cycle Facilities Access
Landscaping Including Plantings and Irrigation.
Electrical and Lighting Facilities
WRC will produce draft construction drawings and specifications for the recycle center redevelopment
and the storm water improvements necessary for the skate park expansion. WRC will also prepare
construction specifications, bid documents, and contract documents (to be supplied by the City). This
work also i~c1udes Task 3.0 ofDD's proposal.
7, Final Design ReviewlRevision
WRC will meet with the City to review and receive conunents on the draft final design documents. WRC
will revise said plans and documents and produce a final set of plans and construction documents for
project bidding.
Mr. Tyler Christoff
City of Aspen
WRC File: P-1459
April 27, 2007
Page 3
8. City Council Presentation
WRC will present the draft Final Design Plan for the City Council for public review and comment prior
to finalizing the plans and construction documents.
9. Construction AdministrationlManagement
WRC will work with the City staff to determine the level of construction administration/management the
City desires for construction of portions or all of this proposed project. This task is only for general
coordination prior to bidding and construction and includes Task 5.0 ofDD's proposal.
WRC's estimated fees to perform the above stated scope-of-services are as follows:
TASK ESTIMATED FEE
1. Project Coordination Meeting $2.800
2. Geotechnical Investigation $3,500
3. Schematic Design $20,000
4. Hatch Design $3,700
5. Drainage Design $2,600
6. Draft Final Design $12,500
7. Final Design ReviewlRevision $2,300
8. City Council Presentation $1,500
9. Construction AdministrationlManagement $1,200
Tasks 1 .9 Total Estimated Fee $50,100
We propose to provide services for Work Tasks I - 9 fora not-to--exceed fee of$50, 100. This fee includes
Tasks 1.0,2.0,3.0, and 5.0 ofDD's proposal (attached). We anticipate the time needed to complete Tasks I - 9
to be six weeks.
WRC invoices for our services on a monthly basis. Payment for said services is expected within 15 days
of receipt of invoice. Your signature below signifies your acceptanee of this proposal and our Notice to Proceed.
If this proposal is acceptable, please sign both copies and return one copy to WRC for our files.
Mr. Tyler Christoff
City of Aspen
WRC File: P-1459
April 27, 2007
Page 4
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. We hope this proposal meets your needs and
desires. If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
WRC ENGINEERING, INC.
. "v1 ./1 /l
'-- C(?" / /U
Alan J. LeMe, P.E.
President
Signature
Title
Date
ajVell
attachment
Scope of Work
Landscape Architectural Professional Services
Rio Grande Park Recycle Center and Skate Park Expansion
April 26, 2007
Prepared For: Mr. Alan Leak, WRC Engineering, Inc.
Prepared By: Dunnett Design Group, Inc. (DD)
The following Scope of Work ouUines landscape professional services for schematic design and construetion documents
for the abovementioned project. DD understands the projeet area to include street frontage along Rio Grande Place Rd.
from the existing recycle entry to the east to the edge of the skate park to the west beunded by the existing Rio Grande
trail to the east and north.
1.0 Start...p, B_ Mapping and Data Collection
DD will verify survey and project information as provided by WRC and confirm accuracy of existing site elements, including
vegetation, pavement, storm water, property lines, infrastructure etc... DD will photograph the site, prepare base mapping,
and coordinate w/ WRC to obtain any additional base information if neeessary. DD will meet w/ Aspen Parks Planning
staff and WRC to discuss project history.
Meetings! Coordination
Coordination, site visits and base map drawing! organization
subtotal
Hours
16
16
Products
Existing condition photographs
Base map formatting for site design
Time included above
Time included above
Title
Principal
Staff LA
Rate
$100
$70
Hours
8
8
Subtotal
$800
$560
$1,360
2.0 Schematic Design
DD will modify the site layout as based on additional input as received by the City of Aspen. The existing schematic design
options as designed by the Aspen parks' and engineering staff will serve as the template for the overail site design. DD will
address the program elements! topics as outlined below, coordinate w/ WRC in the development of the schematic plans
and details and provide schematic hand drawn! scaled plans and details for WRC. DD understands that WRC will be
responsible for the production and finai design of all construction documents! speeifications except for the final planting
plan- to be completed by DO. The schematic plans and details are to be used as a template for design and aesthetics
only, and are not Intended to be used for final construction.
Program Elements
1. .Site pedestrian circulation and accessible criteria
2. Interpretive area locations! design and schematic drawings (not including graphic! panel design)
3. Wall, railing, and accessible ramps (movable options) for beth recycle area and the skate park expansion area
4. Locations and design of secondary recycling element spaces- batteries, plastic bags, telephone beoks and organic!
landscape waste- DO will need to coordinate w/ City and County agencies to determine appropriate container sizes and
types. DO assumes that City and County agencies will be responsible for the selection and ordering of all containers! bins
for recycling.
5. Schematic planting plan and plant schedule (DO assumes landscape and irrigation to be installed by City)
6. Determine alternative locations for existing storm water monitoring stations
7. DO will provide a schematic design concept for the expanded skate area including perimeter walls, pavement area and
access stairways! railings for non-skate elements. DO understands that the skate eonsultant will be responsible for all
design and drawings of all skate elements within the expanded skate area. DO will coordinate directly with the skate
consultant in determining locations of the skate elements.
Meetings! Coordination
Project coordination- City and county agencies, WRC, skate consultant
Project meetings! presentations (4) @ 2 hours eaeh (additional time may be necessary for publie mtQs.)
subtotal
Hours
32
8
40
Products
Rendered schematie plan for council presentation
Revised design and schematic plan of recycle & skate expansion areas- including revised grading wi spot
grades (1) sheet
Schematic planting design- not inCluding planting detail sheet (1) sheet
Design and schematic details (hand drawn) - DD assumes up to 25 details (includes coordination. time wi
WRC)
Schematic desian concepts and detalls of interpretive area elements (does not include design of graphics)
subtotal
16
32
24
80
24
176
Titie
Principai
Staff LA
Rate
~igo
Hours
96
120
216
Subtotal
$9:600
$8 400
$18,000
3.0 Construction Documents
DD will provide a landscape pianting sheet to be included in the construction document package as prepared by WRC.
Meetings! Coordination
Proiect coordination
(4) Meetings with WRC! City of Aspen @ 1.5 hours
subtotal
6
6
12
Products! Final eonstruction documents
Planting plan (AutoCAD)
subtotai
8
8
Title
Principal
Staff LA
Rate
$100
$70
Hours
6
14
20
Subtotal
$800
$980
$1,580
5.0 Construction Admlnlstndlon and ConstRiction Observation Services
DD will bill any time in regard to construction administration and construction observation on an "as needed" hourly basis
at the request of the City of Aspen. This time will be billed hourly at the rates listed above. The time listed beiow is for
general eoordination with the City and WRC.
Meetings! eoordination
Prlliecl coordination
(2) Meetings with WRC & the City @ 1 hour
subtotal
4
2
6
Titie
Principal
Staff LA
Rate
$100
$70
Hours
6
o
6
Subtotal
$600
$0
$600
Grand Total $21,540
MEMORANDUM
~\\a...
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Jessica Garrow, Planner dMbi
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director eirM
DATE OF MEMO: June 5, 2007
FROM:
THRU:
MEETING DATE: June 11,2007 (Continued from May 29, 2007)
RE:
First Reading Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD (1000 Matchless
Drive) - Conceptual PUD - Ordinance No. 25 , Series 2007 - (Parcel 2737-
074-11-800) Public Hearinl!: - June 25. 2007
ApPLICANT fOWNER:
Aspen Land Fund II, LLC
PHOTO OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, ofVann Associates.
LOCATION:
1000 Matchless Drive, Commonly known as the
Smuggler Racquet Club. The property is legally
described as SE Y. of Section 7, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, Tract A Aspen Township Addition.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Not zoned in the City; used as a Racquet Club
with a structure used as a residence. Zoned R-15
in County
PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING:
I. Affordable Housing, AHIPUD;
2. Recreation Club, RR.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends Approval of the Conceptual
PUD. Staff would like to know if Council
would like to schedule a site visit.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION:
The P&Z recommended approval of the
Conceptual PUD.
Photo of racquet club portion to be
redeveloped
Page I of9
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Aspen Land Fund (ALF) is requesting Council approve a Conceptual
PUD for the creation of affordable housing on the Smuggler Racquet Club site and for the
redevelopment of the tennis club. The proposed affordable housing is part of the mitigation for the
Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Any approval of this Affordable Housing proposal should be linked to the
Lodge project approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council continued First Reading to June 11 th, 2007 for
the new Council to hear. Second Reading remains scheduled for June 25th, 2007.
BACKGROUND: The Applicant, Aspen Land Fund LLC, has requested the approvals necessary to
subdivide the existing Smuggler Racquet Club site, to redevelop the existing Smuggler Racquet Club
in its current location, and to develop an AH-PUD on the upper portion of the lot (the portion closest to
Park Circle). The affordable housing proposal will help fulfill the Applicant's required mitigation for
the Lodge at Aspen Mountain.
The proposal deals with a parcel that is not zoned in the City. It was annexed into the City in the
1950s with the Hughes Addition, but the parcel never received zoning. Because of this, it has been
assumed until recently that this lot is located in Pitkin County. The parcel is zoned R-15 in the county,
and includes the Smuggler Racquet Club and a small cabin that is currently used as a residence. This
cabin was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission at their January 10, 2007 meeting at
which time the Commission recommended the cabin be designated. The minutes from that meeting are
attached as Exhibit G. A more detailed discussion of the cabin is contained in the "Discussion" section
below.
DISCUSSION: This Staff memo outlines all Land Use Approvals that will be required. At this time,
the Applicant is only requesting approyal of a Conceptual PUD. All other land use requests and
requirements will be addressed with the Final PUD. Staff and the Applicant will outline all required
reviews in more detail at Second Reading than is presented here. The memo refers to Lot I and Lot 2.
In attached Exhibit E, Lot 1 is outlined in green and Lot 2 is outlined in pink.
LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to redevelop the
site:
. Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment
of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the
final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Additionally, the Applicant will be requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD
consideration (These reviews will be concurrent with Final PUD Review.):
. Final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the
Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final
reyiew authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission);
. Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot 1 for the
Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet
Page 2 of9
Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Rezoning to AH/PUD on Lot 1 and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion
of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and
Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to
26.470.050 Al (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned
as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority);
. Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Residential Design Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
PROJECT AND SITE SUMMARY:
The Applicant proposes subdividing the property into two parcels: Lot 1 and Lot 2. Lot I would be
developed as 100% Affordable Housing, and Lot 2 would be redeyeloped as a Racquet Club and
would include one (I) Affordable Housing unit as well as indoor courts. Lot 1 would be rezoned to
AH/PUD, while Lot 2 would be rezoned to Rural Residential (RR) with a PUD overlay. The
dimensional tables below outline the existing lot's dimensions, requirements for the proposed
underlying zoning, as well as the dimensions the Applicant proposes on the site. Attached as Exhibit
D is a proposed site plan - the portion outlined in green is referred to here as Lot 1, and the portion to
be redeveloped as tennis courts (Lot 2) is outlined in pink.
The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of
the lot. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned
by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for Smuggler).
Page 3 of9
Proposed Units
28 units comprised of:
I Studio unit (the existing cabin)
13 I-bedroom units at 500 sq. ft.
8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft.
6 3-bedroom units at 1,500 s . ft.
Maximum allowable density
(determined by fathering parcel)
500 sq. ft. for I-bedroom
units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2-
bedroom units; 1,500 sq. ft.
for 3-bedroom units
Determined through PUD
In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant
proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part
ofthe Final PUD approval.
Table 3: Proposals for Lot 2 (redevelopment of Racquet Club)
Page 4 of9
Proposed Program
5 outdoor racquetball courts
2 indoor racquetball courts
I Affordable Housing unit
External floor area ratio
16,283 sq. ft.
None listed for non-
residential uses on a lot.
Residential Uses are the same
as R-15:
Lot size greater than 50,000
sq. ft.: for a Single Family
Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of
floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq, ft, in lot area;
for a Duplex or Two
Detached Dwellings, 7,020
sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq.
ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot
area
Page 5 of9
The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property
(outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for
twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district.
The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because of the zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is
currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff
recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this
issue to be fully resolved at the time of Final PUD approval.
PROPOSED ZONING:
The Applicant has proposed Affordable Housing PUD(AH/PUD) and Rural Residential (RR) zoning
for the two (2) proposed lots. Staff is currently determining if these are the most appropriate zoning
classifications for the proposed uses. This is a topic that will be discussed in detail at the Final PUD
review. Exhibit F outlines the existing zoning on surrounding parcels.
LOT 1 SITE DESIGN:
The Applicant has worked with Staff to refine the proposed site plan. The Applicant made some
changes to the modulation of the Affordable Housing units in response to Staff comments. Staff
requested the Applicant enlarge windows located on the side elevations of the three (3) buildings.
This is a detail that can be finalized during the Final PUD approval. Staff previously expressed a
concern regarding the relation of the new buildings to the historic cabin. The Planning and Zoning
Commission discussed the location of the cabin at their March 6th meeting, and requested the applicant
examine its location in order to create a more flexible site design. Based on the discussions with Staff
and the HPC, the Applicant has proposed a revised site plan that maintains the cabin's existing
location. Rather than framing the cabin's location by surrounding it with structures, the Applicant has
proposed using landscaping to help create a more prominent location for the cabin. This provides an
opportunity for a tot lot, or some other form of landscaped amenity for the development. Staff has
requested a detailed landscaping plan be submitted as part of the Final PUD application to ensure the
cabin is appropriately framed. Staff is supportive of this direction and recommends approval of the
proposed site plan.
Staff has also expressed concerns related to the paved entrances to the different Affordable Housing
buildings, stating that the walkways could be consolidated. Staff maintains its concern with these
paths, but agrees with the Applicant that this is an issue that can be addressed as part of the detailed
landscaping plan submitted with the Final PUD application.
Access to Lot 1 is an issue that will be further addressed in the Final PUD. Because of mine shafts
located on proposed Lot I, the exact access point off of Park Circle had no been determined. The
Applicant will conduct further studies of the site and work with the Engineering Department and the
Community Development Engineer to determine the most appropriate access point. Further, the
location of a future bus stop along Park Circle will be addressed as part of the Final PUD Applciation.
LOT 2 SITE DESIGN:
As with Lot I, Staff would like to see the mass on Lot 2 broken up. Staff is concerned with the mass
on Lot 2 and recommends it be broken up. Staff believes the original design (see pages 27 - 34 in the
original application packet, Exhibit D) is more suited for this scale of development and that with the
new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actual is or that is can be given its use. While
the development on Lot 1 should fit in with the architectural vernacular of the surrounding area, the
racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting the use and required size
of the building. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed support for the proposed design seen
Page 6 of9
in Exhibit E. Further, the Applicant has stated that the original design is much more expensive than
the proposed design. While Staff is sympathetic to these concerns, Staff maintains the position that the
building should be differentiated from its surroundings through the use of different materials and a
different style. Staff would like some direction from Council regarding this design and material use.
HISTORIC CABIN ON LOT 1:
In January, the Historic Preservation Commission approved designation of a cabin located on Lot 1,
adjacent to Park Circle. The designation will be finalized with Final PUD approvals. The HPC
required the cabin remain in its current location. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt leaving
the cabin in its existing location hindered the site plan and requested Staff to return to HPC and ask if
they would be willing to reconsider their decision to prohibit the movement of the cabin. Based on this
direction, Staff asked if the HPC would be willing to reconsider their recommendation against moving
the cabin. The HPC indicated they would be willing to re-examine the cabin's location if a proposed
site plan met the HPC Design Guidelines. The minutes from this meeting are provided as Exhibit H.
The Applicant decided to move forward with the existing cabin location in the Conceptual PUD, but
has submitted an application to the HPC requesting the cabin be moved 20 to 30 feet from its existing
location to make room for a park area. This hearing is scheduled for June 13lh, 2007. Should the HPC
grant the request, the Applicant will address the changes at Second Reading on June 25th, 2007. If the
Cabin remains in its existing location, it will be addressed as outlined in the "Lot I Site Design"
section above.
PARKING:
The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns about the original parking proposed, stating
that there were too few spaces being provided. The original application proyided thirty-eight (38)
spaces (one space per unit) when fifty-eight (58) spaces (one space per bedroom) is the code
requirement because the site is outside the Infill area. Staff expressed support for the thirty-eight (38)
spaces because of the proximity to the bus line.
The Applicant examined the parking provided on site based on comments received from the Planning
and Zoning Commission and has provided fifty (50) parking spaces. Seven (7) of these spaces are
"double loading," and therefore count as one (1) space toward the on-site parking requirement. The
amount of parking provided on-site that meets the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of the
Land Use Code (26.515) is equal to forty-four (44) spaces. The Applicant also made some changes to
the housing mix on-site, which has reduced the parking requirement to one (1) space per bedroom
(rather than 2 spaces per unit). Therefore, the parking requirement is as follows:
I Studio Unit = 1 Space
13 I-Bedroom Units = 13 Spaces
8 2-Bedroom Units = 16 Spaces
6 3-Bedroom Units = 12 Spaces
Total = 42 Spaces
The parking will be formally established via Special Review at the time of Final PUD approval. A
condition of approval has been included that requires a minimum of forty-four (44) spaces be provided
for the Affordable Housing Units on Lot I. Staff finds that the proposed parking provides the
appropriate number of spaces for the development. The double-stall spaces can accommodate two (2)
vehicles, but only count as one (I) space according to the Land Use Code. All parking spaces are
proposed to be assigned to individual units. This will be determined as part of the Special Review.
Page 70f9
The Applicant has proposed the double-stall spaces be assigned to the two-bedroom or three-bedroom
units in order to achieve the highest functionality.
The parking on Lot 2 (the Racquet Club) will include thirty-eight (38) spaces to serve the affordable
housing unit and the club members. This parking area is located off of Matchless Drive, and will
include a landscape buffer. A detailed landscaping plan will be provided as part of the Final PUD
Application.
CITY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS:
The Development Review Committee has reviewed this conceptual PUD, as has the Housing Office.
These comments are attached as Exhibits B and C respectively. Conditions of approval based on these
comments will be in the Final PUD Resolution and Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Enyironmental Health Department has reviewed this
application as part of the Development Review Committee. These comments have been attached in
Exhibit B. The Environmental Health Department has determined that the most significant air quality
impact from this project results from vehicle emissions. They calculate that the development will
generate 241 additional trips per day, for a total of 34 pounds of PM-IO per day. The Environmental
Health Department states in comments attached in Exhibit B that payment of the City's Air Quality
Impact Fee at the time of building permit will mitigate these impacts. The Applicant, however, is not
subject to these fees as they were instituted after the Application was submitted.
Further, the Environmental Health Department has recommended a connection to existing RFT A stops
as a way to encourage use of altematiye transportation options. This option was also raised by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. This is an issue that requires further consultation with the Parking
and Streets Department as well as RFT A, and will be better addressed as part of the Final PUD
approvals. Section II of the attached Ordinance requires that a bus stop be considered and addressed
as part of the Final PUD Application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the application receive Conceptual PUD approyal.
Staff feels the parking changes made to the plan address concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and that the design changes to Lot I address Staff concerns. Staff is also supportive of
addressing the framing of the cabin and the consolidation and landscaping internal sidewalks as part of
the detailed landscaping plan in the Final PUD Application.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. _, Series of 2007, approving the
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD."
CIT"MANAGERCO'tMENTS'_ ~~~ ~~
~:!o~ ~t ~th-f ( . 7-l t?' .~.. l01
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B - DRC Comments
EXHIBIT C - Housing Office Comments
EXHIBIT D - Application dated July 18, 2006 (bound)
EXHIBIT E - Revised Application dated March 22, 2007 (bound)
EXHIBIT F - Map of Surrounding Zoning
Page 8 of9
EXHIBIT G - January 10, 2007 HPC Minutes - Cabin Designation
EXHIBIT H - March 13, 2007 HPC Minutes - Request to Hear Cabin Relocation
EXHIBIT I - Planning and Zoning Commission Memo dated March 6, 2007
EXHIBIT J - Planning and Zoning Commission Memo dated April 3, 2007
EXHIBIT K - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 23, Series 2006
EXHIBIT L - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, March 6, 2007
EXHIBIT M - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, April 3, 2007
Page 9 of9
)
ORDINANCE NO. 25
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS THE SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD
AT 1000 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02204
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of
a Conceptual PUD Development for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club
and the development of affordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 202,717 sq. ft., is zoned as R-
15 in the County, but does not haye existing zoning in the City; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Conceptual PUD, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed
public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the
Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3rd, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 32, Series of 2006, by a five to zero (5-
0) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the
Smuggler Racquet Club; and,
WHEREAS, on May 29'\ 2007 the Aspen City Council continued First Reading to
June 11m, 2007; and
WHEREAS, on June 11m, 2007 the Aspen City Council approyed Ordinance No.
25, Series 2007, on First Reading by a _ to _ L---.J vote, approving with conditions a
Conceptual PUD for the Smuggler Racquet Club Site located at 1000 Matchless Drive,
City of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 25m, 2007, the Aspen
City Council approved Ordinance No. 25, Series 2007, by a _ to _ L---.J vote,
approving with conditions a Conceptual PUD for the Smuggler Racquet Club Site located
at 1000 Matchless Drive, City of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Deyelopment Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
Page I of6
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a Conceptual PUD for the
development of affordable housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club
at 1000 Matchless Driye, City of Aspen, subject to the Conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Final PUD Application
The Final Application shall include a detailed Landscaping Plan showing the location of
proposed trees and other landscaping improvements, and a preliminary Construction
Management Plan for reyiew. The Applicant shall also work with the Engineering
Department and the Community Development Engineer to determine the best access off
of Park Circle. This location shall be reflected in plans submitted with the Final PUD
Application.
Section 3: Historic Preservation
The City Council shall consider historic designation of the cabin located on the upper
bench near Park Circle, pursuant to HPC Resolution I, Series 2007, concurrently with
their consideration of the Final PUD approval. The cabin is subject to regulations in
Section 26.415 of the Land Use Code.
Section 4: Landscapinl!
Prior to the removal of any trees, the Applicant shall receive a tree removal permit from
the Parks Department. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of
each indiyidual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the
location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation,
storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or
vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must
be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction
activities are to commence
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements.
The Applicant shall work with the Parks Department to select specific species to be
planted on-site.
As part of the Final PUD approval, the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department
to determine the appropriate location of street trees along Park Circle. This requires
adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW
(amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longeyity ofthe
new plantings). The parkway strip shall be a minimum of a 5-foot strip.
Page 2 of6
Section 5: Fire Mitieation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to
accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System.
Section 6: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with title
25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory
Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
Each building shall have its own water connection with individual metering for each unit
and for each common use.
An 8-inch looped connection from the existing water line on Matchless Dr. to the existing
line on Park Circle to serve the property is required. Hydrants will be required along this
connection in accordance with the recommended placement of the Fire Marshall and in
accordance with spacing requirements contained in the Aspen Water System standards.
A single connection per building with individual metering for each unit and for each
common use is required.
Surface water flows across the site will need special attention. Including but not limited
to adjudicated irrigation rights, mine runoff and storm runoff. This shall be addressed in
the Final PUD application.
Section 7: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. ACSD will reyiew the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary
sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system.
One tap is permitted for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are
prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval
by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be
dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint.
Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the
existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line
Page 3 of6
extension request and collection system agreement are required. Easements for main
sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be
dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language.
Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
Section 8: Mine Drainaee
Prior to submittal of a Final PUD Application, the Applicant shall investigate the
potential for increases of flow from stored mine drainage. This shall include the potential
for substantial increases of flow from stored mine drainage in the Molly
Gibson/Smuggler/Cowenhoven Tunnel system. Documentation shall be provided as part
of the Final PUD Application.
The size of the easement area for mine drainage and any underground collection or pipe
conveyance of the mine drainage shall consider the historic quantity of discharge and the
anticipated flows.
Details of the current and anticipated condition of the mineshaft shall be provided with
the Final PUD Application.
Section 9: Smueeler Mine Remediation
The Applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the
handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to
any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All
soils on the Fathering Parcel shall be considered contaminated unless determined
otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If,
pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following
requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are
discovered, the following requirements shall apply:
I) All contaminated soils that are remoyed from the site shall be transported to
the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any
disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain
on site shall be securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or
other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to
prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to
prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt.
2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots I and 2 of the
South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen
Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and
will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the
former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994
prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property.
Page 4 of6
3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation
prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building
permits for the properties.
Section 10: Affordable HODsin!!:
Affordable housing is proyided on this site as part of the mitigation requirements for the
Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Twenty-eight (28) units shall be provided for the Lodge at
Aspen Mountain mitigation on Lot 1. One (1) Affordable Housing unit shall be provided
as part ofthe Smuggler Racquet Club redevelopment on Lot 2.
Affordable Housing units on Lot 1 shall be "for sale" and sold through the lottery system
by APCHA. The Affordable Housing unit on Lot 2 shall be "rental." Deed restriction for
all units shall be recorded at the time of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
The twenty-eight (28) units will be broken into one (I) studio unit, thirteen (13) one-
bedroom units, eight (8) two-bedroom units, and six (6) three-bedroom units. The
categories shall be determined in cooperation with APCHA.
Section 11: Parkin!!: and Transit
The Final PUD Application shall designate areas for snow storage in all parking areas,
and shall indicate the location of an access easement from Park Circle to Lot 1. To the
extent the access easement providing access to Lot 1 from Park Circle eliminates
Smuggler Trail Head parking, the Final PUD Application shall address how overflow
parking from the Smuggler hiking trail will be accommodated. The Final PUD
Application shall address the potential for a bus stop along Park Circle near the entrance
to the proposed development.
The number of parking spaces shall be established by Special Review at Final PUD
approval, and at a minimum shall include thirty-eight (38) parking spaces for the Racquet
Club parcel on Lot 2 and forty-four (44) spaces for the Affordable Housing units on Lot
I.
Section 12:
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 Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 13:
Ibis ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 14:
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
Page 5 of6
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section IS:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of June, 2007, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of June, 2007.
Helen Kalin KIanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 25th day of June, 2007.
Helen Kalin KIanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Smuggler Raequet Club\Council\First Reading\Ordinance6.11_Smugglerfrrst
reading. doc
Page 6 of6
EXHIBIT A - CONCEPTUAL PUD
Pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.445.100, All development proposed within a PUD,
tmless eligible for minor review or determined eligible for a consolidated review, shall be
reviewed for Conceptual approval by the Commission and Council and then reviewed for
Final approval by the Commission and Council. At the Conceptual level, the Planning
and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Cotmcil.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
The development meets a number of AACP goals, including development occurring
within the Urban Growth Botmdary, the development of a significant number of
affordable housing units within the city, the proximity to existing transit routes, and
the promotion of recreational facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
The proposed redevelopment of the racquet club is consistent with the existing club
on the site. The proposed affordable housing is consistent with the adjacent
properties, which include a number of affordable and free-market multi-family
residential projects. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area,
The parcel currently has some development on site. The property is within the
boundaries of the former Smuggler Superfund site. The parcel has gone through
remediation and will follow the adopted Institutional Controls. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
4, The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Growth Management Review will occur with the Final PUD review.
B, Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26,445.040,
above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
The Applicant has proposed zoning the parcel to Rural Residential (RR) for the Racquet
Club redevelopment, and AH/PUD for the affordable housing deyelopment. Staff finds
that these proposed zone districts are appropriate at this time, and match the existing
character of uses on the site and in the area.
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page I
], The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area,
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
The site is included in the former Smuggler Superfund site. The Applicant
will abide by all Institutional Controls in place, and has deyeloped a site plan
based on known hazards on-site. This will be refined in the Final PUD
application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
The parcel is proposed to be subdivided based on existing topographical
features. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources,
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
No open space is currently proposed on-site. Staffrecommends the Applicant look at
ways to consolidate internal building access points to help create more opportunities
for open space. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
The Applicant will provide parking for each affordable housing unit. The
parking will need to go through a Special Review at Final PUD. Staff finds
this criterion to be met,
b, The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed.
No joint parking is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development,
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 2
The site is located along a bus route and will have access to RFT A. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city,
The site is located along a bus route and will have access to RFT A. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
4, The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced
The Applicant is not proposing the maximum density be reduced. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
The Applicant is not proposing the maximum density be reduced. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists
a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns
and with the site's physical constraints.
The Applicant is not proposing the maximum density be increased. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Proposed Lot 1 includes a historic cabin that is believed to have been an Assayer's
Office associated with the Smuggler Mine. The Applicant has received approval
from HPC to designate the structure - this will be finalized as part of the Final PUD.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2, Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 3
The parcel is not large enough to enable the preservation of large tracts of land while
accommodating the proposed land uses. Smaller areas of open space are provided on
each proposed Lot. In addition the lots are in close proximity to other areas of public
space, including Molly Gibson Park, and the Smuggler trail area. Staff finds this
criterion to not be applicable.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban
or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement
of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
The Applicant has revised the site plan to ensure the affordable housing units address
the street, as is required in the Residential design Standards. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
All proposed access points include appropriate emergency vehicle access. A snow
removal plan will be addressed as part of the Final PUD. Staff finds this criterion to
not be applicable.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
The racquet club complies with all ADA requirements. The affordable housing units
will have appropriate pedestrian access to Park A yenue; this will be addressed as part
of an easement in the Final PUD application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6, Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
The Water Department has evaluated the potential runoff and drainage on site. The
site has a number of special considerations due to its mining history. New pipes may
be required on site. The Applicant will address these concerns with the Water
Department in the Final pun application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
The racquet club redevelopment will allow for appropriate programmatic functions.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposedfeatures of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with
the following:
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 4
The Applicant provided a draft landscaping plan as part of the original Conceptual
application. An updated version will be provided as part of the Final PUD Application.
1, The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will
ensure landscaping is consistent with adjacent land.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner,
The cabin located on proposed Lot I will be designated at part of the Final PUD.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3, The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate,
The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will
ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed.
E, Architectural Character.
1. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety,
character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City
while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's
use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public
spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may
significantly represent the character of the proposed development, There shall
be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character
plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development.
The Architectural Character will be addressed at Final PUD. The Applicant has made
improvements to the architecture and site layout since the original application. The
affordable housing units appropriately address the street, and include street-oriented
entrances. Staff will evaluate the design as part of the Final PUD, but find that it is
moving in the right direction since the original application.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 5
The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. A more detailed plan
will be provided as part of the Final PUD.
G, Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria
shall be met:
There are no common spaces proposed as part of this application.
/, The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of
the property, provides visual relief to the property's builtform, and is available
to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. . A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial,
or industrial development,
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustijiedfinancial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with thefollowing:
/. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and
determined there is adequate service for this development. This will be addressed in
greater detail at Final PUD.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated
by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
At this time no adverse impacts are anticipated. This will be addressed in greater
detail at Final PUD.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
This criterion will be addressed at Final PUD when a finalized site plan and
associated materials are ayailable for City Departments to review.
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 6
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
I. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian
way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
The redevelopment of the racquet club will use the same access as is currently
enjoyed by the club. Staff finds this criterion to be met for this portion of the
application.
The affordable housing units do not have direct access to Park A venue. An easement
agreement will need to be worked out with the City during Final PUD reyiew.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement
do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed
development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to
accommodate the development,
The redevelopment of the racquet club will use the same access as is currently
enjoyed by the club. Staff finds this criterion to be met for this portion of the
application.
The affordable housing units do not have direct access to Park A venue. An easement
agreement will need to be worked out with the City during Final PUD review.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public
trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
The proposed development will not result in any changes to the existing Trail
easements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
The proposed development is along a corridor with existing RFT A service. As part
of the Final PUD a more developed transportation plan with be established, with the
possibility of a new RFT A bus stop adjacent to the affordable housing units. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 7
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
Access to the affordable housing units will be achieved through an access easement
over city owned property. This is an issue that will be addressed at the Final PUD.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for
lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
The streets within the PUD are not gated and do not include any entryway
expressions. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adoptedfinal PUD development plan.
This will be dealt with at Final PUD. Staff finds this criterion does not apply at
Conceptual.
Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria
Page 8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Reyiew Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dey. Engineer
Date: September 13, 2006
Re: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD and Affordable Housing
Deyelopment
The Development Review Committee (DRe) has been asked to review the
proposed Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD and construction of
affordable housing units along Park Circle at the September 13, 2006 meeting.
The DRC has compiled the following comments:
Attendees; Alex Eyonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Jessica Garrow, City Planner; Aaron
Reed, Engineering; Phil Oyereynder, Public Works; Todd Grange, City Zoning;
Denis Murray, City Building; Ed VanWalraven, AFPD; Stephen Ellsperman, City
Parks; John Sarpa, Centurion Partners, LLC; Sunny Vann, Vann Assoc.; K. Weil,
Poss Architecture.
Building Department - Denis Murray;
. Two exists are required from the lower tennis courts.
. All exits from the racquet club need to be sized for the structures being
used for assembly.
. The project will be subject to review based on the current IBC.
. Efficient building review will be applied to the structures on the project.
. Based on the plans included the AHU's seem appropriate.
. Curb and gutter review needs further review when more details are
available.
Fire Protection District - Ed Van Walraven;
. Sprinklers for life safety are required.
. Alarm systems need to be included in the project.
Engineering Department - Aaron Reed;
. There have been significant neighbor issues in the project area. A big
effort will need to be undertaken to keep the public informed during the
review and construction phases of any project in this area.
Parks - Steye Ellsperman;
. Landscape plan is very important for consistency with the surroundings.
Vegetation lists are available from the Parks Office.
. Erosion control measures need to be best management practices.
Page I of8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
. Tree Removal: An approved tree permit is required for any future tree
removals. An approyed tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan
identifying trees for removal and means and schedule for mitigation.
Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5120. The tree
permit must be approved prior to an approved demo permit.
. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the
drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A
formal plan indicatina the location of the tree protection will be reauired
for the blda permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of
construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed
within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be
inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any
construction activities are to commence
. Landscapina and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public
right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements.
. Parks would like to assist in species selection, possible
recommendations: Ash, Maples, Fruitless Crabapples or Box Elders.
. Plantstreettrees14' to 15' centers.
. This requires adequate irrigation pressure and coverage,
improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current
soils to improve air, water filtration and increase 10ngeYity of the
new plantings).
. The parkway strip should be a minimum of a 5-foot strip.
. Surface water flows across the site will need special attention.
Including but not limited to adjudicated irrigation rights, mine runoff
and storm runoff.
. It appears from the plans that plantings are to close to the
proposed structures.
. Overflow parking from the Smuggler hiking trail lot is currently an
issue and needs to be addressed adjacent to this project.
Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz;
. The normal requirements for permit application will be required.
. Excavation shoring will likely be necessary to protect adjacent structures
and landscaping and utilities.
. Details of the current and anticipated condition of the mineshalt need to
be provided. This would be preferred before the time of building permits
application if possible.
. The project site is large enough that consideration to providing onsite
detention is preferred verses wet well development.
. Preferred access to the AHU portion of the project would be directly
across from Nicholas Lane.
Aspen Consolidated Waste District- Tom Bracewell;
. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations,
and specifications, which are on file at the District office.
Page 2 of8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
. ACSD will reyiew the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected
to the sanitary sewer system.
. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
. Old service lines must be excayated and abandoned at the main sanitary
sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements.
. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
· One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may
be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of
ways. Landscaping plans will require approyal by ACSD where soft and
hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be
dedicated to the district.
· All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg
in our office can deyelop an estimate for this project once detailed plans
haye been made available to the district.
. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed
the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system
and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed
to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity
constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time
from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the
improvements needed.
. Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new
development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires
modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system
agreement are required. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items.
. Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for construction
costs, engineering fees, construction observation fees, and fees to clean
and teleyise the new main sewer line extension into the project.
. The Applicant will be required to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the
anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit.
. Easements for main sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future
ownership and maintenance shall be dedicated and conveyed to the
district using standard district form and language.
. Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer
system. The glycol storage areas must have approyed containment
facilities.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and
requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available.
Housing OffIce - No Attendance
Parking - No Attendance
Asset Management - No Attendance
Zoning - Todd Grange;
Page 3 of8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
. Please confirm that the storage units for the AHU's are sized correctly.
. Need to confirm that no food service will be provided at the racquet club
facility.
. Whether or not FAR calc's apply for the indoor tennis courts needs to be
researched.
Environmental Health - Jannette Murison;
· AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal
Code 13.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity
possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and
techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the
city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek
to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be
met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds
and reducing pollutants".
. The land use code states that the density of a PUD may be reduced if the
proposed development will have a pernicious [negative] effect on air
quality in the surrounding area and the City.
. The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic
generated by this project. Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip
Generation Rates, this deyelopment will generate 241 additional trips per
day, and 34 pounds of PM- 10 per day.
Thus the size of this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air
quality if significant mitigation measure were not Implemented.
. To ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air
quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the Environmental
Health Department recommends that the following PM-l 0 mitigation
measures be implemented:
. Pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee (if in place by building
permit submittal).
. Other recommended measures include:
Provide off-site car storage to account for the additional spaces (if required by
City Council),
. Sell the units with only one parking space per unit,
. Add sidewalk along property to connect to RFTA bus stop,
. Active participation in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP) by
the Homeowner's Association, and
. Proyide covered and secure bike storage.
. An alternatiye for mitigation is that the applicant:
Contribute to RFTA for additional buses and service (cash in lieu).
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use
submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the
following comments and reminders:
. ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or
commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the
state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos
inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign
any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the
Page 4 of8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos
remoyal contractor must remove it.
o ENGINE IDLING: The applicant is reminded for the construction phase of
the project that per municipal code section 13.08.110 it is unlawful for any
person to idle or permit the idling of the motor of any stationary motor
vehicle for a prolonged or unreasonable period of time determined
herein to be five (5) minutes or more within anyone (1) hour period of
time.
o FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a
fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the
building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two
gas log fireplaces or two certified wood stoves (or 1 of each) and
unlimited numbers of decorotiye gas fireplace appliances per building.
New homes may NOT haye wood burning fireplaces, nor may any
heating device use coal as fuel.
o FUGITIVE DUST: Any deyelopment must implement adequate dust control
measures.
o A fugitiye dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion
control plan. A fugitive dust control plan may include, but is not limited to
fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of
adjacent payed roads to remoye mud that has been carried out, speed
limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing
the property line or causing a nuisance.
A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. Air Quality Control Division if this project will last
greater than 6 months.
o NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-01 'The city council finds and declares
that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents
a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health,
safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors.
Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well
being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and
aesthetic well-being of the community. "
o During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level
standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of
7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction Is not allowed on
Sundays.
o It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this
project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The
applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the
predicted high noise levels.
A construction noise suppression plan must be submitted to the City of Aspen
Environmental Health Department if the construction of this project will create noise
greater than 80 decibels,
o TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash
storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recYclina
containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are
Page 5 of 8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
located due to the City of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance,
Chapter 12.06.
The applicant is advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance recycling
services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during
construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for
recycling during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include
the following recyclable material: Cardboard, Co-mingled (plastic bottles,
aluminum, steel cans and glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper.
. A total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is
recommended for recycling facilities.
. One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" (5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co-mingled,
office paper, newspaper = 15sq. ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use a
toter = 5sq. ft and at most need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (3"x4").
Can have required space reduced in a review if can prove use of a
cardboard shelf = Osq.ft
· FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of
Colorado requires a reyiew of plans and specifications by this
Department. The Department shall be consulted before preparation of
plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must
be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease
trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the
applicant should contact this Department to be it is in compliance
. The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and
specifications is required before the building permit is approved. A
minimum of two weeks is necessary for the Enyironmental Health
Department to review and approve plans. Also, final approval from this
Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance
of a Colorado Food Service License.
The applicant's floor plans indicate a kitchen, A business plan and menu must
be submitted to the Aspen Environmental Health Department prior to the Building
Permit Submittal to determine if their food service meets the licensing
requirements of the State.
Public Works / Water / Electric - Phil Overeynder;
. The process for provision of water service differs substantially between
areas that are within the City corporate boundaries and outside the City
limits. I previously understood that the subject property was in the County
and wished to receive City water service through an extra-territorial
water service agreement. This understanding was based on the City
zoning maps, which showed the property in the County. It is also
supported by a "Contract for Water Service" executed in July, 1966,
proYiding for extension of water service to the Tennis Club as a user
outside of the City of Aspen. The application includes evidence that
requests a determination by the City that the property was annexed in
1950. If this position is accepted, water service can be accommodated
without a water service agreement. If it is determined that the property
was not previously annexed, a water service agreement [enacted
Page 6 of8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
through an ordinance in compliance with the Aspen City Charter) will be
required before extension of water service to the proposed
development. Alternately, the property could go through the annexation
process. In either of the latter cases, different conditions and costs for
connection to the water system would apply in the event that the
property is not currently annexed to the City.
. Jay Hammond's letter (Exhibit 2 of the application) correctly states the
requirements for the water line extension to provide potable water
service to the property. In summary an 8-inch looped connection from
the existing line on Matchless Dr. to the existing line on Park Circle would
be required to serve the property is required. Hydrants would be required
along this connection in accordance with the recommended placement
of the Fire Marshall and in accordance with spacing requirements
contained in the Aspen Water System standards.
. The water service requirements for the indiyidual proposed buildings is
also correctly stated in Exhibit 2. In summary, a single connection per
building with individual metering required for each unit and for each
common use (mechanical room, etc.) would satisfy Aspen Water
Department standards.
Irrigation Water
. The Aspen Water Department owns the rights to the Anthony Well and
would like to pursue the option of providing untreated water for irrigation
of the proposed common landscaped area with this water. The existing
well, located on an adjoining parcel, is presently in the process of being
abandoned, but Aspen will retain the water rights. If the developer
selects this option, it is anticipated that a new well would be drilled at the
owner's expense and Aspen would lease the water rights under a raw
water lease agreement under terms available to raw water system users.
Reduced tap fees as well as reduced monthly operating costs may make
this option economically attractive relative to irrigation with potable
water.
streets
. Designated areas for snow storage need to be delineated for each of
the proposed parking areas. No remoyal of snow into the public right of
way will be permitted.
Mine Drainage Concerns
. Page 5 of the application states that additional investigations will be
conducted regarding the impact of sub-surface mine workings on the
proposed development. These investigations should include the potential
for substantial increases of flow from stored mine drainage in the Molly
Gibson/Smuggler/Cowenhoven Tunnel system. Mine water may (now or
in the future) be building up in storage at higher elevations as a result
of developing blockages at historic drainage points and stored water
could be discharged instantaneously and under pressure through the
Molly Gibson Mine Shaft on the property.
Page 7 of8
Exhibit B,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
. The adequacy of sizing of the easement area and any underground
collection or pipe conveyance of the mine drainage should consider not
only the historic quantity of discharge, but the maximum anticipated
flow from the mine
Page80f8
Exhibit C,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptial PUD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jessica Garrow
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager - Housing
DATE:
October 4, 2006
RE:
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD
Parcel ID No. 2737-074-11-800
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval for the development of a deed-restricted affordable
housing project and a new tennis facility on the Smuggler Racquet Club property.
BACKGROUND: The proposed deyelopment is a 100% deed-restricted affordable housing project
that will be constructed on an essentially vacant portion of the project site and the current Smuggler
Racquet Club will be demolished and replaced with a new clubhouse and courts and an upgraded
tennis facility. The affordable housing units are to be used as partial mitigation for the applicant's
proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge project that is adjacent to South Aspen Street near the base of
Aspen Mountain.
The applicant is proposing to rezone Lot I to AH/PUD. This zone district allows for a free-market
component, but the applicant is proposing no such component. The lot will contain six separate
two-story structures containing a total of 32 employee-housing units. Four of the structures will
each contain four I-bedroom units and two 2-bedroom units. The remaining structures will each
contain four 3-bedroom units. The resulting employee housing unit mix will be as follows:
16
8
8
I-bedrooms
2-bedrooms
3-bedrooms
725 net livable square feet
1,053 net livable square feet
1,166 net livable square feet
The minimum square footages establishing categories is stated below:
Unit Tvoe
Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Single-Family Detached
Categories 1 & 2
Square Feet
400
600
850
1,000
1,100
Categories 3 & 4
Square Feet
500
700
950
1,200
1,400
Categories 5 & 6
Square Feet
600
800
1,000
1,300
1,700
Category 7
Square Feet
700
900
1,100
1,400
1,900
Page I of3
Exhibit C,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptial PUD
The units will be condominiumized and sold to qualified purchasers. The applicant states that the
categories will be determined in cooperation with APCHA as part of the conceptual PUD review
process. Staff would recommend the following:
One-Bedrooms
Two-Bedrooms
Three-Bedrooms
10 at Category 2
4 at Category 3
2 at Category 2
6 at Category 3
4 at Category 4
2 at Category 3
4 at Category 4
Although the three-bedrooms are 34 square feet smaller than the minimum square footage allowed
as stated in the Guidelines, due to the location of the project and the additional storage, the units can
be 20% less than the minimum requirements. Staff would still recommend most of the units as
Category 3 and Category 4. Each unit will contain a kitchen, ample closet space, a washer and
dryer, an outdoor deck or on-grade patio, and an external storage area. Parking for the employee
housing units will be proyided in an internal surface parking lot. A total of 38 spaces are being
proposed which equates to one space per unit. The requirement is 56 spaces, or one space per
bedroom. A variation will be requested in the number of required parking spaces.
Lot 2 will contain a new clubhouse, reconfigured tennis courts (with two of the courts located in an
enclosed structure). The new structure will contain a new office, locker rooms, multi-purpose,
living and storage rooms, a small workout area and laundry facility, and a two-bedroom employee-
housing unit for a on-site manager. The Racquet Club is a non-profit entity that is not subject to
growth management. As stated in the Pre-Application Conference Summary, the proposal requires
a growth management review for the development of the employee housing. The applicant is
proposing to zone Lot 2 as Rural Residential for the proposed tennis court parcel. This specific unit
will be approximately 1,152 square feet of net livable area and deed-restricted to Category 4 income
and occupancy guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board approved the application with the recommended
categories as stated above and with the following conditions; however, during final plat approval,
the Board would be willing to readdress the categories if so requested by the applicant:
1. At least one parking space should be allocated and reserved for each unit.
2. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior
to Certificate of Occupancy, along with the Manager's rental unit on Lot 2.
3. APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit located on Lot 2
such that 1/10th of I percent of that specific unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or the applicant may propose any other means
that the Housing Authority determines acceptable.
Page 2 of3
Exhibit C,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptial PUD
4. All units located on Lot 1 shall be sold through the lottery system by APCHA.
5. This project of 32 units will mitigate for a total of 70 FTE's, broken down as follows, for
the partial mitigation requirement for the development of the Aspen Mountain Lodge
proj ecl:
16 One-Bedrooms
8 Two-Bedrooms
8 Three-Bedrooms
10 X 1.75 employees = 28 FTE's
8 X 2.25 employees = 18 FTE's
8 X 3 employees = 24 FTE's
Page 3 of3
i;)
~ Smuggler Parcel
- 8040 Greenline
- roads
Aspen Zoning
Other Zone Districts
DISTRICT
_ AH PUD
_ R/MF PUD
_ RIMFAPUD
_ R-15 PUD N
- R-6PUD A
_R-6
_R-3
Exn''oi\- q
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Michael Hoffman and Sarah
Broughton. Excused was Alison Agley.
Staff present:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Nov. 15th minutes; second by Brian. All
in favor, motion carried 4-0.
Certificate of no negative effect issued for mechanical - Aspen Mtn. Lodge,
1000 Matchless Dr. ( Smuggler Racquet Club) Landmark Designation,
Relocation, Minor Development, Public Hearing
Proof of publication - Exhibit I
John Sarpa, Centurion Partners
Bill Poss, Poss Architects
Sara stated that the applicant is proposing to redevelop a portion of the
Smuggle Racquet Club property into affordable housing. The cabin is a
small gabled roof cabin and it sits along Park Circle. Staff has looked at the
size and location and it is identical to the historic photographs. The
applicant proposes to designate the cabin and relocate it 25 feet to the west
into the center of a newly created lot with generous setbacks. There will be
a generous grassy area around the cabin. Staff believes that the cabin is part
of the Smuggler mine which was listed on the National Register in 1987.
The location of the cabin was on the 1904 Sanborn map. The cabin has had
a couple alterations, two small additions and some exterior material changes.
It is in its original location and still has the original gabled roof form. Staff
finds that the cabin complies with criterion A & B and recommends
designation.
Relocation: One of the most important features of the cabin is that it sits in
its original location. Staff recommends that the cabin stay in that location.
John Sarpa said this is an opportunity for his group and the City. A previous
Mayor of Aspen deeded the parcel to Aspen. We are building a project
Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G
Page I
-ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2007
called the Lodge at Aspen Mtn, which is in its final review process. This
project is an integral part of it. We need to house about 100 people for that
project. The projected housing project will house about 70 people. The
Housing Authority loved the original design. We presented the proposal to
the Community Development Dept. and they didn't like the original plan so
we redesigned the plan. The idea is to have the entire project reflect the
Smuggler mine and what the little cabin is all about. The racquet club is
near the site and we had to be sensitive to their view planes. The housing is
basically along the road and trailer courts. We had thought moving the
cabin would be permissible. By moving it 25 feet to the west doesn't make
an impact on the historic district or the Smuggler mine. We are to balance a
couple of community interests, affordable housing and historic preservation.
If we can move it the building will have a 40 foot buffer and if not the buffer
will only be 15 feet. Moving it will have a much larger setback. To take
one building and build the affordable housing around it makes a unique
project. We feel the cabin should be habitable.
Bill Poss said they originally had a garden type layout and Chris Bendon
asked us to make a more of a street presence. Chris did not want the gated
community look. The mine is some 100 feet away and up on the hill and by
moving the cabin 25 feet and designating it will protect it from fire threats
and the close construction of the units. We need to lift the building in order
to rehabilitate it and put a foundation under it. In creating a street scene
there is a parcel of land between the road and us which is owned by Sam
Brown. There will be front and back entrances and some ofthe parking will
enter from the rear of the units.
Michael inquired about the use of the building. Amy said the Sanborn map
indicates that it was used as an office. The majority of the other buildings
are gone.
Bill pointed out that there were two railroads that serviced town back then,
The Rio Grand and Midland. The Midland came into the Holden Marolt
smelter and the Smuggler mine had its own smelter to separate the ore and
ship it and the railroad came across their own bridge and up to the property.
Brian asked the applicant to explain the configuration of the new buildings.
Bill said they are townhouses, up and down units. There are some two and
three bedrooms. The modules will be stacked with some units up and some
down. Brian said each of the units is connected into one building.
Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G
Page 2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007
Sarah asked the applicant if they looked at keeping the cabin in its existing
location. John Sarpa said they did but it is too close given what is all around
the area.
Amy asked if they looked at turning the closest unit ninety degrees. Bill said
then we loose the street presence. Chris Bendon said they wanted the
residents on the street.
Jeffrey asked if they looked at moving the vehicular access closer to the
historical building and maintain the clearance of the well. Bill said they do
not own the area along the road.
Amy pointed out that maybe there is a way to orient the program slightly to
comply with the Planning & Zoning issues.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
John Sarpa said we are here to try and designate a building. We went
through three or four staff designs and we are trying to combine affordable
housing requirements with historic preservation. We are here voluntarily.
Brian pointed out that the greatest historical integrity ofthe cabin is its
location. Given the context to the Smuggler mine we need to maintain its
location. The applicants plan is very clear; putting the cabin in the center of
the square actually does celebrate the building in the configuration proposed.
He is not sure every configuration has been exhausted and he is conflicted
with the street presence.
Sarah said she would vote in favor of moving the building. There is a lot of
opportunity for the site plan that we are not seeing here. Moving the
building so that it has more open space helps keep it visually exposed.
Michael said as he read the memo, he thought it would be appropriate to
keep the cabin in its original position. Listening to the applicants comments
this structure does not relate to anything. Everything has been removed
around 1900. Moving it 25 feet is not meaningful.
Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G
Page 3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007
Jeffrey said the voluntary commitment is commendable. Maybe there is an
opportunity on the site plan to make the cabin a more visual piece. Maybe
there is the possibility to add onto the building with square footage. The site
plan seems very generic. There needs to be some relationship to the historic
resource that begins to relate to the modulars. Because there is nothing left
at the mine site doesn't give us the right to remove that structure. We need
to preserve the structure in its original location especially when there is
flexibility of a quarter of an acre in that location. The preservation of the
cabin and designation is commendable but maybe there can be one more site
plan reviewed to look at all of the pieces.
John Sarpa said they need to keep moving on the project whatever the
outcome.
MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #1, 2007 with the
following additional conditions:
I. Details of the relocation and foundation to be presented to staff and
monitor.
2. 10 feet of buffer should be included on all sides of the structures.
Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes;
Jeffrey, yes.
John Worcester said the resolution should include meets and bounds before
it is signed.
Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G
Page 4
~~b+ -H
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Michael
Hoffman and Sarah Broughton.
Staff present:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Jim True, Special Counsel
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve January 24th, Feb. I lh and Feb. 28'h.
2007 minutes; second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried.
Sara said at the P&Z meeting they reviewed the Smuggler affordable
housing case. P&Z is asking HPC to reconsider your position on relocating
the historic cabin.
Jessica Garrow, planner said at the HPC meeting, January 10th the Smuggier
Racquet Club representatives came in for designation of the cabin on the site
adjacent to Park Circle. HPC recommended designation and leaving the
cabin in its existing location. At the conceptual level for P&Z they
requested staff ask HPC if they are interested in reconsidering your decision
of retaining the cabin in its existing location. They have concerns that the
cabin in its existing location is impacting the site plan and they would like to
give the representatives some flexibility to the site and see what other
solutions they come up with.
Amy pointed out that HPC has criteria for relocation and one of them has to
be that it is the best preservation solution.
Jeffrey said until we see a new application or plan that conforms to our
guidelines he is not wavering on his decision. Jeffrey pointed out that the
only time we ever let historic buildings leave their sites is to make them
better viewed by the public. They have plenty of room on the site to do what
they want to do. We would reconsider but it has to be demonstrated that the
plan is a better preservation effort for the cabin.
Michael said he is willing to reconsider but needs more evidence that the
cabin existed in its current location. Sara said she presented maps that
1
Q4Joit H
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007
indicated it was the same form and same measurements. If it does come
back rnaybe we can see if the interior was used as an office.
Sarah said her concern is that HPC was presented a sparse site plan and the
applicant said they did not have much time and needed to move forward.
We were backed into a solution where we were throwing out an arbitrary
setback number for the historic resource. Sarah said if the new proposal
meets our guidelines and the historic resource can be better utilized on a
better site plan she is all for seeing it.
Brian said he feels there is always a solution to a landscape design especially
with that much space.
Jeffrey said we would reconsider but we would like to see an excellent
demonstration on preservatio.n as well as the design of the site plan.
Amy said staff brought the proposal to the HPC trying to be reasonable with
the applicant to say that we are just going to define a small piece of the
property instead of the two acres. Reviewing the entire parcel seemed to be
going over our boundaries. That has put us in an awkward position having
such a limited area to review.
Jeffrey said the applicant needs to demonstrate that they have a better spot
and the guidelines need to apply.
Jim True said he was at the meeting and if Jessica goes back to the applicant
and indicates that HPC will review a different proposal ifit complies with
the guidelines everyone will be on the same page. It is his understanding
that the applicant is looking for some leeway.
214 E. BLEEKER STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT-
CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION, RELOCA TION, VARIANCES PH
Dave Rybak, architect
Sara said in terms of the design HPC had asked that the rear elevation be
broken up into modules. In the proposal tonight there is a bay window and
the garage has been shifted away from the alley towards the west. The
garage is now in compliance with the five foot setback that was brought up
at the public comments. In terms of relocation the applicant is trying to
2
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner
RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD (1000 Matchless Drive) - Conceptual PUD -
Resolution No. 32, Series 2006 - Public Hearinl! (Parcel 2737-074-11-800)
DATE: March 6, 2007
ApPLICANT fOWNER:
Aspen Land Fund II, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, ofVann Associates.
LOCATION:
1000 Matchless Drive., Commonly
known as the Smuggler Racquet
Club. The property is legally
described as SE V. of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th Principal Meridian,
Tract A Aspen Township
Addition.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Not zoned in the City; used as a
Racquet Club with a structure used
as a residence. Zoned R- 15 in
County
PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING:
I. Affordable Housing, AHIPUD;
2. Recreation Club, RR.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends Approval of
the Conceptual PUD. A site visit
has been scheduled for noon on
Tuesday March 6th, 2007.
SUMMARY:
Photo of proposed affordable housing area
Photo of racquet club ortion to be redevelo ed
Page I of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
HEARING AND MEMO NOTES:
New Commission members have received the original application with this Staff memo. All other
Commissioners should have received the original application in an earlier packet; if you need a new
one, please contact Jessica Garrow.
This Staff memo outlines all Land Use Approvals that will be required. At this time, the Applicant is
only requesting approval of a conceptual PUD. All other land use requests and requirements will be
addressed with the Final PUD. Staff and the Applicant will outline all required reviews in more detail
than is presented here, at the March 6th meeting.
The memo refers to Lot I and Lot 2. In attached Exhibit D Lot I is outlined in green and Lot 2 is
outlined in pink. The Applicant has proposed zoning for these parcels. Staff will determine if these
zoning categories are appropriate at the time of Final PUD. For now, Staff is satisfied that the
proposed zoning is appropriate for the proposed Land Uses.
LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to redevelop the site:
. Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment
of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the
final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD consideration:
. Final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the
Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final
review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission);
. Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot 1 for the
Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet
Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authoritv
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Rezoning to AHfPUD on Lot I and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.3 I 0 (Citv Council is the final review authoritv after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoninl! Commission is the final review authority);
. Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion
of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and
Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to
26.470.050 Al (the Planninl! and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned
as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planninl! and Zoninl!
Commission is the final review authority);
Page 2 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
. Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Residential Desil!n Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Administrative Determination for the construction of Affordable Housing on Lot 2 if it is zoned
to Rural Residential, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.306 (the Communitv Development
Director makes this determination).
PROJECT AND SITE SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Aspen Land Fund LLC, has requested the approvals necessary to subdivide the existing
Smuggler Racquet Club site, to redevelop the existing Smuggler Racquet Club in its current location,
and to develop an AH-PUD on the upper portion of the lot (the portion closest to Park Circle). The
affordable housing proposal will help fulfill the Applicant's required mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen
Mountain.
The proposal deals with a parcel that is not zoned in the City. It was annexed into the City in the
1950s with the Hughes Addition, but the parcel never received zoning. Because of this, it has been
assumed until recently that this lot is located in Pitkin County. The parcel is zoned R- I 5 in the county,
and includes the Smuggler Racquet Club and a small cabin that is currently used as a residence. This
cabin was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission at their January 10, 2007 meeting at
which time the Commission recommended the cabin be designated. The minutes from that meeting are
attached as Exhibit I.
The Applicant proposes subdividing the property into two parcels: Lot I and Lot 2. Lot I would be
developed as 100% Affordable Housing, and Lot 2 would be redeveloped as a Racquet Club and
would include one (I) Affordable Housing unit as well as indoor courts. Lot I would be rezoned to
AHIPUD, while Lot 2 would be rezoned to Rural Residential. (RR) with a PUD overlay. The
dimensional tables below outline the existing lot's dimensions, requirements for the proposed
underlying zoning, as well as the dimensions the Applicant proposes on the site. Attached as Exhibit
D is a proposed site plan - the portion outlined in green is referred to here as Lot I, and the portion to
be redeveloped as racquet courts (Lot 2) is outlined in pink.
Page 3 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual pun
The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of
the lot, outlined in red on the first page in Exhibit n. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to
Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for
Smuggler). These conditions have a direct effect on site planning in the proposed lots.
Proposed Units
32 units comprised of:
16 I -bedroom units at 500 sq. ft.
8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft.
8 3-bedroom units at 1,500 s . ft.
Maximum allowable density
(determined by fathering parcel)
500 sq. ft. for I-bedroom
units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2-
bedroom units; 1,500 sq. ft.
for 3-bedroom units
Determined through pun
Page 4 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant
proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part
of the Final PUD approval.
Proposed Program
5 outdoor racquetball courts
2 indoor racquetball courts
I Affordable Housing unit
None listed for non-
residential uses on a lot.
External floor area ratio
16,283 sq. ft.
Residential Uses are the same
asR-15:
Lot size greater than 50,000
sq. ft.: for a Single Family
Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of
floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq, ft, in lot area;
for a Duplex or Two
Detached Dwellings, 7,020
sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq.
ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot
area
Page50f8
The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property
(outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for
twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district.
The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because of the zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is
currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff
recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this
issue to be fully resolved at the time of Final PUD approval.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has discussed the site design with the Applicant, and the Applicant has made changes to the
design based on these conversations; see Exhibit D and the original application packet. In January, the
Historic Preservation Commission approved designation of a cabin located on Lot I, adjacent to Park
Circle. The designation will be finalized with Final PUD approvals. The HPC required the cabin
remain in its current location. Staff feels that the Affordable Housing design attached in Exhibit D
appropriately addresses the street, but that it does not relate to the cabin. Staff would like to see the
buildings open up to the cabin. The current configuration of buildings A and B on Lot I fail to relate
to the historic resource and physically isolate the cabin. Development on Lot I has the opportunity to
utilize the cabin in a creative manner. In its current configuration, however, the site plan fails to utilize
the cabin and diminishes its presence. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission
require the Applicant address these concerns in the Final PUD Application.
The architectural design on the Affordable Housing units on Lot I is an area where Staff continues to
have concems. Staff finds that the design is moving in the right direction, but that more can be done
by the time of Final PUD Application. In the current design Staff finds the buildings overwhelm the
site and the cabin. Staff recommends the buildings be broken up into smaller modules that reflect the
context of the site. Lot I includes a number of paved entrances to the different Affordable Housing
buildings. Staff feels these could be consolidated to create a more user friendly site and to create the
possibility for more community and green space on the site.
As with Lot 1, Staff would like to see the mass on Lot 2 broken up. Staff prefers the original racquet
club design (see pages 27 - 34 in the original application packet) because of its unique architecture.
While the development on Lot 1 should fit in with the architectural vernacular of the surrounding area,
the racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting the use and required
size of the building. Staff feels the original design is more suited for this scale of development and that
with the new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actual is or that is can be given its use.
The Applicant has proposed AHlPUD and RR zoning for the two (2) proposed lots. Staff is currently
determining if these are the most appropriate zoning classifications for the proposed uses. This is a
topic that will be discussed in detail at the Final PUD review. Exhibit E outlines the existing zoning on
surrounding parcels.
Access to Lot I is an issue that will be further addressed in the Final PUD. Because of mine shafts
located on proposed Lot I, the exact access point off of Park Circle had no been determined. The
Page 6 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Applicant will conduct further studies of the site and work with the Engineering Department and the
Community Development Engineer to determine the most appropriate access point.
The Development Review Committee has reviewed this conceptual PUD, as has the Housing Office.
These comments are attached as Exhibits B and C respectively. Conditions of approval based on these
comments will be in the Final PUD Resolution and Ordinance.
Attached as Exhibit F is a map of the former Smuggler Superfund site and the areas that have been
remediated. This parcel was included in the Smuggler superfund site, and appears to have been
remediated. However, all development on the parcel will comply with the Institutional Controls
currently in place. Details of this process are outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Applicant's original
submittal.
The Applicant has provided a letter dealing with alleged regrading that has occurred onsite. Smuggler
Mobile Home Park resident Vincent Galluccio provided Staff with a number of materials regarding fill
being placed on proposed Lot I by; attached as Exhibit G. This information was provided to the
Applicant who has researched the matter and has responded with the letter attached as Exhibit H. Staff
is convinced by the survey information provided by the Applicant that the existing parcel has not
changed significantly in height, and that the proposed heights on Lot I are under the proposed zoning
height limits and in compliance with the agreement between the county and the Smuggler Mobile
Home park stating that all development will be measured from the height prior to any fill being placed
on the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Overall, Staff finds this application should receive Conceptual PUD approval. Architectural issues
will need to be resolved before Final PUD approval. Staff is comfortable with the direction the
architecture is headed and feels this, as well as other technical issues, can be resolved at Final PUD
approval.
Staff recommends the Commission approve Resolution 32, Series of 2006, recommending to City
Council the approval of a conceptual PUD on the Smuggler Racquet Club property.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"1 move to adopt Resolution No. 32, Series of 2006, recommending the Aspen City Council approve
the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD."
A TT ACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT D - DRC Comments
EXHIBIT C - Housing Office Comments
EXHIBIT D - Revised Plans Application
EXHIBIT E - Map of Surrounding Zoning
EXHIBIT F - Map of Smuggler Superfund Site
EXHIBIT G - Information from Vincent Galluccio provided to Staff regarding alleged fill on proposed
Lot I
EXHIBIT H - Letter from Applicant addressing regrading on the site
EXHIBIT I - Minutes from the HPC January 10, 2007 meetinge
Page 7 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Page 8 of8
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner
RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD (1000 Matchless Drive) - Conceptual PUD -
Resolution No. 32, Series 2006 - Public Hearinl! (Parcel 2737-074-11-800)
DATE: April 3, 2007 (Continued from March 6, 2007)
ApPLICANT fOWNER:
Aspen Land Fund II, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, ofVann Associates.
LOCATION:
1000 Matchless Drive., Commonly
known as the Smuggler Racquet
Club. The property is legally
described as SE Y. of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th Principal Meridian,
Tract A Aspen Township
Addition.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Not zoned in the City; used as a
Racquet Club with a structure used
as a residence. Zoned R-lS in
County
PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING:
I. Affordable Housing, AH/PUD;
2. Recreation Club, RR.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends Approval of
the Conceptual PUD.
SUMMARY:
Page I of7
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to redevelop the site:
· Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment
of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (Citv Council is the
final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD consideration:
· Final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the
Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final
review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission);
· Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot I for the
Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet
Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (Citv Council is the final review authoritv
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
· Rezoning to AHlPUD on Lot I and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.3 I 0 (Citv Council is the final review authoritv after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion
of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and
Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to
26.470.050 AI (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned
as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planninl! and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority);
. Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Residential Design Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Administrative Determination for the construction of Affordable Housing on Lot 2 if it is zoned
to Rural Residential, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.306 (the Community Development
Director makes this determination).
Page 2 of7
ExhibitJ,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
PROJECT UPDATES SINCE MARCH 6. 2007 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
The Applicant has made a number of changes to the site plan on Lot I based on comments from the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff. These changes are outlined below. Also included in this
Staff memo are the revised dimensional requirements proposed for the PUD.
Parkinl!
The Applicant has examined the parking provided on site and has provided fifty (50) parking spaces.
Seven (7) of these spaces are 'double loading," and therefore count as one (I) space toward the on-site
parking requirement. The amount of parking provided on-site that meets the requirements of the Off-
Street Parking section ofthe Land Use Code (26.515) is equal to forty-four (44) spaces. The Applicant
also made some changes to the housing mix on-site, which has reduced the parking requirement to one
(I) space per bedroom (rather than 2 spaces per unit). Therefore, the parking requirement is as
follows:
I Studio Unit = I Space
13 I-Bedroom Units = 13 Spaces
8 2-Bedroom Units = 16 Spaces
6 3-Bedroom Units = 18 Spaces
Total = 48 Spaces
The parking will be formally established via Special Review at the time of Final PUD
approval. A condition of approval has been included that requires a minimum of forty-
four (44) spaces be provided for the Affordable Housing Units on Lot 1. Staff finds that
the proposed parking provides the appropriate number of spaces for the development.
The double-stall spaces can accommodate two (2) vehicles, but only count as one (I)
space according to the Land Use Code. All parking spaces are proposed to be assigned
to individual units. This will be determined as part of the Special Review. The
Applicant has proposed the double-stall spaces be assigned to the two-bedroom or three-
bedroom units in order to achieve the highest functionality.
Historic Cabin Considerations
Staff attended the March 13, 2007 Historic Preservation Commission's meeting to
discuss the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments regarding the cabin on Lot 1.
Staff asked if the HPC would be willing to reconsider their recommendation against
moving the cabin. The HPC indicated they would be willing to re-examine the cabin's
location if a proposed site plan met the HPC Design Guidelines. The minutes from this
meeting are provided as Exhibit D.
Following the HPC meeting, the Applicant and Staff discussed options related to review
of the cabin. The Applicant revised the site plan, and determined that moving the cabin
to a different location on the site was not viable, and therefore decided to move forward
with the current Planning and Zoning Commission Review.
Site Desil!n for Lot 1
The Applicant has worked with Staff to further refine the proposed site plan. The
Applicant made some changes to the modulation of the Affordable Housing units in
response to Staff comments. Staff requested the Applicant enlarge windows located on
the side elevations of the three (3) buildings. This is a detail that can be finalized duringa
Page 3 of7
ExhibitJ,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
the Final PUD approval. Staff previously expressed a concern regarding the relation of
the new buildings to the historic cabin. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed
the location of the cabin at their March 6th meeting, and requested the applicant examine
its location. Based on the discussions with Staff and the HPC, the Applicant has
proposed a revised site plan that maintains the cabin's existing location. Rather than
framing the cabin's location by surrounding it with structures, the Applicant has
proposed using landscaping to help provide a prominent location for the cabin. This
creates an opportunity for a tot lot, or some other form of landscaped amenity for the
development. Staff has requested a detailed landscaping plan be submitted as part of the
Final PUD application to ensure the cabin is appropriately framed. Staff is supportive of
this direction and recommends approval ofthe proposed site plan.
Staff also expressed concerns related to the paved entrances to the different Affordable
Housing buildings, stating that the walkways could be consolidated. Staff maintains its
concern with these paths, but agrees with the Applicant that this is an issue that can be
addressed as part of the detailed landscaping plan submitted with the Final PUD
application.
Miscellaneous Comments:
Staff continues to have concerns related to the design of the racquet club redevelopment, and prefers
the original racquet club design (see pages 27 - 34 in the original application packet) because of its
unique architecture. While the development on Lot I should fit in with the architectural vernacular of
the surrounding area, the racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting
the use and required size of the building. Stafffeels the original design is more suited for this scale of
development and that with the new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actually is or
that is can be given its use.
Revised Dimensional Tables:
The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of
the lot. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned
by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for Smuggler).
Page 4 of7
Exhibit J,
Smu ler Rac uet Club Conce tual PUD
I Studio unit (the existing cabin)
I3 I-bedroom units at 500 sq. ft.
8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft.
6 3-bedroom units at 1,500 s . ft.
Maximum allowable density
(determined by fathering parcel)
500 sq. ft. for I-bedroom
units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2-
bedroom units; 1,500 sq. ft.
for 3-bedroom units
Determined through PUD
In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant
proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part
ofthe Final PUD approval.
Proposed Program
5 outdoor racquetball courts
2 indoor rac uetball courts
Page 5 of7
Smu
I Affordable Housing unit
Extemal floor area ratio
16,283 sq. ft.
None listed for non-
residential uses on a lot.
Residential Uses are the same
as R-15:
Lot size greater than 50,000
sq. ft.: for a Single Family
Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of
floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq, ft, in lot area;
for a Duplex or Two
Detached Dwellings, 7,020
sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq.
ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot
area
The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property
(outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for
twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district.
The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because of the zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is
currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff
recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this
issue to be fully resolved at the time of Final PUD approval.
Page 6 of7
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the application receive Conceptual PUD approval. Staff feels the parking changes
made to the plan address concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that the design
changes to Lot 1 address Staff concerns. Staff is also supportive of addressing the framing of the cabin
and the consolidation and landscaping internal sidewalks as part of the detailed landscaping plan in the
Final PUD Application.
Staff recommends the Commission approve Ordinance _, Series of 2007, approving a conceptual
PUD on the Smuggler Racquet Club property.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Oridnance No. _' Series of2007, approving the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual
PUD."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B - Revised Plans
EXHIBIT C - Letter from Sunny Vann. Dated March 22, 2007
EXHIBIT D - HPC Minutes from March 14, 2007
Page 7 of7
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING WITH CONDITIONS THE APPROVAL OF THE
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD AT 1000 MATCHLESS
DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02204
Resolution #32-06
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of
a Conceptual PUD Development for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club
and the development of affordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 202,717 sq. ft., is zoned as R-
15 in the County, but does not have existing zoning in the City; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Conceptual PUD, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed
public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the
Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 6th, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to April 3rd, 2006; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3rd, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 32, Series of 2006, by a five to zero (5-
0) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the
Smuggler Racquet Club; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Page lof6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends the
Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the development of affordable
housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club at 1000 Matchless Drive,
City of Aspen, subject to the Conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Final PUD Application
The Final Application shall include a detailed Landscaping Plan showing the location of
proposed trees and other landscaping improvements, and a preliminary Construction
Management Plan for review. The Applicant shall also work with the Engineering
Department and the Community Development Engineer to determine the best access off
of Park Circle. This location shall be reflected in plans submitted with the Final PUD
Application.
Section 3: Historic Preservation
The City Council shall consider historic designation of the cabin located on the upper
bench near Park Circle, pursuant to HPC Resolution I, Series 2007, concurrently with
their consideration of the Final PUD approval. The cabin is subject to regulations in
Section 26.415 ofthe Land Use Code.
Section 4: Landscapinl!
Prior to the removal of any trees, the Applicant shall receive a tree removal permit from
the Parks Department. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of
each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the
location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation,
storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or
vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must
be inspected by the city forester or hislher designee (920-5120) before any construction
activities are to commence
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements.
The Applicant shall work with the Parks Department to select specific species to be
planted on-site.
As part of the Final PUD approval, the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department
to determine the appropriate location of street trees along Park Circle. This requires
adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW
(amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longevity of the
new plantings). The parkway strip shall be a minimum of a 5-foot strip.
Page 2 of6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Section 5: Fire Miti!!ation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to
accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System.
Section 6: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with title
25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory
Code) ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
Each building shall have its own water connection with individual metering for each unit
and for each common use.
An 8-inch looped connection from the existing water line on Matchless Dr. to the existing
line on Park Circle to serve the property is required. Hydrants will be required along this
connection in accordance with the recommended placement of the Fire Marshall and in
accordance with spacing requirements contained in the Aspen Water System standards.
A single connection per building with individual metering for each unit and for each
common use is required.
Surface water flows across the site will need special attention. Including but not limited
to adjudicated irrigation rights, mine runoff and storm runoff. This shall be addressed in
the Final PUD application.
Section 7: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary
sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system.
One tap is permitted for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are
prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval
by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be
dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint.
Page30f6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the
existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line
extension request and collection system agreement are required. Easements for main
sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be
dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language.
Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
Section 8: Mine Draina!!e
Prior to submittal of a Final PUD Application, the Applicant shall investigate the
potential for increases of flow from stored mine drainage. This shall include the potential
for substantial increases of flow from stored mine drainage in the Molly
GibsonlSmugglerfCowenhoven Tunnel system. Documentation shall be provided as part
ofthe Final PUD Application.
The size of the easement area for mine drainage and any underground collection or pipe
conveyance of the mine drainage shall consider the historic quantity of discharge and the
anticipated flows.
Details of the current and anticipated condition of the mineshaft shall be provided with
the Final PUD Application.
Section 9: Smu!!!!ler Mine Remediation
The Applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the
handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to
any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All
soils on the Fathering Parcel shall be considered contaminated unless determined
otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If,
pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following
requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are
discovered, the following requirements shall apply:
I) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to
the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any
disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain
on site shall be securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or
other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to
prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to
prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt.
2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots I and 2 of the
South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen
Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and
will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the
Page 4 of 6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994
prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property.
3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation
prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building
permits for the properties.
Section 10: Affordable Housinl!
Affordable housing is provided on this site as part of the mitigation requirements for the
Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Twenty-eight (28) units shall be provided for the Lodge at
Aspen Mountain mitigation on Lot I. One (I) Affordable Housing unit shall be provided
as part of the Smuggler Racquet Club redevelopment on Lot 2.
Affordable Housing units on Lot I shall be "for sale" and sold through the lottery system
by APCHA. The Affordable Housing unit on Lot 2 shall be "rental." Deed restriction for
all units shall be recorded at the time of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
The twenty-eight (28) units will be broken into one (I) studio unit, thirteen (13) one-
bedroom units, eight (8) two-bedroom units, and six (6) three-bedroom units. The
categories shall be determined in cooperation with APCHA.
Section 11: Parkinl! and Transit
The Final PUD Application shall designate areas for snow storage in all parking areas,
and shall indicate the location of an access easement from Park Circle to Lot I. To the
extent the access easement providing access to Lot I from Park Circle eliminates
Smuggler Trail Head parking, the Final PUD Application shall address how overflow
parking from the Smuggler hiking trail will be accommodated. The Final PUD
Application shall address the potential for a bus stop along Park Circle near the entrance
to the proposed development.
The number of parking spaces shall be established by Special Review at Final PUD
approval, and at a minimum shall include thirty-eight (38) parking spaces for the Racquet
Club parcel on Lot 2 and forty-four (44) spaces for the Affordable Housing units on Lot
I.
Section 12:
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 Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 13:
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
Page 5 of6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 14:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd
day of April, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Ruth Kruger, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
F:\Smuggler Racquet Club\P&Z\SmugglerPZ Reso_03 06 07.doc
Page 6 of6
~
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: Minutes - March 06. 2007
Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning Commission in
Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Dylan Johns was excused from the first
and third items on the agenda; Brian Speck was excused. LJ Erspamer, David
Guthrie, Elizabeth Atkins, Steve Skadron, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger were
present. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Joyce Allgaier and Jessica
Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger welcomed the new members and Jim True as Special Counsel.
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dylan Johns was conflicted on Smuggler Racquet Club and Cooper Street Pier
Redevelopment.
MINUTES
MOTION: Liz Atkins moved to approve the minutes from February rJh and 2(jh;
seconded by Steve Skadron. APPROVED. David Guthrie and LJ Erspamer abstained.
Public Hearing:
Continued Public Hearing:
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual
PUD. Jessica Garrow said the applicant was Aspen Land Fund II, LLC
represented by John Sarpa, Sunny Vann and Kim Weil. John Moore of the
Smuggler Racquet Club was also present.
Garrow stated this was a detailed proposal and a complicated site; there was a site
visit earlier. Garrow said that there was county zoning of R15 on this property; it
was annexed into the city in the 1950s with the Hughes addition but never rezoned
to city zoning. There were approximately 4.6 acres, including the cabin near Park
Circle and the Racquet Club off of Matchless Drive; the applicant submitted the
proposal in July 2006 proposing subdivision to develop affordable housing
mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain on the top part ofthe parcel and
redevelop the Racquet Club in the existing location. The applicant proposed to
2
QihA'Dn-L-
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - March 06. 2007
dedicate the cabin historic, which would be final at Council; the minutes from the
HPC Meeting were attached.
Garrow said the broader picture of this site was subdivision of the parcel into 3
lots; rezoning of Lot 1 to AH PUD, Rural Residential for the Racquet Club and
Historic Preservation for the cabin. A conditional use approval will be needed to
accommodate some of the uses on the racquet club site. There will be a Growth
Management Review for the Affordable housing and the Racquet Club site to
determine the employee generation. A Special Review will be need for parking on
both sites; Residential Design Standard Review for the Affordable Housing;
Commercial Design Review for the Club redevelopment and an administrative
determination to allow for the affordable housing unit on the racquet club parcel.
Garrow utilized a map (exhibit B) to delineate the lots with different colors. There
were 32 affordable housing units; 16 one bedroorn units, 8 two bedrooms and 8
three bedroom units. There were 15 foot setbacks near building A, 10 foot
setbacks near building C and side setbacks of 5 feet. Garrow said there were 35
parking spaces proposed for the affordable housing units with I space assigned to
each unit; special review was needed for parking because it was located outside the
Aspen Infill area so that the requirernent was 56 spaces. Garrow said that staff felt
that the design could do a better job relating to the cabin through the use of
inflection and materials that differentiate the new development from the historic
resource; staff would like to see the site opened up. Staff also wanted to see the
circulation simplified to buildings A and C.
Garrow said that Lot 2 (Racquet Club) was 2.97 acres including 2 indoor racquet
courts, club facilities, an affordable housing unit for the manager and 5 outdoor
courts. The setbacks include 20 feet along the West portion; there was a notch (20'
by 50') owned by someone else (according to John Moore the racquet club will
purchase this piece); along Lot I there was a 25 foot setback. Garrow said that
there were 38 proposed parking spaces on Lot 2; 2 for the affordable housing unit
and the rest for the club. Garrow said staff would like the building broken up
more. Staff recommended approval of the conceptual.
Ruth Kruger asked how we got from the first application design. Garrow replied
that was part of the first conversations staff had with the applicant dealing with the
way that the housing addressed the street, staff wanted a more pedestrian friendly
design. Staffwill address the sidewalk and an additional bus stop.
Sunny Yann said the problem arises frorn the residential design standards; when
this project was originally designed there was approval in the county for the type
of units in the first plan; the property does not abut the street and was not on a high
3
~fUbrt L
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - March 06. 2007
pedestrian corner and the primary views were toward Aspen Mountain. Vann said
that staff asked to rneet with the applicant regarding the first design and the new
design included the majority of units that abut the street. Vann said the historic
preservation officer wanted the cabin preserved.
John Sarpa introduced John Moore, Kim Weil and Sunny Vann. Sarpa said they
evolved to the current plan for staff support. Sarpa said that ALF approached John
Moore to purchase part of the land for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain housing
mitigation. Sarpa noted they were in a partnership with Smuggler Racquet Club.
Sarpa said that this was an extension of Smuggler Mine and the cabin drives a lot;
HPC review was first and designated that the cabin historic.
Sarpa said there was an old mine shaft located on the site; they hired HP Geotech
and will stay away from the shaft with buildings. Weil said that HP recommended
50 feet away with all but one building. Vann stated that it was not an open mine
but there were boulders pushed into it with top soil on the top during the superfund
reclamation; they were told that they could drive over it. Sarpa noted they also
have hired Tom Dunlop who was knowledgeable about the site.
John Moore said the courts building was sunk down 10 feet to comply with the
height requirements. Bill Lipsey, architect, said with the 2 indoor tennis courts the
building starts out at 120 feet by 120 feet with the clubhouse and affordable unit it
came out with a simple gable structure to accommodate the uses. Lipsey said the 1
story structures were subordinate to the big structure; one side had the clubhouse
and the other an affordable housing unit.
Weil stated with the influences of the cabin and the mine there were no places to
have any more street presence for the affordable housing; there was simple design
for the buildings. Weil said there were balconies, porches and the common
element of the rusty metal roofs like the tennis building. WeiJ said the cabin would
stand on its own and the architecture of the affordable units would be their own
architecture.
John Rowland said that he like the playfulness of the balconies. Weil replied that
the balconies move at different elevations.
Liz Atkins asked why staff wanted the street presence on the uphill side when the
view was that way. Garrow replied that staff was taking a long term view of
development in this area of town and the entrances were still off of the parking
area; there was a street presence.
4
QX~lJ/t L
Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 06. 2007
David Guthrie asked if the slope reduction was based upon the old topo or the new
topo. Sarpa said they were using the most current survey information and they
have reviewed it with staff. Weil said that there was a field topo from Sopris
Engineering in the packet. Vann said there was far more land area to
accommodate the density than was needed. Guthrie voiced concern for the
placement of the new bus stop and the decision would be at final. Guthrie said
there was parking heading in on Matchless. Weil responded there was a grade
change and a bit of a berm. Vann said there was a landscaping plan and at final
there would be a comprehensive landscape plan submitted and reviewed with
parks. Guthrie said that parking was a huge concern in this area. Atkins said that
she had issues with parking.
Steve Skadron asked why so much was happening at final in this case. Garrow
replied part of it was the unique circumstances of the lot without zoning; the
proposed zoning requires conditional uses. Skadron voiced concern for the bus
stop also. Skadron asked the applicant's responsibility with the racquet club was.
Sarpa replied that they approached the Smuggler Racquet Club to purchase part of
the parcel for the mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Skadron asked who
the Smuggler Racquet Club was. Moore replied it was 105 members with an
equity club that you buy into with annual dues; it was a non-profit 501C7. Moore
said it was laid back and the membership was limited; there were some social
functions, brunches and pot luck dinners. Skadron asked how busy the club was.
Moore said that the nets would be up in May and weather permitting people would
book the courts. Skadron asked why this application came in as one rather than
two separate applications. Garrow replied that it was one parcel. Vann said that
they originally thought that it was in the county; council likes to see the big picture
to see how everything works together and not parts of the puzzle. Vann said the
projects were sufficiently interrelated that it made sense to process as one
application.
John Rowland asked for a summary of the HPC process. Garrow responded that
the historic maps were reviewed by the historic preservation officer who
determined the materials used on the cabin were historic as part of the old
Smuggler mine used as an assayers office. Sarpa said the cabin has to be
disassembled, a foundation built and reassembled; HPC said that it had to go back
in the place exactly where the cabin sits now.
Liz Atkins asked if the outdoor tennis courts had lights and if they anticipated
using the indoor courts at night. Moore replied there were no lights for the outdoor
courts and do not anticipate any lights; conceivably the indoor courts will be used
at night, they can put a limit on but he did not think there would be any activity
after IOpm.
5
Q:>(YU~it L-
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - March 06. 2007
LJ Efspamer asked if this was a 100% affordable housing project. Vann and Sarpa
replied 100% with no free market component on this site. Erspamer agreed that
this was a pedestrian area; he asked who would be involved in placing sidewalks.
Vann replied that they would cooperate with staff and engineering on sidewalks,
street lights and a RFTA bus stop. Erspamer asked where the snow storage would
be located. Vann replied that the final PUD would have designated snow storage
areas. Erspamer asked if they were aware of the traffic count on the Spruce and
Park comer. Vann said that Park Circle was adequate to carry the number of cars
and engineering did not require anything from this applicant. Erspamer asked
where they will park because 50% of the parking on Race Street was taken away.
Liz Atkins asked why they needed 38 parking spaces for 7 tennis courts. Moore
answered they have 8 or 9 functions a year and a tournament in the summer; they
will use those parking spaces.
Ruth Kruger asked what the categories were and if the affordable housing units
were for sale Of rental units. Vann replied they wefe all for sale units and the exact
categories would be in accordance with APCHA prior to final approval. Kruger
asked how many spaces would be eliminated on Park Circle. Vann responded
none would be taken away as part of this project.
Public Comments:
Vince Galluccio, public submitted a letter and drawings into the record. Galluccio
asked the commission to look at the plan and said that the cabin could be moved.
John Rowland stated that he was perplexed with the cabin not being moved. This
was a great piece of property for employee housing.
Atkins said that she was concerned about the views; there wefe great views from
that parcel and the parking should not separate the views.
Kruger stated there were guidelines and regulations.
David Guthrie said that the Park Circle should not be an artery to Smuggler; there
was the whole point of design guidelines that this was part of the community.
Guthrie asked if they need to make findings and objective standards for projects.
Kruger said this was a great location fOf more affordable housing in town. Kruger
voiced concern for the project being under-parked; she said that pafking should be
addressed at conceptual and that parking for this project should be more than 35
6
~L
Asoen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - March 06, 2007
spaces. The commissioners supported more parking on the site. Skadron was not
as concerned about the parking.
The commission supported requesting HPC take another look at the placement of
the cabin.
MOTION: Elizabeth Atkins moved to continue the hearingfor the Smuggler
Racquet Club to April3rd; seconded by LJ Erspamer. All infavor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.rn.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
7
&/h'cittJ\-.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007
Ruth Kruger opened the regular Planning and Zoning in the Sister Cities at 4:40
with LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck, John Rowland, and David Guthrie present. Dylan
Johns and Steve Skadron were excused. Jim True, Special Counsel and staff in
attendance were: Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community Development and
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Brian Speck said that the Council meeting last night was disturbing because of
Torre's comments about the meeting room full of just people from the trade and
not representative of the community. Speck took exception to that remark and said
that everyone was in some trade.
Joyce Allgaier provided the updated schedule for the Code Amendments to
Council. Ruth Kruger stated that the P&Z Commissioners would meet as often as
necessary to get things into a position where the Council can act in the time frame
so that the business can get done.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3f6/7):
SMUGGLER RACOUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club.
Jessica Garrow stated there were a few changes form the March 6th meeting and an
update from HPC regarding the cabin location.
Garrow said the site plan changed on the lot closest to Park Circle where the
affordable housing will be developed and the number of units has been decreased
and the number of parking spaces was increased. There were 44 spaces proposed
spaces on site with spaces #31 - 44 as double stall spaces (stacked parking) and the
land use code counts those spaces as I instead of2. The Applicant proposed
assigning parking spaces to individual units. This would be done in Special
Review during the final review. Kim Weil, architect, said that because I space was
handicap there were actually 43 spaces on site counting the double loaded spaces
as one each.
Garrow said that HPC was willing to look at the cabin with a more significant site
plan and landscaping plan that framed the cabin, which would help reduce the
prominence of the cabin.
Garrow stated that there was a change to the resolution in Section 2 the 3rd line
down that a required detailed curb and gutter plan but staff did not feel that this lot
was adjacent to Park Circle and this lot would be addressed in the Development
Review Committee.
2
-,"~-~-_.._--<._.... ,-.,''''---_.~--~-
F:kritiL~----
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007
John Sarpa, applicant, said there Racquet Club members present. Sarpa said the
building evolved from the first. Kim Weil, architect, utilized a site plan and
renderings of the club to show where the affordable housing would be set back
and where the Racquet Club was located. Weil said this tennis club was a non-
profit and their big events every year were pot lucks; the Racquet Club Mernbers
were cost conscious about the redevelopment of the club. Weil said the club
architecture kept with the mining heritage. Weil provided a 3-dimensional
drawing showing the club, tennis courts and housing unit; the architecture used
rusted metal.
LJ Erspamer asked the height on the club building. Weil replied 28 feet and 33 to
the ridge; they were going down 10 to 12 feet.
John Rowland asked if the design intent was zero eaves. Weil responded yes,
minimal.
David Guthrie asked if the glazing was glass. Weil answered it would be some
type of product to cut down on the glare.
No public comments on the Racquet Club portion.
John Sarpa stated they dropped affordable housing units to accommodate more
parking spaces. Kruger asked how many units were in the new plan. Weil replied
48 bedrooms including the cabin. Sarpa said that they would go to APCHA with
the new plan.
Weil said they added inflection to building A, which resulted in the unit count
going down; there was a story dropped from the middle of the building.
Garrow stated that staff requested enlarging the windows in the bedrooms once
they get to final to provide more light into the bedrooms. Sarpa said that the
windows were kept high because they were bedrooms.
Erspamer asked if there would be guest parking. Weil said there would be no more
than 2 spaces assigned per unit so there would be parking available.
Guthrie asked about the landscaping for the parking. Weil said this was conceptual
and they have not modified the landscaping yet but they will.
John Rowland asked if there was historical significance to the fence that goes
around the cabin. Kruger said that when they were on site it was pointed out that
3
W!trV1
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007
the cabin was the only historic portion of the site excluding the piece that was
added onto the cabin.
No public comments on the affordable housing portion.
The commissioners supported the conceptual application. Joyce Allgaier asked if
there would be covenants for the use of parking. Sarpa responded that would be
covered with the covenants.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #32, series of 2007,
recommending the City Council approve the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual
PUD with parking addressed in the covenants and the amendment to Section 2;
seconded by John Rowland. Roll call: Erspamer, yes; Guthrie, yes; Speck, yes;
Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes; APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
1001 UTE AVENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS VARIANCE and PUD AMENDMENT
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for 1001 Ute Avenue. Jessica Garrow
provided the notice to Jim True. Jessica Garrow provided a revised Resolution
with the additions in green and deletion in red.
Garrow explained the required reviews were Residential Design Standards for
secondary mass; 8040 Greenline and 2 PUD amendments.
Garrow said the 8040 Greenline Review was required for any development
proposed within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation. This was for rock fall dangers and
avalanche dangers that have been appropriately addressed and there were enough
utilities to service any development that goes on these properties and the design of
the buildings blend in with the mountain character recognizing that these buildings
will be visible to lower elevations as well as various mountains around town. Staff
and the referral city agencies have reviewed this 8040 application to make sure
those toxic soils, rock fall and avalanche dangers have been dealt with. The
referral agencies and staff felt that all the criteria have been met with the exception
of one. Garrow said that staff felt Criteria #7 has not been met, which was located
in Exhibit B in the packet. Garrow said that when this development went through
the original PUD in August oflast year with council some massing controls were
put into place to ensure the mass was minimized and the applicant has limited the
width and height ofthe structures. There were two single family free-market
residences proposed on Lots I and 2, which were limited to 5,040 square feet in the
original PUD. Garrow said that secondary mass has not been met and that does not
4
XI \ J:l
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Sara Adams, Preservation Planne~
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
TO:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
May 31, 2007
MEETING DATE:
June 11, 2007
RE:
308 East Hopkins Avenue- Subdivision, First Reading of
Ordinance #_, Series of 2007, Second Reading is scheduled for
July 9, 2007.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant Subdivision approval for the
development of multiple units on the property, formerly known as "La Cocina," located at 308
East Hopkins Avenue.
BACKGROUND: The 6,032 square foot lot (with alley access) is located in the Commercial
Core (CC) Historic District, and was included as a contributing historic resource to the District
until 2001 (HPC Resolution 6) when it was "delisted" due to loss of integrity. The historic
context of 308 East Hopkins is partially intact: a modest miner's cottage abuts the east property
line, and the A.G. Sheppard House is located two buildings to the west, on the comer of Hopkins
and Monarch Street.
308 East Hopkins currently contains a two story commercial building with 2,745 square feet of
net leasable commercial space. The applicant has received approval to demolish the existing
building and develop a three story mixed-use building comprising: commercial space on the first
floor with 2,512 square feet of net leasable area; three affordable housing units and one free
market residence on the second floor; and one free market residence on the third floor. The
redevelopment will replace the existing commercial space, which pursuant to Land Use Code
section 26.470.040.A(7), does not require growth management review. P&Z granted growth
management allotments for the free market residential units and affordable housing units.
Design Approved by Historic Preservation Commission (HPC): The HPC granted a Certificate
of Appropriateness (this includes Conceptual and Final approval), Demolition approval,
Page I of4
Commercial Design Standard Review, and Viewplane exemption for the redevelopment
proposal. I
GMOS allotments granted bv Planning and Zoning (P&Z): The P&Z Commission approved
Growth Management allotments for two (2) free-market units and three (3) affordable housing
units as part of the mixed use redevelopment.2
DISCUSSION:
SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of
multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision, pursuant to the definition of a
subdivision.3 It is a technical subdivision that is needed to demarcate ownership units within a
single building.4
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff finds that the proposal meets the
applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050,
Review Standards, as outlined in Exhibit A. Staff finds that the vrovosal is consistent with the
infill develovment i!oals established in the 2000 Asven Area Communitv Plan. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision to City Council by a vote of five to
one (5 -1).
Minimum Lot 6,032 sq. ft. No requirement
Size
Minimum Lot 60 ft. No requirement
Width
Minimum Lot NfA No requirement
ArealDwellin
Minimum Front Oft. No requirement
Yard Setback
1 HPC Resolution # 18 of 2006 (Conceptual, Demolition, Commercial Design Standard Review) and HPC Resolution
# 19 of 2007 (Final). Exhibit B. The HPC heard the application three times during the Conceptual, Commercial
Design, and Viewplane Review before granting approval. Minutes from HPC conceptual review meetings held on
March 8, 2006; June 14, 2006; and July 12, 2006 are attached as Exhibit C.
2 P&Z Resolution #18 of2007 (GMQS approval and Subdivision recommendation). Exhibit D.
'Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.104.100, is defined as "the orocess. act. or result of dividing
land into two or more lots. oarcels. or other units of land or seoarate legal interests. for the oumose of transfer of
ownershio. leasehold interest. building. or develooment..."
4 Once construction is nearly completed, but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must file
a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community
Development Director.
Page 2 of4
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
Maximum
Height
Minimum
Distance between
Buildin s on Lot
Pedestrian
Amenity Space
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Maximum
Residential Unit
Size
(sq. ft.)
Oft.
Oft.
35 ft.- measured to the top of
the third floor
View plane review was granted
at HPC, including a variance
for a 3.3' intrusion.
NfA
Providing 8%, as approved by
HPC; Cash-in-Lieu fee for
17% or [ ($50 * 6,032 sq. ft. )
*17%] = $51,272
Cumulative
FAR:
12,256 sq. ft.
(approx.2:1)
Commercial:
3,630 sq. ft.
No requirement
No requirement except trash/utility service area
shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
42 feet for all areas of the property.
46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
lot lines adjoining a Street right-of-way.
No requirement
Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Amenity
Cumulative Maximum:
18,096 sq. ft or 3:1
Commercial: 1.5:1
upt02:1 (with
affordable housing
increase
Lodging, Arts,
Cultural and Civic,
Public,
Recreational,
Academic uses: 3:1
Affordable
Housing: No
limitation
Free-Market
Residential: 1: 1
NfA
Affordable
Housing:
2,632 s . ft.
F ree- Market
Residential:
5,994 s . ft.
Free-Market Residential Unit:
1,447 sq. ft. (second floor unit)
and
3,500 sq. ft. (third floor unit)
2,000 sq. ft.
Note: The 2,000 sq. ft. maximum permitted was
established by Ordinance 12, Series 2006.
This application was submitted prior to the
passage of Ordinance 12, and is therefore not
required to comply with the 2,000 sq. ft.
maximum.
Page 3 of4
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff finds that the Subdivision criteria are met, and
recommends approval.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #
Reading."
Series of 2007 upon First
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Subdivision Criteria.
B - HPC Resolution # 18 Series 2006 and # 19 Series oj 2007.
C - HPC Minutes: March 8, 2006; Junel4, 2006; July 12, 2006.
D - P&Z Resolution # 18 Series oj 2007.
E - Design Review Committee Minutes.
F - Housing Board comments.
Page 4 of4
ORDINANCE NO. ')'r
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR, 308
E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from J. W. Venture, LLC represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of
Subdivision and Condominiumization to construct a mixed-use building consisting of
2,745 square feet of commercial space, 2 free-market residential units and 3 affordable
housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 12,2006, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006, by a four to one
vote (4 - 1), approving Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Viewplane Exemption,
Pedestrian Amenity Space, and Conceptual development within a Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission found that the 3 foot 3 inch
intrusion into the Hotel Jerome Viewplane was insignificant and granted exemption; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2007, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved with conditions Resolution No. 19, Series of 2007,
by a vote of four to zero (4 - 0), approving Final development within a Historic District;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 17, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.18, Series of 2007, by a five to one (5 -I)
vote, approving two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use
building that includes commercial space, free market and affordable housing,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision to
construct a mixed-use building consisting of two (2) free-market residential unit and
2,745 square feet of commercial space; and,
WHEREAS, on _the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. _, Series
2007, on First Reading by a _-_ vote, approving with conditions the Subdivision and
Condominiumization 0008 E. Hopkins Ave, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite
of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page I
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a Subdivision and
Condominiumization allowing J. W. Venture, LLC, to construct a mixed-use building
consisting of one (I) commercial space, two (2) free market units and three (3) deed
restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Ave, Lots M
and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Section 2: Plat and Al!reement
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such
approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfY. all
conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of 2007 as
well as all conditions of this Ordinance. A final Condominium Plat shall be approved and
signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of
construction and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 3: Buildinl! Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy ofthe final Ordinance, HPC Resolutions and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 2
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
i. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
J. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
k. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and soils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an i~entification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The CMP
shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained
throughout construction, that landscaping, plantings and amenities on adjacent
properties will be protected, and that construction parking will not encroach on
private property.
l. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code
requirements.
m. An approved Landscape Plan for landscaping in the public rights-of-way.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Compliance with these requirements will be
verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal.
The subgrade storage areas shall remain uninhabitable and unimproved storage facilities.
If these areas are remodeled in the future, the applicant shall go through the appropriate
land use reviews in place at the time of application.
Section 5: TrashlUtiIitv Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 6: Sidewalks. Curb. and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA
requirements. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide
sidewalk, curb and gutter plans that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such
improvements shall be made prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on any of the
units within the development.
Section 7: Water Department Requirements
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 3
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant-finished, interceptors will be
required at this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared
service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or
right of ways.
f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
h. Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage areas must have approved contairunent facilities.
I. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines.
J. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 9: Exterior Lil!htinl!
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 10: Landscapinl!
a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of
the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in
this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility
connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a manner that does not
encroach into the tree protection zones.
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 4
b. Prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits, a tree removal permit will
need to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. To the extent that
mitigation is required for any removals, the required mitigation will be provided to
the satisfaction of the Parks Department via payment of cash-in-lieu of plantings, the
planting of street trees, or a combination of these methods.
c. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under
the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service
company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees
located on adjacent properties.
d. Planting in the Public Right-Of-Way (ROW) will be subject to Landscaping in the
ROW requirements. Improvements to the ROW should include new grass, irrigation
and the applicant shall work with the Parks Department in order to design an
appropriate trench box for the new tree plantings. Plans for the tree plantings should
be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal.
Section 11: Park Development and TDM/Air Ouality Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park
development impact fee and a TDMlAir Quality impact fee prior to building permit
issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code
Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule.
Section 12: Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall
pay a cash-in-lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (17%)
percent of the lot area, as the applicant is providing eight percent (8%) on site, prior to
building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Lot area = 6,032 square feet
17% of Lot Area = 1,025.44 square feet
Payment = $50 x 1025.44 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $51,272,
Section 13: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 14: Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension
The one (1) year deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable
credits, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.A, is hereby extended to two (2)
years to accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
Section 15: Vested Ril!hts
The development approvals granted pursuant to Historic Preservation Commision
Resolution Number 18, Series of 2006, and Resolution Number 19, Series of 2007; and
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 18, Series of2007 and herein shall
be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development
order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews
necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a
site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this
Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property
right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article
68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property:
308 East Hopkins Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No.
_, Series of 2007, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 16:
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 Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and
Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended
by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
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 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 19:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of July, 2007, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
[signatures on following page]
Ordinance No.
Series 2007
Page 6
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of June, 2007.
, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _th day of
,2007.
, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Ordinance No._
Series 2007
Page 7
Exhibit A
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Findinf!
The project contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the
managing growth section of the AACP. Additionally, this development does not require growth
Management Allotments, complying with the 2% desired annual growth in the managing growth
section ofthe AACP.
The project promotes the AACP's goals with regards to transportation by developing a building
that supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes - transit, walking, and bicycling - and
that will help create a more friendly pedestrian experience by providing interest at the street level
and improved sidewalk and streetscape amenities.
The redevelopment proposes to exceed affordable housing requirements on the site, fulfilling the
goals of the AACP.
The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include
improvements along sidewalks on East Hopkins A venue and will pay a Park Development
Impact Fee. Cash in lieu payment for 17% of the Pedestrian Amenity Space will be used for
important pedestrian improvement downtown. HPC did not support more than the proposed
open space on the site in an effort to remain consistent with downtown character.
The development also meets the AACP with regard to design quality as the architectural design
enhances the existing character of the area through its consistency with the Commercial Design
Standards reviewed by the HPC.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the area.
Staff Findinf!
Staff believes that the proposed mixed-use building is consistent with the land uses in the
immediate vicinity. Further, the HPC has reviewed the Application for consistency with the
neighborhood characteristics in the Commercial Core. The design has received Conceptual and
Final design approval from the HPC Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page I of3
Staff Findin~
The surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Additionally, the development meets all
the requirements of the CC zone district, and park development, school land, and other impact
fees will be paid to mitigate for any other impacts from the development. Therefore, Staff does
not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Findin~
The proposed development is in compliance with the CC zone district requirements and meets all
other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability ofJand for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be hamiful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Findin~
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site is already developed and is
within the designated Aspen Infill Area. The site contains no overly steep topography and no
known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed
development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff FindinfZ
Staff finds that the property is suitable for subdivision. Staff finds that there will be no
duplication of public facilities as the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate
public facilities. The Applicant has stated the cost of any necessary utility extensions or
upgrades will be bome by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements setforth at Chapter 26.580 shall be providedfor the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430)
if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision
design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 2 of3
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional
engineers as necessary.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall
be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter
26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Findinf!
The Applicant is providing more than the required affordable housing on site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards setforth
at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Findinf!
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications
for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth
management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision
approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit
Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly
created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to
development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, *
2)
Staff Findinf!
The development was granted the necessary Growth Management Allotments for the free-market
units and affordable housing. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
308 East Hopkins Avenue, Exhibit A
Page 3 00
6/Jil:if 1.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL),
VIEWPLANE REVIEW, PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, DEMOLITION AND
COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCA TED AT 308 EAST
HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M, AND N, BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES OF 2006
PARCEL In: 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, JW Venture LLC, represented by Sunny Vann and Charles Cunniffe
Architects has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design
Review for the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.4l5.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for View Plane Exemption the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with
Municipal Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, in order to authorize a demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of
designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the
following criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the ownerfapplicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionallv. for approval to demolish. all of the followinl! criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic
district in which it is located, and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship
to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.4 I 2 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms with the following criteria:
I. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more-appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the Standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested Design Elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the Standards.
2. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, to the greatest extent practical. Amendments to the fayade of the
building may be required to comply with this section.
3. For properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or located within a
Historic District, the proposed development has received Conceptual Development Plan
approval from the Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. This
criterion shall not apply if the development activity does not require review by the
Historic Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated July 12, 2006, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met. and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 12, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of 4 to I.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), View Plane
Review, Pedestrian Amenity Space, Demolition, and Commercial Design Review for the
property located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot M & N, Block 80, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following conditions;
I. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for
a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written
request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of July 2006.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 308 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M, AND N, BLOCK
80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. 19, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL In: 2737-073-29-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, JW Venture LLC, represented by Sunny Vann and Charles Cunniffe
Architects has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial Design
Review for the property located at 308 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots M and N, Block 80, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.of
the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove,
approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report dated April 25, 2007, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 9, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of 4 to O.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Final) for the property located
at 308 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot M & N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as
proposed with the following conditions;
I. The applicant will restudy the material and style of the second floor balconyfrailing on the
South Elevation, for review and approval by Staff and monitor.
2. The first floor fence enclosing the outdoor seating will be approved by Staff and monitor.
3. Approval for the fixed glass windows along the west elevation is contingent on an
approval by the Building Department. Staff and monitor will review and approve any
changes to the approved plans.
4. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
6. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 308 East Hopkins
Avenue.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or
the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this
approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
[signatures on following page]
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of May 2007.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
----^n^-^---~f,I,.y c,.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2006
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley and Derek
Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5:12 p.m. Michael Hoffman was
excused.
Staff present:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner
Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 8'h as amended and
Feb. 2r; second by Alison. All infavor, motion carried.
308 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPUTAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW, DEMOLITION, PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE AND
VIEW PLAN REVIEW
Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I
Charles Cunniffe, architect
Amy said there is a structure on the site and the proposal is to demolish and
replace it. The building used to be on the historic inventory and two years
ago it was de-listed. HPC needs to verifY that the demolition standards have
been met. In terms of conceptual review staff feels there is a conflict with
the guidelines in terms of the placement of the entry. There are three entry
points on the ground level, two go to residential units and one into the
ground level restaurant. They are all setback from the street. Guidelines
13.3, and 13. I 9 suggest that the entry should be right at the sidewalk or
slightly recessed no more than 4 feet which is what you have when you have
a typical Victorian store front. The open balconies that face the street still
are in conflict with guideline 13.12 which requires flat facades. The
proposal is not consistent with downtown. Three-story buildings per
guideline 13.10 are to be considered on a case by case basis. Regarding the
commercial design review guidelines, staff finds that two guidelines A3 and
C3 are not in compliance. A3 requires a flat falYade on the first and second
levels. C3 requires entries to be well defined and apparent. The applicant is
requesting that the cash in lieu be waived for the open space (Pedestrian
Amenity Space). At this time Staff is not recommending in favor of the cash
in lieu waiver because the community needs it for other improvements in the
downtown. The last matter to deal with is the view plane. There is a view
plane that originates from the Hotel Jerome toward Aspen Mountain and as
1
MA~~ ~It~b~
,
.
I
· .. ... it["
....4'." ...
,,".;.,; t ·
. __.__._-<-_.,__...h
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2006
it crosses this property it hits at the second floor level. It allows for a two-
story building but does not allow for a third floor. There are two ways to
deal with that; either HPC grants an exemption finding that there is
negligible impact to the view plane or it can through a PUD process. Staff
recommends continuance because there are HPC design view issues and
view plane issues.
Charles said there are three entry points. The entry to the units upstairs is
through the courtyard rather than on the street. We would like the condition
waived that the two entrances have to be at sidewalk level. One of the
driving forces in the proposal is the outdoor dining courtyard. The door
furthest to the west can be pulled forward to comply with the guideline. We
want to work with what is happening on that street, the vitality and have the
restaurant continue that vitality.
Regarding the balconies, we can further reduce their size and have them a
protective balcony rather than a linear balcony across the front.
Jeffrey inquired about the view plan study. Charles said they do intercept
the view plane. In favor of what we are trying to do, if you look at the
buildings on either side there is some significant construction on either side.
The white Victorian at some point will have a two or three story addition. It
would effectively take out our view plane issue because it is forward of us.
Derek inquired if studies were done to take down the height. Charles said
they could take off 2 or three feet. They were trying to create a nice height
above the kitchen, the parking and the employee housing which is above the
second floor.
Amy said for clarification there is a guideline that encourages first floors to
have gracious height. Charles said they could have the first floor high and
then step the building over the parking in the back to reduce the height.
Alison asked Charles to address the entrance to the restaurant on the street
fac;ade. Charles said in the summer people will sit in the patio then sit at the
windows. We can pull the western doorway forward to have a more historic
context. We wanted it stepped back because the Victorian next door, the
Genra Bistro building steps back.
Chariperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2006
Rob Ittner, owner of Range restaurant. Rob said we welcome another
vibrant restaurant on the street. Rob said he hopes the architect is conscious
of the views in designing their wall on the west because their restaurant on
the second floor is set back.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty closed the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
Board comments.
Derek said his concern is the overall massing and his concem is the 3'd story.
We need to come to a balance. The current height is 42 feet. The patio will
add vibrancy to the street. Derek recommended a restudy of the massing
context.
Jason said the western fa9ade needs to be restudied to add sensitivity to the
block. The design would be better ifit was a two story building with a third
story loft. The south fa9ade also needs restudied to comply with guideline
13.12. It should be broken down to have more ofa horizontal effect. The
guidelines state that the entry should be on the street fa9ade and that should
be accommodated. There probably won't be dining in the winter.
Regarding the dining space, at the last meeting the deck above didn't have a
cover over it. We are trying to reduce the amount of balconies.
Alison also said she feels the entry should be looked at on the street fa9ade
and how that would work. The main entrance should be within four feet of
the street. She said Jason had a good point about walking through the patio
in the summer and during winter it isn't used. On the western fa9ade the
balcony not being glass and being brick would be better. The eastern
balcony needs restudied. Maybe it isn't necessary. Regarding the view
plane, this is difficult because it is the first building on the block. Story
poles would help. Alison is also in favor of continuance to look at the story
poles and restudy the balconies.
Sarah also concurred with the story poles. The view plane is a tough thing
for us to be judging projects by, but it is what we have and we need to
respect that. Maybe some articulations would lessen the blow of the view
plane. This is the first box going up but we need to judge it for today and
not tomorrow. If you can bring all the issues into play that were discussed, it
will serve this building well.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 8. 2006
Jeffrey concurred with the board. The small scale intimacy of this restaurant
row has nicely been maintained. It is difficult to come in with a large design
that is allowable by scale. The architecture should compliment at least on
the front the Victorian scale. It is a difficult design challenge. On the entry
it should be as close to present to the street as possible. The overall mass
and scale is much too grand. Lowering the top floor by three feet isn't going
to help it. We have historic view planes for a reason and they are site
specific. Some undulation could compliment the view plan predicament and
would help the mass and scale. Jeffrey said he supports the commercial use
and the story poles. The balconies are very aggressive. Jeffrey pointed out
that he understands that the scale of the town is continually changing but our
purview at the same time is to maintain the intimacy. This is a difficult
transition. The board feels there will be a favorable outlook.
Derek said the view plane is important but he could be favorable with some
designs that infringe on the view plane if they are respectful to what is going
on around it.
Sarah said she cannot support waiving the cash in lieu.
Charles said they will red1.lce the horizontal line of the balconies to more of a
projected balcony and try to break down the massing that way.
MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development of 308 E. Hopkins until April 19'h; second by Derek. All in
favor. motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Alison, yes; Derek,
yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes.
332 W. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - VARIANCES
Sarah recused herself.
Motion: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development for 332 W. Main until May I(/h; second by Alison, All infavor,
motion carried 4-0.
330 E. MAIN - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - CONCEPTUAL - Public
Hearing continued from Feb. 22Dd
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
__ Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Sarah Broughton, Alison Agley, Derek
Skalko. Jason Lasser was seated at 5: 12 p.m. Michael Hoffman was
excused.
Staff present:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Adams, Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Derek moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 2006; second by
Alison. All in favor, motion carried.
701 W. MAIN - Monitoring - The historic bldg. has been picked up and
put it on its new foundation and they are getting ready to start the rehab
work. The question is about the door. There is an original door opening on
the east side of the shed. It will be the entry to the living unit in the
basernent. The applicant has asked if they can shift it northward in order to
make it more of a standard 6.8 door. This is required by code but historic
buildings have some flexibility. The building official indicated that the door
could remain in place as a 6.3 door.
Patrick Hunter, contractor said he was asked to put in the new door per code.
We will do whatever everyone agrees upon.
Jeffrey pointed out that they are trying to get the head room clearance.
Patrick said he just needs some kind of agreement.
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve 701 E. Main to keep the historic door
opening and work with the City on allowing non-code requirements in
height. Motion second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes;
Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0.
308 E. HOPKINS AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION -
PEDESTRIAN AMENITY SPACE, AND VIEW PLAN REVIEW
Charles Cunniffe, architect
Amy said in general the project has made a lot of progress from what was
initially proposed which was a three-story building with decks on the front.
~_ The latest is a two-story that fits in with the scale of the neighborhood better.
1
JlAYH, \+.lOilv
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
There is a one-story outdoor seating area in the front which does have a
"." relationship to the smaller structures on the street. A few things need
focused on, one of which is the one-story element then the two-story that is
set back and actually conflicts with some of the guidelines. You need to
make the rationale why you would make an exception, which might be that
the context of this street is so different rather than other streets that have
buildings right up to the street. It also conflicts with some of the commercial
design standards which talk about flat fa~ade buildings. This property is two
lots wide and a lot of the buildings on this block are only one lot wide and is
there something more that can be done other than the way they staggered the
building. Staff supports demolition of the existing building. The remaining
discussion is really about the view plane. The applicant has made a response
by trying to make a one-story element in the front and as a result things get
pushed back into the view plane. Is it the right solution to pull the building
forward and get them out of the view plane or is the context of the street
more appropriate. If the building is pulled forward it would comply with our
guidelines. The view plane is not something this board has reviewed in the
past. We have asked the HPC to review it because we are consolidating the
application.
Charles Cunniffe, architect. We are trying to find some ways to balance
conflicting forces. We have been trying to relate to the Genre building,
Seguin building and the building on the comer by having a one-story
element at the street with a receded area for the courtyard for a restaurant.
Part of the commercial guidelines is to liven the street area. At the same
time we are tying to deal with the view plane from the back which is a
sliding view plane. At some point in time the two buildings on either side
will be added onto. The two Victorians on Main Street in all probability will
have a two-story addition which would put more mass between us and the
view plane.
Charles pointed out that there are buildings on this block that are larger than
this building. The part that we are intruding into the view plane is 4.3 feet.
We are asking for an exception from the view plane.
Alison pointed out that there are a few buildings that received view plane
relief in that same area, the Matshisa building being one. The Conner Cabin
project also got relief.
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
__ public comments. The public hearing portion ofthe meeting was closed.
Commissioner comments:
Derek pointed out that the height of this building has radically come down
since we first saw the project. He understands the unique architectures
adjacent to the building that they have to work with including the view
plane. Pushing the building back is more consistent with what is existing in
that area. From a view plane standpoint the height is negligible and as more
and more development occurs in the core we are inevitably going to find that
this issue will continue to come up. The height is 36 feet and it was reduced
from 42 feet. Derek is very supportive of the massing and scale but would
like more information regarding the first floor fenestration.
Jason said the street level stepping back is very successful and is sensitive to
the Range building and Genre building. The hard part is that our guidelines
are conflicting and a lot of effort has been made to accommodate them.
Jason's issue is the flat fa9ade in the back and the width of the upper loft.
Possibly it can come in two feet on either side. As far as the view plane is
concerned the ceiling height is 10 feet and maybe it can come down to 9 feet
to reduce the height into the view plane. Possibly a material change could
divide the first and second levels.
Alison said the width of the fa9ade of the second level doesn't read that wide
to her. Alison commended the architect for listening to the Boards
comments and make revisions to the plans. The proposed building fits into
the street a lot better after the revisions. She would prefer that the fa9ade not
be broken up.
Massing - The second-story being pushed back works because we know that
the Genre and building on the corner will stay at those levels.
View plane - The height is below the allowable but also in the view plane.
P&Z gave view plane reliefto the piece behind the Matshisa building and
that needs to be considered in setting precedents. With some ofthe other
Victorian's in the alley we are going to have these tall additions. Alison said
with dropping the building a foot it would not be a significll11t impact on the
view plane.
Sarah said this building has come very far. Her issue is guideline 13.11
'_. (dividing the building into modules) maybe there is a subtle way to do that.
3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
In terms of view plan Jason had good suggestions in terms of plate height
_ reduction etc. Breaking the building into modules like Conner Cabins might
work. The thought would be to minimize the long fa~ade.
Charles said the idea is to have an open air cafe and they intend to construct
a landscape fence and that fence would become the edge.
Amy said there are two issues we need to be comfortable with: This
building is very close to the Genre bldg. and we need to know what kind of
separation is there. Jeffrey said the building department has rules and
regulations on property line protection. Amy said it was her understanding
that the awning would be retractable.
Derek interjected that he could approve the project as is.
Charles said one of our goals is to make the fa~ade as transparent as possible
so it looks like it is engaging the sidewalk. The open air patio would have
dining tables with a retractable awning and engage with the street.
Alison asked what the distance was between the Genre building. Charles
said probably a couple feet. Alison said the eave would probably touch the
Genre building. Charles said he will work with Joe Krabacher, one of the
owners of the Genre building to make sure they have a fire proof protection.
Charles said they could pull the upper floor back a little more to provide a
shadow line and break the fa~ade up a little.
Jeffrey said he is in agreement that the proposal has come a long way. The
two conflicting guidelines are the view plane and our commercial core
guidelines. It is an anomaly to have two historic resources in this proximity.
He is in favor with reducing the plate heights and the possible differentiation
of the planes and how this building affects the Genre building. With further
massaging we can get a consensus across the board for approval.
Jeffrey pointed out that we do not want to approve a building then all of a
sudden have to fire proof the historic resource next door due to its proximity.
Placing the door to the street facing element works well. The
differentiations of the facades help moderate mass and scale. Jeffrey said he
is in total agreement with reducing the plate heights.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
Jeffrey stated that in the future he would prefer that the HPC & P&Z have a
.., joint meeting or work session.
Charles said he has heard tonight that half the board feels the fa9ade should
go straight across and others feel it should be stepped back. He asked the
board for clarification.
Alison said she is fine with the shadow line.
Charles said he can drop the plate height and incorporate the shadow line.
Sarah stated that she would prefer to see the drawings again because we are
working with mass and scale.
MOTION: Derek moved to approve Resolution #15 for ~08 E. Hopkins Ave.
for conceptual development as proposed. Motion dies for lack of a second.
MOTION: Jason moved to approve Resolution #15 for 308 E. Hopkins with
the following conditions:
I. Reduction of the roof plate heights upper loft to nine feet ceiling
height inside.
2. A step in the facade of the upper and second story brick fa9ade from
the lower level at both points to two feet each side.
3. Reduction in the width of the upper loft.
Motion second by Alison.
Sarah said she has difficulties putting design constraints on a project that
need restudied.
Jeffrey said the board in general is in favor of an exemption ofthe view
plan.
Amended motion:
4. Keep separation as close to the building but not replace Genre's
siding. Provide functionality for access to Genre.
Roll call vote: Jason, no. Derek, no. Alison, no; Jeffrey, no. Sarah, no.
Motion dies 4-0.
MOTION: Derek moved to continue Conceptual development and the public
hearingfor 308 E. Hopkins until July 12, 2006; second by Sarah. All in
favor, motion carried 4-0.
5
J
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006
Jeffrey relayed that Chapter 13 and 14 have been adhered to. The
modifications have helped its mass and scale.
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #17 for 508 E. Cooper Ave.
as presented tonight, second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek,
yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 5-0.
308 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION - PEDESTRIAN
AMENTY SPACE AND VIEW PLANE REVIEW - PUBLIC
HEARING
Exhibit I - Genre building - fire wall.
Amy explained that staff feels there has been a lot of progress on the project.
At the last hearing there were a few things asked to be restudied: Reduce
plate heights and pulling in the width of the upper floor to minimize the
intrusion of the Hotel Jerome view plane. Restudy breaking the building
into two 30 foot modules. Allow enough space between the new
construction and the Genre building for maintenance and to ensure that the
historic siding would not have to be removed. The applicant has clearly
done a few of these things, reduced the plate heights and they have also
created the shadow line that was requested. Staff is still concerned that a
couple things are not resolved. No additional breathing room has been given
to the Genre building and architecturally it is not appropriate to butt up
against that building. Genre is an historic landmark and this building is not.
Staff also feels that the side walls have not been resolved. They have been
pulled in on the lower but not the full depth of the building. The Planning
Office feels strongly that the view plane is important and HPC should take
that concept of negligible impact very seriously.
Charles Cunniffe, architect stated that HPC verbalized that if we reduce the
plate height by a foot then the view plane would be a non-issue at the last
meeting. We have cut off some square feet and cut down the plate heights to
accomplish that. We are now down to a 3.3 in the view plane. The view
plane is a sliding view plane. Charles pointed out that when the cottages on
Main Street come before HPC they will want to add two stories.
The second issue is the breaking up the front fa~ade and we have
accomplished that.
11
JUllv 12)1-t()(P
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006
Charles said they met with the owners ofthe Genre building and they do not
want us to step our building back and would prefer that it be adjacent to
them and have it be a party wall that will help both buildings. We can't
afford to pull the building back because it would affect the upper floor. The
current court yard restaurant covered patio goes back 18 feet and the
entrance into the free market part of the building as well as into the
affordable part of the building is on the right side of the patio. We are
suggesting eliminating that wall then the whole side of the Genre building
will be visible. As you walk along the street you will be able to see the
Genre building. The roof would be flashed which is recommended by the
Building Dept. We would work in conjunction with the owners of the
building to retain a party wall/fire wall. We propose to take the asbestos
siding off and put in some fire proofing and then put some other material on
the side. We don't want to create more problem areas throughout town than
we have. We are offering a solution where we keep the Genre building
exposed but allow us to build to our property line.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing.
Rob Ittner, owner of Range said the proposal is good for the street and he
really likes the design. The street is very unique. His building was built in a
time and under different code and on a street that is very specific to Aspen.
There is no other street in the core that has the presence that this street has.
His building is set back 20 feet from the street and there is a patio in front of
it. The synergy is more toward the Genre building and ignoring the Range
bldg. In terms of the view plane variance it is minimal. One comment
because I have a patio on the second floor whose view will greatly be
diminished. The utilities will have to be on top of this building give the fact
that it is a restaurant and he is not sure if the system will be in the view
plane. Rob said he welcomes a vibrant restaurant next door.
The chair closed the public hearing.
Comments:
Alison said reducing the plate heights and taking one foot off the building is
appreciated. The applicant isn't going any higher than the Miner's building
so I have no problem with the view plane variance. She appreciates the new
way oflooking at the Genre wall and it is successful and the best solution.
The way the wall will be restored will make the Genre wall look even better.
The step in the front fayade is fine and the entire building has improved.
12
"."_.___.-1.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006
Derek expressed his appreciation to the applicant for all the work and time
that has gone into this project. When the view plane was set the ordinances
and codes of the city as far as rnassing and height restrictions have
drastically changed. The view plane and codes do not correspond together.
The view plane has outdated itself. This building is sympathetic to the view
plane and the massing and scale are appropriate and comply with our
guidelines. Regarding the relationship of Geme and the rest of the street's
energies, obviously the building relates more to the Genre bldg. because that
is the historical building that will not be going anywhere. Derek said he is
on board for conceptual approval.
Jason said the changes have improved the project. Unfortunately we are in
conflict with our guidelines regarding buildings being on the street front.
The only concern is the upper story and possibly it could be broken up a
little and pulled in more.
Sarah said the changes are moving in the right direction. Regarding the
glass block there are better ways to address that opening that is so prevalent
on the street. Regarding the view plane she agrees that it is a sympathetic
proposal. We as a commission should not be putting dimensional
requirements on applicants. Pushing back the door along the Geme side is
very successful. Hopefully the awning isn't out all the time so that the
corner is more apparent on the street.
Jeffrey said the suggestion of pulling away the wall to express the Genre
historic wall is a noble effort and he encourages the same for the western
side. The view plane conceptually works. He also agreed that ajog or notch
would help the rear facade as far as the view plane. The improvements to
the front facade are sympathetic to our guidelines. Our commission strives
to create a greater separation but in fact it pushes the building further into
the view plane. The lightness and thinness ofthe penthouse is
commendable.
Charles said we might be able to put actual windows on the west side of the
building with the idea that if the Range building gets rebuilt we would have
to put a wall in.
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #18, 2006 for 308 E.
Hopkins Ave. as proposed tonight with the condition that they have to come
back for final in a year or ask for an extension in the required time frame;
13
.J
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006
second by Derek. Roll call vote: Jason, no; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah,
yes; Jeffrey, yes. Motion carried 4-1
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Derek. All infavor. motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
.~'L.~(
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
14
~
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS TWO GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEWS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH
CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION FOR 308 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS M AND N,
BLOCK 80, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-073-29-007.
RESOLUTION NO. 18 SERIES OF 2007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from J.
W. Venture, LLC represented by Vann Associates, LLC, requesting approval of two (2)
Growth Management Reviews and Subdivision Review to construct a mixed-use building
consisting of2,745 square feet of commercial space, 2 free-market residential units and 3
affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Review Approval from
the Historic Preservation Commission on July 12,2006; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Viewplane Review Approval for a 3 foot 3
inch intrusion into the Hotel Jerome Viewplane from the Historic Preservation
Commission on July 12,2006; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned CC (Commercial Core); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a duIy noticed public hearing on April 17, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.1 8, Series of2007, by a five to one (5 -I)
vote, approving two Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use
building that includes commercial space, free market and affordable housing,
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision to
construct a mixed-use building consisting of two (2) free-market residential unit and
2,745 square feet of commercial space located on the property at 308 E. Hopkins Ave,
Lots M and N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
t).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions a
Growth Management Review for the development of a mixed-use building; a Growth
Management Review for the development of free-market housing; a Growth Management
Review for the development of affordable housing for the property located at Lots M and
N, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix and dimensional
requirements shall comply with the CC zone district, as included in the chart below.
Specific square footage requirements may be amended, pursuant to compliance with the
CC zone district.
Minimum Lot
Size
Minimum Lot
Width
Minimum Lot
ArealDwellin
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
No requirement
60 Feet
No requirement
NfA
No requirement
o Feet
No requirement
o Feet
No requirement
o Feet
No requirement except trash/utility service area
shall be required abutting an alley, pursuant to
Section 26.575.060
Minimum
Distance
between
Buildings on
Lot
Pedestrian
Amenit S ace
NfA
Maximum
Height
Building: 35 Feet along Hopkins
Ave, measured to the top of the
third floor
No requirement
Providing 8% onsite and cash-in-
lieu feefor 17% = $51,272
Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Ameni
Section 2: Plat and Al!reement
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City
Council grant subdivision approval and that, should City Council grant subdivision
~~
approval, the Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of such
approval. If Subdivision approval is granted by City Council, the final Condominium Plat
may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial
completion of construction.
Section 3: Buildinl! Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering
Department.
d. Improvements to the right of way shall include new grass, irrigation, and possibly
the replacement of street trees, and shall be approved prior to building permit
submittal.
e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and
drainage and spoils report pursuant to the Building Department's requirements.
The CMP shall include an identification of construction hauling routes,
construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The
construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will
be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Staging areas will be
identified in the plan, and shall indicate that the alley shall not be closed during
construction. No stabilization will be permitted in the City right of way. Storm
run off must be addressed.
f. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
permit submittal plan.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted Building Code
requirements.
h. An approved Landscape Plan.
Section 4: Dimensional Reauirements
The building as presented in the plans contained within the application complies with the
dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core (CC) zone. district. Compliance with
these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of
building permit submittal.
Section 5: TrashlUtilitv Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Section 6: Sidewalks. Curb. and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be upgraded to meet the City Engineer's standards and ADA
requirements, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide plans
that meet the approval of the City Engineer. Such improvements shall be made prior to a
Certificate of Occupancy on any of the units within the development.
?..
Section 7: Affordable Housinl!
The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 rentals with the
capability of converting into ownership units if the owners would request this change or
APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of more than one year. If the
units become "for sale" due to the aforementioned conditions, they will be listed with the
Housing Office at Category 4 maximum sales prices.
Section 8: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements
a. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District's (ACSD) rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the
District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear
water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
b. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
c. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment; Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
permit; even though the commercial space will be tenant-finished, interceptors will be
required at this time iffood processing establishments are anticipated for this project.
d. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shaft
drains must flow through oil and sand interceptors.
e. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared
service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a
single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or
right of ways.
f. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping
may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
g. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
h. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge
of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol
storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
1. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above AS CD main sewer lines.
J. Applicant's civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow
calculations.
Section 10: Exterior Lil!htinl!
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
p.
Section 11: Landscapinl!
a. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of
the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over-digging is prohibited in
this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. Utility
connection will need to be designed and shown on the plan in a rnanner that does not
encroach into the tree protection zones.
b. Prior to any the issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be
approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals will be paid through
cash-in-lieu or on site with street trees.
c. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the
building permit set.
d. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under
the drip line. This can be accomplished by a contracted professional tree service
company or trained member of the contractor's team. This is specific to the trees
located on adjacent properties.
Section 12: Park Development and TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a park
development impact fee and a TDMlAir Quality impact fee prior to building permit
issuance. The fee shall be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code
Section 26.610.09 0, Fee Schedule.
Section 13: Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian Amenity, the Applicant shall
pay a cash-in-lieu fee for pedestrian amenity in the amount equal to seventeen (I 7%)
percent of the lot area, as the applicant is providing eight percent (8%) on site, prior to
building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation:
Lot area = 6,032 square feet
17%ofLotArea= 1,025.44 square feet
Pavment = $50 x 1025.44 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $51,272,
Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall
pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen
Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the
calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit
submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site
improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site.
Section 15: Reconstruction Credits Deadline Extension
The one (I) year deadline for the reconstruction of existing commercial net leasable
credits, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070.A, is hereby extended to two (2)
years to accommodate the projects' additional approval requirements.
\)-
Section 16:
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 Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 17:
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 18:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17th
day of April, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Jim True, City Attorney
Ruth Kruger, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
~'f. ~~
a\\i\?if ~_
-
-
To: Development Review Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer
Date: February 14,2007
Re: 308 East Hopkins Avenue, La Cocina Building
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Redevelopment request at their
February 14,2007 meeting and has compiled the following comments:
Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski and Aaron
Reed, City Engineering; Jessica Garrow, City Planning; Denis Murray, City Building; Ed
VanWalraven, Fire District; Tom Bracewell, ACSD; Blake Fitch, Parking; Cindy
Christensen, Housing; Todd Grange, Zoning; Brian Flynn, Parks; Steve Hunter, Public
Works, Sunny Vann, Applicant Rep.
Building Department - Denis Murray;
. No storage allowed in any hallways within the structure.
. Exiting on the upper level of the building needs to be addressed. The current
submission does not meet code requirements.
. Typical Construction Management Plans (CMP) and Stabilization planes need to
be submitted in accordance with the City requirements.
Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven;
. Fire protection systems must meet the requirements ofNFP A 72 and NFP A 13.
. The application states on page 24 that "a utilityfservice area measuring twenty
feet by ten feet has been provided at the rear of the building and abutting alley."
The International Fire Code has specific requirements regarding combustible
waste materials and containers IFC Section 304.3; my concern is size of the
proposed containers and proximity to the structure.
Engineering Department - Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski and Aaron Reed;
. The project CMP needs to be well throughout and complete because of the nature
of this confined building area.
. Location of the construction dumpster need to have the location identified and
approved before construction. Additionally, any potential crane placements, tower
crane preferred, need to pre approved by Engineering and a protected sidewalk
structure will likely be needed for the duration of the construction activities.
. No stabilization will be permitted in the City ROW adjacent to the alley or
Hopkins.
. Storm runoff will need to be addressed.
.
ti1' ." Ifr-,f\' ~ ~~ ~
~"'\.\ "' ,....
". ..-. ~ ~~ge 2.0~ \ \iI\
~ebruar)' 14,2007
'. fj,Eas{Wop~s ~Rue, La Cocina
: . , . '~~J;~e allowed for Hopkins or the alley for construction activities.
. ...." Any work requiring a street cut will necessitate repaving of the street or alley as
"... directed by the Engineering office. Included will be the replacement of all of the
curb, gutter and sidewalk along Hopkins adjacent to the property. A survey of the
full block will likely be necessary to confirm the acceptability of the replacement
design.
. An alternate pavement surface may be required between the new sidewalk and the
curb and gutter.
Housing Office - Cindy Christensen;
. All units' need to be category 4 by code requirements.
. Anticipate March 7, 2007 Board review.
Zoning Officer - Todd Grange;
. Cash in lieu for commercial parking will be required for the unfinished basement.
. All fees at the time of the building permit application will apply including but not
limited to school, parks and TDM.
Environmental Health - No Comments submitted;
Parks - Brian Flynn;
. Tree Removal: An approved tree permit is required for any tree removals. An
approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for
removal and means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester
for more information 920-5120. The tree permit must be approved prior to an
approved demo permit.
. Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of
each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan
indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit
set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage
of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree
remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her
designee (920-5 I 20) before any construction activities are to commence.
**Fencing around the street trees shall be from the back of curb to the edge of
existing sidewalk. Fence should surround the trees on both sides and out to the edge
of drip line.
. Utilitv connections: These connections will need to be designed on the plan in a
manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. Water taps and
abandonment's will not be approved within the designated tree protection zone.
No traditional excavation will be allowed in the parkway for the water
connection. New water taps and lines will need to be installed with a boring
under the existing parkway planting.
Page 3 of4
February 14,2007
308 East Hopkins Avenue, La Cocina
e
General Requirements:
· There were no calculations and mention of Park Dedications Fees, fees will be
required as calculated during submittal of building pennit.
· Landscaping and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of
way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. Improvements to
the ROW should include new grass, irrigation and possibly replacement of the
street trees. These impacts should be planned in a way to minimize any root
cutting. Plans for the improvements will need to be completed and conceptually
approved prior to building pennit submittal.
,.
** Applicant may be required to increase the size ofthe sidewalk area based on
further review by the Engineering and Parks Department. These changes and
improvements will be included in the applicant's requirements for approval.
Public Works - Steve Hunter;
. New standards are being developed and will apply to this project. It will be
necessary to familiarize the design team prior to building pennit submittal.
Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz;
. If snowmelt is proposed for the sidewalk, no snowmelt runoff is allowed to
release into City ROW.
. A complete geotechnical report and geotechnical design need to be part of the
pennit submittal plan.
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Tom Bracewell;
. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the
sanitary sewer system.
. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food-processing
establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building
penn it.
. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
. Elevator shafts drains must flow thru ofs interceptor
. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer
line according to specific ACSD requirements and before any and all soil
stabilization measures are attempted.
. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be
required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Page 4 of 4
February 14,2007
308 East Hopkins Avenue, La Cocina
. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard
landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in
our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been
made available to the district.
. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the
planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or
treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate
the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area
of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the
planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the
development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire
portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the
costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material
cost difference for larger line).
. Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or
the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a
line extension request and collection system agreement are required. Both are
ACSD Board of Director's action items.
. Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for construction
costs, engineering fees, and construction observation fees, fees to clean and
televise the new main sewer line extension into the project.
. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated
building stubouts prior to building permit.
. The glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer
system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities.
. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above AS CD main sewer lines or
within 3 feet below a district owned main sanitary sewer line.
~.
~
REMINDERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS:
The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use
submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the
following comments and reminders:
TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area
has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recvcling containers be present
wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new
Waste Reduction Ordinance, Chapter 12.06.
Given the Environmental Health Department's experience with businesses in the
commercial core, a dumpster for cardboard will be need. For the type of uses proposed
for this building, a total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utilityftrash service area is
recommended for recycling facilities. This may require the use of two parking spaces,
such that both the users and the trash and recycling haulers can easily access the
containers.
* One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" (5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co-mingled, office paper,
newspaper = l5sq. ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use a toter = 5sq. ft and at most
need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (3"x4").
The applicant is also advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance
recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during
construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling
during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following
recyclable material: Cardboard, Co-mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum, steel cans and
glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper.
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-01 "The city council finds and declares that.
noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and
increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents
of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological
and physiological well being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the
economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. "
During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and
construction cannot be done except between the hours of7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru
Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays.
It is definite that noise generated during the demolition and construction phase of this
project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. A construction noise
suppression plan must be submitted at time of first building plans andfor demolition
plans submittal.
ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial
building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a
person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The
Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. Ifthere
is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos
removal contractor must remove it.
ENGINE IDLING: The applicant is reminded for the construction phase of the project
that per municipal code section 13.08.110 it is unlawful for any person to idle or permit
the idling of the motor of any stationary motor vehicle for a prolonged or unreasonable
period of time determined herein to be five (5) minutes or more within anyone (I) hour
period of time.
FIREPLACEIWOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a
fireplacefwoodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will
be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two
certified woodstoves (or one of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace
appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may
any heating device use coal as fuel.
FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures.
A fugitive dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion control plan. A
fugitive dust control plan may include, but is not limited to fencing, watering ofhauI roads,
and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been
carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from
crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be
submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality
Control Division if this project will last greater than 6 months.
FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado
requires a review of plans and specifications by this Department. The Department shall
be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the
grease trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should
contact this Department to ensure it complies with City code.
The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and specifications is required
before the building permit is approved. A minimum of two weeks is necessary for the
Environmental Health Department to review and approve plans. In addition, final
approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to
issuance of a Colorado Food Service License.
.
f
,,I , "
MEMORANDUM
II' "
;
,. , -
TO:
Jessica Garrow
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE:
March 7, 2007
RE:
LA COCINA REDEVELOPMENT; 308 E. HOPKINS A VENUE
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-29-007
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to redevelop the property located at 308 East
Hopkins A venue, previously the La Cocina Restaurant.
BACKGROUND: The property is located at 308 East Hopkins Avenue. The proposed
development requests the demolition of the existing structure with replacement of a new three-
story, mixed use commercial/residential building to include the following:
. Basement level to include a storage area along with a space for a potential future
commercial use.
. The ground floor will be devoted entirely for a commercial use and is proposed as a new
restaurant. Currently, the applicant is proposing the relocation of the Syzygy restaurant to
this spot.
. The second level is to contain three employee-housing units (two one-bedroom units and
one studio unit) and one free-market, one-bedroom unit. The free-market unit will contain
approximately 1,447 square feet of net livable area. The two one-bedroom employee-
housing units will contain approximately 750 and 768 square feet of net livable area, while
the studio unit will contain approximately 594 square feet. The three employee housing
units mitigate at a total of 4.75 employees (1.25 for the studio unit and 3.5 for the two one-
bedroom units).
. The third floor will consist of a three-bedroom, free-market residential unit to contain
approximately 3,500 square feet of net livable area.
MITIGATION REOUIREMENTS:
Free-Market Mitigation Requirement: Under Section 26.470.040(C)(6), affordable housing must
equal to 30% of the additional free-market floor area that is provided in a manner acceptable to
APCHA. The floor area calculations for the two free-market residential units contain
approximately 5,994 square feet of total floor area. This figure includes a pro rata share of the
building's non-unit floor area (e.g., corridors, stairway) as instructed by the Community
...~.
. .
'~
',,"
.
'. .
1> .;" .<' Iif
b~V&lq: .tUent Department; therefore, a minimum of 1,798 square feet of employee-housing floor
area must be provided. For purposes of calculating the equivalent number of employees that must
be housed, 400 square feet of employee housing floor area equates to one full-time employee. The
calculation is as follows:
5,994 sq. ft. of free-market floor area X 30% = 1,798 square feet
1,798 sq. ft. + 400 sq. ft. = 4.5 employees
The three on-site employee-housing units will house a total of 4.75 employees and contain
approximately 2,632 square feet of floor area (again taking into consideration a pro rata share of the
building's non-unit space); therefore, the three units exceed the project's employee housing
mitigation requirement. The applicant is proposing the three units be deed-restricted to the Category
4 designation.
Commercial Space Mitigation Requirement: Under Section 26.470.040(A)(7), the remodeling or
replacement after demolition of existing commercial area is exempt from growth management and
its associated mitigation requirements. Provided no additional net leasable square footage is
created. The existing restaurant building contains 2,475 square feet of net leasable commercial
area, which the same square footage is being requested with the new commercial space.
The deed-restricted housing being proposed is as follows:
. I Studio, Category 4, at 594 square feet (minimum is 500 square feet)
. lOne-bedroom, Category 4, at 750 square feet (minimum is at 700 square feet)
. lOne-bedroom, Category 4, at 768 square feet (minimum is at 700 square feet)
No off-street parking is required for multi-family residential units located within the infill area. The
applicant does, however, propose to provide two on-site parking spaces for the building's two free-
market units and one for the three employee-housing units.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the approval at their regular meeting held
March 7, 2007, and recommend approval with the following conditions:
I. The mitigation requirement for the redevelopment of the property has been satisfied with
the three employee-housing units as proposed. Staff would prefer the units as "for sale"
units sold through the lottery system; however, the applicant is requesting the units as
Category 4 rental units. If the units are rental units, staff would propose the following:
a. The units will be deed-restricted as Category 4 rental units but the deed-restriction
will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would
request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of
compliance over a period of more than one year. If the units are found to be out of
2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007
called the Lodge at Aspen Mtn. which is in its final review process. This
project is an integral part of it. We need to house about 100 people for that
project. The projected housing project will house about 70 people. The
Housing Authority loved the original design. We presented the proposal to
the Community Development Dept. and they didn't like the original plan so
we redesigned the plan. The idea is to have the entire project reflect the
Smuggler mine and what the little cabin is all about. The racquet club is
near the site and we had to be sensitive to their view planes. The housing is
basically along the road and trailer courts. We had thought moving the
cabin would be permissible. By moving it 25 feet to the west doesn't make
an impact on the historic district or the Smuggler mine. We are to balance a
couple of community interests, affordable housing and historic preservation.
If we can move it the building will have a 40 foot buffer and if not the buffer
will only be 15 feet. Moving it will have a much larger setback. To take
one building and build the affordable housing around it makes a unique
project. We feel the cabin should be habitable.
Bill Poss said they originally had a garden type layout and Chris Bendon
asked us to make a more of a street presence. Chris did not want the gated
community look. The mine is some 100 feet away and up on the hill and by
moving the cabin 25 feet and designating it will protect it from fire threats
and the close construction of the units. We need to lift the building in order
to rehabilitate it and put a foundation under it. In creating a street scene
there is a parcel of land between the road and us which is owned by Sam
Brown. There will be front and back entrances and some of the parking will
enter from the rear of the units.
Michael inquired about the use of the building. Amy said the Sanborn map
indicates that it was used as an office. The majority of the other buildings
are gone.
Bill pointed out that there were two railroads that serviced town back then,
The Rio Grand and Midland. The Midland came into the Holden Marolt
smelter and the Smuggler mine had its own smelter to separate the ore and
ship it and the railroad came across their own bridge and up to the property.
Brian asked the applicant to explain the configuration ofthe new buildings.
Bill said they are townhouses, up and down units. There are some two and
three bedrooms. The modules will be stacked with some units up and some
down. Brian said each of the units is connected into one building.
Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G
Page 2
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007
Sarah asked the applicant ifthey looked at keeping the cabin in its existing
location. John Sarpa said they did but it is too close given what is all around
the area.
Amy asked if they looked at turning the closest unit ninety degrees. Bill said
then we loose the street presence. Chris Bendon said they wanted the
residents on the street.
Jeffrey asked if they looked at moving the vehicular access closer to the
historical building and maintain the clearance ofthe well. Bill said they do
not own the area along the road.
Amy pointed out that maybe there is a way to orient the program slightly to
comply with the Planning & Zoning issues.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
John Sarpa said we are here to try and designate a building. We went
through three or four staff designs and we are trying to combine affordable
housing requirements with historic preservation. We are here voluntarily.
Brian pointed out that the greatest historical integrity of the cabin is its
location. Given the context to the Smuggler mine we need to maintain its
location. The applicants plan is very clear; putting the cabin in the center of
the square actually does celebrate the building in the configuration proposed.
He is not sure every configuration has been exhausted and he is conflicted
with the street presence.
Sarah said she would vote in favor of moving the building. There is a lot of
opportunity for the site plan that we are not seeing here. Moving the
building so that it has more open space helps keep it visually exposed.
Michael said as he read the memo, he thought it would be appropriate to
keep the cabin in its original position. Listening to the applicants comments
this structure does not relate to anything. Everything has been removed
around 1900. Moving it 25 feet is not meaningful.
Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G
Page 3
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007
Jeffrey said the voluntary commitment is commendable. Maybe there is an
opportunity on the site plan to make the cabin a more visual piece. Maybe
there is the possibility to add onto the building with square footage. The site
plan seems very generic. There needs to be some relationship to the historic
resource that begins to relate to the modulars. Because there is nothing left
at the mine site doesn't give us the right to remove that structure. We need
to preserve the structure in its original location especially when there is
flexibility of a quarter of an acre in that location. The preservation of the
cabin and designation is commendable but maybe there can be one more site
plan reviewed to look at all of the pieces.
John Sarpa said they need to keep moving on the project whatever the
outcome.
MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #1, 2007 with the
following additional conditions:
I. Details of the relocation and foundation to be presented to staff and
monitor.
2. 10 feet of buffer should be included on all sides of the structures.
Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes;
Jeffrey, yes.
John Worcester said the resolution should include meets and bounds before
it is signed.
Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G
Page 4
~~i\i1-H
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2007
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McNellis, Michael
Hoffman and Sarah Broughton.
Staff present:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
Jim True, Special Counsel
MOTION: Sarah moved to approve January 24th, Feb. 14th and Feb. 28'h.
2007 minutes; second by Michael. All infavor, motion carried.
Sara said at the P&Z meeting they reviewed the Smuggler affordable
housing case. P&Z is asking HPC to reconsider your position on relocating
the historic cabin.
Jessica Garrow, planner said at the HPC meeting, January 10lh the Smuggier
Racquet Club representatives came in for designation of the cabin on the site
adjacent to Park Circle. HPC recommended designation and leaving the
cabin in its existing location. At the conceptual level for P&Z they
requested staff ask HPC if they are interested in reconsidering your decision
of retaining the cabin in its existing location. They have concerns that the
cabin in its existing location is irnpacting the site plan and they would like to
give the representatives some flexibility to the site and see what other
solutions they come up with.
Amy pointed out that HPC has criteria for relocation and one of them has to
be that it is the best preservation solution.
Jeffrey said until we see a new application or plan that conforms to our
guidelines he is not wavering on his decision. Jeffrey pointed out that the
only time we ever let historic buildings leave their sites is to make them
better viewed by the public. They have plenty of room on the site to do what
they want to do. We would reconsider but it has to be demonstrated that the
plan is a better preservation effort for the cabin.
. Michael said he is willing to reconsider but needs more evidence that the
cabin existed in its current location. Sara said she presented maps that
1
Q4Joit H
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14.2007
indicated it was the same form and same measurements. If it does come
back maybe we can see if the interior was used as an office.
Sarah said her concern is that HPC was presented a sparse site plan and the
applicant said they did not have much time and needed to move forward.
We were backed into a solution where we were throwing out an arbitrary
setback number for the historic resource. Sarah said if the new proposal
meets our guidelines and the historic resource can be better utilized on a
better site plan she is all for seeing it.
Brian said he feels there is always a solution to a landscape design especially
with that much space.
Jeffrey said we would reconsider but we would like to see an excellent
demonstration on preservatio.n as well as the design of the site plan.
Amy said staff brought the proposal to the HPC trying to be reasonable with
the applicant to say that we are just going to define a small piece of the
property instead of the two acres. Reviewing the entire parcel seemed to be
going over our boundaries. That has put us in an awkward position having
such a limited area to review.
Jeffrey said the applicant needs to demonstrate that they have a better spot
and the guidelines need to apply.
Jim True said he was at the meeting and if Jessica goes back to the applicant
and indicates that HPC will review a different proposal if it complies with
the guidelines everyone will be on the same page. It is his understanding
that the applicant is looking for some leeway.
214 E. BLEEKER STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT-
CONCEPTUAL - DEMOLITION, RELOCA TION, VARIANCES PH
Dave Rybak, architect
Sara said in terms of the design HPC had asked that the rear elevation be
broken up into modules. In the proposal tonight there is a bay window and
the garage has been shifted away from the alley towards the west. The
garage is now in compliance with the five foot setback that was brought up
at the public comments. In terms of relocation the applicant is trying to
2
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner
RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD (1000 Matchless Drive) - Conceptual PUD -
Resolution No. 32, Series 2006 - Public Hearinl! (Parcel 2737-074-11-800)
DATE: March 6,2007
ApPLICANT fOWNER:
Aspen Land Fund II, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, of V ann Associates.
LOCATION:
1000 Matchless Drive., Commonly
known as the Smuggler Racquet
Club. The property is legally
described as SE y., of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th Principal Meridian,
Tract A Aspen Township
Addition.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Not zoned in the City; used as a
Racquet Club with a structure used
as a residence. Zoned R-15 in
County
PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING:
I. Affordable Housing, AHlPUD;
2. Recreation Club, RR.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends Approval of
the Conceptual PUD. A site visit
has been scheduled for noon on
Tuesday March 6th, 2007.
SUMMARY:
Photo of racquet club ortion to be redevelo ed
Page I of 8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
HEARING AND MEMO NOTES:
New Commission members have received the original application with this Staff memo. All other
Commissioners should have received the original application in an earlier packet; if you need a new
one, please contact Jessica Garrow.
This Staff memo outlines all Land Use Approvals that will be required. At this time, the Applicant is
only requesting approval of a conceptual PUD. All other land use requests and requirements will be
addressed with the Final PUD. Staff and the Applicant will outline all required reviews in more detail
than is presented here, at the March 6th meeting.
The memo refers to Lot I and Lot 2. In attached Exhibit D Lot I is outlined in green and Lot 2 is
outlined in pink. The Applicant has proposed zoning for these parcels. Staff will determine if these
zoning categories are appropriate at the time of Final PUD. For now, Staff is satisfied that the
proposed zoning is appropriate for the proposed Land Uses.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to redevelop the site:
. Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment
of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the
final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD consideration:
. Final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the
Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final
review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission);
. Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot I for the
Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet
Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (Citv Council is the final review authoritv
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Rezoning to AHlPUD on Lot I and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion
of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and
Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to
26.470.050 Al (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned
as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority);
Page 2 of 8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
. Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Residential Design Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Administrative Determination for the construction of Affordable Housing on Lot 2 if it is zoned
to Rural Residential, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.306 (the Communitv Development
Director makes this determination).
PROJECT AND SITE SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Aspen Land Fund LLC, has requested the approvals necessary to subdivide the existing
Smuggler Racquet Club site, to redevelop the existing Smuggler Racquet Club in its current location,
and to develop an AH-PUD on the upper portion of the lot (the portion closest to Park Circle). The
affordable housing proposal will help fulfill the Applicant's required mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen
Mountain.
The proposal deals with a parcel that is not zoned in the City. It was annexed into the City in the
1950s with the Hughes Addition, but the parcel never received zoning. Because of this, it has been
assumed until recently that this lot is located in Pitkin County. The parcel is zoned R-15 in the county,
and includes the Smuggler Racquet Club and a small cabin that is currently used as a residence. This
cabin was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission at their January 10, 2007 meeting at
which time the Commission recommended the cabin be designated. The minutes from that meeting are
attached as Exhibit I.
The Applicant proposes subdividing the property into two parcels: Lot I and Lot 2. Lot I would be
developed as 100% Affordable Housing, and Lot 2 would be redeveloped as a Racquet Club and
would include one (1) Affordable Housing unit as well as indoor courts. Lot 1 would be rezoned to
AHIPUD, while Lot 2 would be rezoned to Rural Residential. (RR) with a PUD overlay. The
dimensional tables below outline the existing lot's dimensions, requirements for the proposed
underlying zoning, as well as the dimensions the Applicant proposes on the site. Attached as Exhibit
D is a proposed site plan - the portion outlined in green is referred to here as Lot I, and the portion to
be redeveloped as racquet courts (Lot 2) is outlined in pink.
Page 3 of 8
Exhibit l,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of
the lot, outlined in red on the first page in Exhibit D. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to
Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for
Smuggler). These conditions have a direct effect on site planning in the proposed lots.
Proposed Units
. "~...:<:'...".:if .... .
''''''m:~.'~~''-
32 units comprised of:
I 6 I-bedroom units at 500 sq. ft.
8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft.
8 3-bedroom units at 1,500 s . ft.
Maximum allowable density
(determined by fathering parcel)
500 sq. ft. for I -bedroom
units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2-
bedroom units; 1,500 sq. ft.
for 3-bedroom units
Determined through PUD
Page 4 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant
proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part
ofthe Final PUD approval.
Table 3: Pro osals for Lot 2 (redevelo
Proposed Program
5 outdoor racquetball courts
2 indoor racquetball courts
1 Affordable Housing unit
Extemal floor area ratio
16,283 sq. ft.
None listed for non-
residential uses on a lot.
Residential Uses are the same
as R-15:
Lot size greater than 50,000
sq. ft.: for a Single Family
Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of
floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq, ft, in lot area;
for a Duplex or Two
Detached Dwellings, 7,020
sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq.
ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot
area
Page 5 of8
Exhibit I,
uet Club Conce tual PUD
The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property
(outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for
twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district.
The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because ofthe zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is
currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff
recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this
issue to be fully resolved at the time of Final PUD approval.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has discussed the site design with the Applicant, and the Applicant has made changes to the
design based on these conversations; see Exhibit D and the original application packet. In January, the
Historic Preservation Commission approved designation of a cabin located on Lot I, adjacent to Park
Circle. The designation will be finalized with Final PUD approvals. The HPC required the cabin
remain in its current location. Staff feels that the Affordable Housing design attached in Exhibit D
appropriately addresses the street, but that it does not relate to the cabin. Staff would like to see the
buildings open up to the cabin. The current configuration of buildings A and B on Lot I fail to relate
to the historic resource and physically isolate the cabin. Development on Lot I has the opportunity to
utilize the cabin in a creative manner. In its current configuration, however, the site plan fails to utilize
the cabin and diminishes its presence. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission
require the Applicant address these concerns in the Final PUD Application.
The architectural design on the Affordable Housing units on Lot I is an area where Staff continues to
have concerns. Staff finds that the design is moving in the right direction, but that more can be done
by the time of Final PUD Application. In the current design Staff finds the buildings overwhelm the
site and the cabin. Staff recommends the buildings be broken up into smaller modules that reflect the
context of the site. Lot I includes a number of paved entrances to the different Affordable Housing
buildings. Staff feels these could be consolidated to create a more user friendly site and to create the
possibility for more community and green space on the site.
As with Lot I, Staff would like to see the mass on Lot 2 broken up. Staff prefers the original racquet
club design (see pages 27 - 34 in the original application packet) because of its unique architecture.
While the development on Lot I should fit in with the architectural vernacular of the surrounding area,
the racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting the use and required
size ofthe building. Stafffeels the original design is more suited for this scale of development and that
with the new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actual is or that is can be given its use.
The Applicant has proposed AHIPUD and RR zoning for the two (2) proposed lots. Staff is currently
determining if these are the most appropriate zoning classifications for the proposed uses. This is a
topic that will be discussed in detail at the Final PUD review. Exhibit E outlines the existing zoning on
surrounding parcels.
Access to Lot I is an issue that will be further addressed in the Final PUD. Because of mine shafts
located on proposed Lot I, the exact access point off of Park Circle had no been determined. The
Page 6 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Applicant will conduct further studies of the site and work with the Engineering Department and the
Community Development Engineer to determine the most appropriate access point.
The Development Review Committee has reviewed this conceptual PUD, as has the Housing Office.
These comments are attached as Exhibits B and C respectively. Conditions of approval based on these
comments will be in the Final PUD Resolution and Ordinance.
Attached as Exhibit F is a map of the former Smuggler Superfund site and the areas that have been
remediated. This parcel was included in the Smuggler superfund site, and appears to have been
remediated. However, all development on the parcel will comply with the Institutional Controls
currently in place. Details of this process are outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Applicant's original
submittal.
The Applicant has provided a letter dealing with alleged regrading that has occurred onsite. Smuggler
Mobile Home Park resident Vincent Galluccio provided Staff with a number of materials regarding fill
being placed on proposed Lot 1 by; attached as Exhibit G. This information was provided to the
Applicant who has researched the matter and has responded with the letter attached as Exhibit H. Staff
is convinced by the survey information provided by the Applicant that the existing parcel has not
changed significantly in height, and that the proposed heights on Lot 1 are under the proposed zoning
height limits and in compliance with the agreement between the county and the Smuggler Mobile
Home park stating that all development will be measured from the height prior to any fill being placed
on the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Overall, Staff finds this application should receive Conceptual PUD approval. Architectural issues
will need to be resolved before Final PUD approval. Staff is comfortable with the direction the
architecture is headed and feels this, as well as other technical issues, can be resolved at Final PUD
approval.
Staff recommends the Commission approve Resolution 32, Series of 2006, recommending to City
Council the approval of a conceptual PUD on the Smuggler Racquet Club property.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Resolution No. 32, Series of2006, recommending the Aspen City Council approve
the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD."
A TT ACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT D - DRC Comments
EXHIBIT C - Housing Office Comments
EXHIBIT D - Revised Plans Application
EXHIBIT E - Map of Surrounding Zoning
EXHIBIT F - Map of Smuggler Superfund Site
EXHIBIT G - Information from Vincent Galluccio provided to Staff regarding alleged fill on proposed
Lot 1
EXHIBIT H - Letter from Applicant addressing regrading on the site
EXHIBIT I - Minutes from the HPC January 10,2007 meeting
Page 7 of8
Exhibit I,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Page 8 of8
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner
RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD (1000 Matchless Drive) - Conceptual PUD -
Resolution No. 32, Series 2006 - Public Hearinl!: (Parcel 2737-074-11-800)
DATE: April 3, 2007 (Continued from March 6, 2007)
ApPLICANT IOWNER:
Aspen Land Fund II, LLC
REPRESENT A TIVE:
Sunny Vann, of Vann Associates.
LOCATION:
1000 Matchless Drive., Commonly
known as the Smuggler Racquet
Club. The property is legally
described as SE v.. of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th Principal Meridian,
Tract A Aspen Township
Addition.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Not zoned in the City; used as a
Racquet Club with a structure used
as a residence. Zoned R -15 in
County
PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING:
1. Affordable Housing, AHlPUD;
2. Recreation Club, RR.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends Approval of
the Conceptual PUD.
SUMMARY:
Photo of proposed affordable housing area
Page 1 of7
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to redevelop the site:
. Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment
of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the
final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Additionally, the Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD consideration:
. Final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the
Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final
review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission);
. Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot 1 for the
Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet
Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Rezoning to AHlPUD on Lot 1 and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission);
. Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion
of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and
Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to
26.470.050 Al (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned
as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority);
. Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority);
. Residential Design Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority); .
. Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to
Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority);
. Administrative Determination for the construction of Affordable Housing on Lot 2 if it is zoned
to Rural Residential, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.306 (the Community Development
Director makes this determination).
Page 2 of7
ExhibitJ,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
PROJECT UPDATES SINCE MARCH 6. 2007 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
The Applicant has made a number of changes to the site plan on Lot 1 based on comments from the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff. These changes are outlined below. Also included in this
Staff memo are the revised dimensional requirements proposed for the PUD.
Parkin!!:
The Applicant has examined the parking provided on site and has provided fifty (50) parking spaces.
Seven (7) of these spaces are 'double loading," and therefore count as one (I) space toward the on-site
parking requirement. The amount of parking provided on-site that meets the requirements of the Off-
Street Parking section of the Land Use Code (26.515) is equal to forty-four (44) spaces. The Applicant
also made some changes to the housing mix on-site, which has reduced the parking requirement to one
(1) space per bedroom (rather than 2 spaces per unit). Therefore, the parking requirement is as
follows:
1 Studio Unit = 1 Space
13 I-Bedroom Units = 13 Spaces
8 2-Bedroom Units = 16 Spaces
6 3-Bedroom Units = 18 Spaces
Total = 48 Spaces
The parking will be formally established via Special Review at the time of Final PUD
approval. A condition of approval has been included that requires a minimum of forty-
four (44) spaces be provided for the Affordable Housing Units on Lot 1. Staff finds that
the proposed parking provides the appropriate number of spaces for the development.
The double-stall spaces can accommodate two (2) vehicles, but only count as one (1)
space according to the Land Use Code. All parking spaces are proposed to be assigned
to individual units. This will be determined as part of the Special Review. The
Applicant has proposed the double-stall spaces be assigned to the two-bedroom or three-
bedroom units in order to achieve the highest functionality.
Historic Cabin Considerations
Staff attended the March 13, 2007 Historic Preservation Commission's meeting to
discuss the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments regarding the cabin on Lot 1.
Staff asked if the HPC would be willing to reconsider their recommendation against
moving the cabin. The HPC indicated they would be willing to re-examine the cabin's
location if a proposed site plan met the HPC Design Guidelines. The minutes from this
meeting are provided as Exhibit D.
Following the HPC meeting, the Applicant and Staff discussed options related to review
of the cabin. The Applicant revised the site plan, and determined that moving the cabin
to a different location on the site was not viable, and therefore decided to move forward
with the current Planning and Zoning Commission Review.
Site Desi!!:n for Lot 1
The Applicant has worked with Staff to further refine the proposed site plan. The
Applicant made some changes to the modulation of the Affordable Housing units in
response to Staff comments. Staff requested the Applicant enlarge windows located on
the side elevations of the three (3) buildings. This is a detail that can be finalized during
Page 3 of7
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
the Final PUD approval. Staff previously expressed a concern regarding the relation of
the new buildings to the historic cabin. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed
the location of the cabin at their March 6th meeting, and requested the applicant examine
its location. Based on the discussions with Staff and the HPC, the Applicant has
proposed a revised site plan that maintains the cabin's existing location. Rather than
framing the cabin's location by surrounding it with structures, the Applicant has
proposed using landscaping to help provide a prominent location for the cabin. This
creates an opportunity for a tot lot, or some other form of landscaped amenity for the
development. Staff has requested a detailed landscaping plan be submitted as part of the
Final PUD application to ensure the cabin is appropriately framed. Staff is supportive of
this direction and recommends approval of the proposed site plan.
Staff also expressed concerns related to the paved entrances to the different Affordable
Housing buildings, stating that the walkways could be consolidated. Staff maintains its
concern with these paths, but agrees with the Applicant that this is an issue that can be
addressed as part of the detailed landscaping plan submitted with the Final PUD
application.
Miscellaneous Comments:
Staff continues to have concerns related to the design of the racquet club redevelopment, and prefers
the original racquet club design (see pages 27 - 34 in the original application packet) because of its
unique architecture. While the development on Lot 1 should fit in with the architectural vernacular of
the surrounding area, the racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting
the use and required size of the building. Staff feels the original design is more suited for this scale of
development and that with the new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actually is or
that is can be given its use.
Revised Dimensional Tables:
The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of
the lot. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned
by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for Smuggler).
Page 4 of7
Exhibit J,
Smu ler Rac uet Club Conce tual PUD
I Studio unit (the existing cabin)
13 I-bedroom units at 500 sq. ft.
8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft.
6 3-bedroom units at 1,500 s . ft.
Maximum allowable density
(determined by fathering parcel)
500 sq. ft. for I-bedroom
units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2-
bedroom units; 1,500 sq. ft.
for 3-bedroom units
Determined through PUD
In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant
proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part
of the Final PUD approval.
Proposed Program
5 outdoor racquetball courts
2 indoor racquetball courts
Page 5 of7
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conce tual PUD
I Affordable Housing unit
None listed for non-
residential uses on a lot.
External floor area ratio
16,283 sq. ft.
Residential Uses are the same
as R-15:
Lot size greater than 50,000
sq. ft.: for a Single Family
Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of
floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq, ft, in lot area;
for a Duplex or Two
Detached Dwellings, 7,020
sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq.
ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot
area
The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property
(outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for
twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district.
The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because of the zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is
currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff
recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this
issue to be fully resolved at the time of Final PUD approval.
Page 6 of7
Exhibit J,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the application receive Conceptual PUD approval. Staff feels the parking changes
made to the plan address concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that the design
changes to Lot 1 address Staff concerns. Staff is also supportive of addressing the framing of the cabin
and the consolidation and landscaping internal sidewalks as part of the detailed landscaping plan in the
Final PUD Application.
Staff recommends the Commission approve Ordinance _, Series of 2007, approving a conceptual
PUD on the Smuggler Racquet Club property.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Oridnance No. _, Series of2007, approving the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual
PUD."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B - Revised Plans
EXHIBIT C - Letter from Sunny Vann. Dated March 22, 2007
EXHIBIT D - HPC Minutes from March 14, 2007
Page 7 of7
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING WITH CONDITIONS THE APPROVAL OF THE
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD AT 1000 MATCHLESS
DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02204
Resolution #32-06
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of
a Conceptual PUD Development for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club
and the development of affordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 202,717 sq. ft., is zoned as R-
15 in the County, but does not have existing zoning in the City; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Conceptual PUD, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed
public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the
Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral
agencies; and,
WHEREAS, duriog a duly noticed public hearing on March 6th, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to ApriI3'd, 2006; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3'd, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 32, Series of 2006, by a five to zero (5-
0) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the
Smuggler Racquet Club; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions ofthe Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Page I of6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends the
Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the development of affordable
housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club at 1000 Matchless Drive,
City of Aspen, subject to the Conditions contained herein.
Section 2: Final PUD Application
The Final Application shall include a detailed Landscaping Plan showing the location of
proposed trees and other landscaping improvements, and a preliminary Construction
Management Plan for review. The Applicant shall also work with the Engineering
Department and the Community Development Engineer to determine the best access off
of Park Circle. This location shall be reflected in plans submitted with the Final PUD
Application.
Section 3: Historic Preservation
The City Council shall consider historic designation of the cabin located on the upper
bench near Park Circle, pursuant to HPC Resolution 1, Series 2007, concurrently with
their consideration of the Final PUD approyal. The cabin is subject to regulations in
Section 26.415 of the Land Use Code.
Section 4: Landscapin!!:
Prior to the removal of any trees, the Applicant shall receive a tree removal permit from
the Parks Department. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of
each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the
location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation,
storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or
vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must
be inspected by the city forester or hislher designee (920-5120) before any construction
activities are to commence
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements.
The Applicant shall work with the Parks Department to select specific species to be
planted on-site. .
As part of the Final PUD approval, the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department
to determine the appropriate location of street trees along Park Circle. This requires
adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, improyements to the soil profiles ofthe ROW
(amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longeyity of the
new plantings). The parkway strip shall be a minimum of a 5-foot strip.
Page 2 of6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Section 5: Fire Mitie:ation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to
accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System.
Section 6: Water Department Reauirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with title
25, and with applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory
Code) ofthe Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
Each building shall haye its own water connection with indiyidual metering for each unit
and for each common use.
An 8-inch looped connection from the existing water line on Matchless Dr. to the existing
line on Park Circle to serve the property is required. Hydrants will be required along this
connection in accordance with the recommended placement of the Fire Marshall and in
accordance with spacing requirements contained in the Aspen Water System standards.
A single connection per building with individual metering for each unit and for each
common use is required.
Surface water flows across the site will need special attention. Including but not limited
to adjudicated irrigation rights, mine runoff and storm runoff. This shall be addressed in
the Final PUD application.
Section 7: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Reauirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. ACSD will review the approyed Drainage plans to assure that clear water
connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary
sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Old service lines must be excayated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade deyelopment may require
installation of a pumping system.
One tap is permitted for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are
prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval
by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be
dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity ofthe existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint.
Page 3 of6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the
existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line
extension request and collection system agreement are required. Easements for main
sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be
dedicated and conyeyed to the district using standard district form and language.
Glycol heating and snowmelt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and priyate sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
Section 8: Mine Drainae:e
Prior to submittal of a Final PUD Application, the Applicant shall investigate the
potential for increases of flow from stored mine drainage. This shall include the potential
for substantial increases of flow from stored mine drainage in the Molly
GibsonlSmuggler/Cowenhoven Tunnel system. Documentation shall be provided as part
of the Final PUD Application.
The size of the easement area for mine drainage and any underground collection or pipe
conveyance of the mine drainage shall consider the historic quantity of discharge and the
anticipated flows.
Details of the current and anticipated condition of the mineshaft shall be provided with
the Final PUD Application.
Section 9: Smue:e:ler Mine Remediation
The Applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the
handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to
any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All
soils on the Fathering Parcel shall be considered contaminated unless determined
otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the
Enyironmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If,
pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following
requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are
discoyered, the following requirements shall apply:
1) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to
the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any
disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain
on site shall be securely contained on and coyered with a non-permeable tarp or
other protected barrier approyed by the Enyironmental Health Department so as to
preyent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to
prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt.
2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the
South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen
Enyironmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and
will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the
Page 4 of6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994
prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property.
3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation
prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building
permits for the properties.
Section 10: Affordable Housin!!:
Affordable housing is provided on this site as part of the mitigation requirements for the
Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Twenty-eight (28) units shall be provided for the Lodge at
Aspen Mountain mitigation on Lot I. One (I) Affordable Housing tmit shall be provided
as part of the Smuggler Racquet Club redevelopment on Lot 2.
Affordable Housing units on Lot 1 shall be "for sale" and sold through the lottery system
by APCHA. The Affordable Housing unit on Lot 2 shall be "rental." Deed restriction for
all units shall be recorded at the time of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
The twenty-eight (28) units will be broken into one (I) studio unit, thirteen (13) one-
bedroom units, eight (8) two-bedroom units, and six (6) three-bedroom units. The
categories shall be determined in cooperation with APCHA.
Section ll: Parkin!!: and Transit
The Final PUD Application shall designate areas for snow storage in all parking areas,
and shall indicate the location of an access easement from Park Circle to Lot 1. To the
extent the access easement providing access to Lot 1 from Park Circle eliminates
Smuggler Trail Head parking, the Final PUD Application shall address how overflow
parking from the Smuggler hiking trail will be accommodated. The Final PUD
Application shall address the potential for a bus stop along Park Circle near the entrance
to the proposed development.
The number of parking spaces shall be established by Special Review at Final PUD
approval, and at a minimum shall include thirty-eight (38) parking spaces for the Racquet
Club parcel on Lot 2 and forty-four (44) spaces for the Affordable Housing units on Lot
1.
Section 12:
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 Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 13:
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
Page50f6
Exhibit K,
Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 14:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd
day of April, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Ruth Kruger, Chair
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
F:\Smuggler Racquet Club\P&Z\SmugglerPZ Reso_03 06 07.doc
Page 60f6
~
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission MecUne: Minutes - March 06. 2007
Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning Commission in
Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Dylan Jolms was excused from the first
and third items on the agenda; Brian Speck was excused. LJ Erspamer, David
Guthrie, Elizabeth Atkins, Steve Skadron, Jolm Rowland and Ruth Kruger were
present. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Joyce Allgaier and Jessica
Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger welcomed the new members and Jim True as Special Counsel.
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dylan Jolms was conflicted on Smuggler Racquet Club and Cooper Street Pier
Redevelopment.
MINUTES
MOTION: Liz Atkins moved to approve the minutes from February 6th and 2dh;
seconded by Steve Skadron. APPROVED. David Guthrie and U Erspamer abstained.
Public Hearing:
Continued Public Hearing:
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual
POD. Jessica Garrow said the applicant was Aspen Land Fund II, LLC
represented by Jolm Sarpa, Sunny Vann and Kim Weil. Jolm Moore of the
Smuggler Racquet Club was also present.
Garrow stated this was a detailed proposal and a complicated site; there was a site
visit earlier. Garrow said that there was county zoning ofRl5 on this property; it
was annexed into the city in the 1950s with the Hughes addition but never rezoned
to city zoning. There were approximately 4.6 acres, including the cabin near Park
Circle and the Racquet Club off of Matchless Drive; the applicant submitted the
proposal in July 2006 proposing subdivision to develop affordable housing
mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain on the top part of the parcel and
redevelop the Racquet Club in the existing location. The applicant proposed to
2
Qi\\A'Ditl-
Aspen Planninl! & Zonine: Commission Meetinl! Minutes - March 06. 2007
dedicate the cabin historic, which would be final at Council; the minutes from the
HPC Meeting were attached.
Garrow said the broader picture of this site was subdivision of the parcel into 3
lots; rezoning of Lot 1 to AH PUD, Rural Residential for the Racquet Club and
Historic Preservation for the cabin. A conditional use approval will be needed to
accommodate some of the uses on the racquet club site. There will be a Growth
Management Review for the Affordable housing and the Racquet Club site to
determine the employee generation. A Special Review will be need for parking on
both sites; Residential Design Standard Review for the Affordable Housing;
Commercial Design Review for the Club redevelopment and an administrative
determination to allow for the affordable housing unit on the racquet club parcel.
Garrow utilized a map (exhibit B) to delineate the lots with different colors. There
were 32 affordable housing units; 16 one bedroom units, 8 two bedrooms and 8
three bedroom units. There were 15 foot setbacks near building A, 10 foot
setbacks near building C and side setbacks of 5 feet. Garrow said there were 35
parking spaces proposed for the affordable housing units with I space assigned to
each unit; special review was needed for parking because it was located outside the
Aspen Infill area so that the requirement was 56 spaces. Garrow said that staff felt
that the design could do a better job relating to the cabin through the use of
inflection and materials that differentiate the new development from the historic
resource; staff would like to see the site opened up. Staff also wanted to see the
circulation simplified to buildings A and C.
Garrow said that Lot 2 (Racquet Club) was 2.97 acres including 2 indoor racquet
courts, club facilities, an affordable housing unit for the manager and 5 outdoor
courts. The setbacks include 20 feet along the West portion; there was a notch (20'
by 50') owned by someone else (according to John Moore the racquet club will
purchase this piece); along Lot I there was a 25 foot setback. Garrow said that
there were 38 proposed parking spaces on Lot 2; 2 for the affordable housing unit
and the rest for the club. Garrow said staff would like the building broken up
more. Staff recommended approval of the conceptual.
Ruth Kruger asked how we got from the first application design. Garrow replied
that was part of the first conversations staff had with the applicant dealing with the
way that the housing addressed the street, staff wanted a more pedestrian friendly
design. Staffwill address the sidewalk and an additional bus stop.
Sunny Vann said the problem arises from the residential design standards; when
this project was originally designed there was approval in the county for the type
of units in the first plan; the property does not abut the street and was not on a high
3
.Qi-VUbit L
Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! Minutes - March 06. 2007
pedestrian comer and the primary views were toward Aspen Mountain. Vann said
that staff asked to meet with the applicant regarding the first design and the new
design included the majority of units that abut the street. Vann said the historic
preservation officer wanted the cabin preserved.
John Sarpa introduced John Moore, Kim Weil and Sunny Vann. Sarpa said they
evolved to the current plan for staff support. Sarpa said that ALF approached John
Moore to purchase part of the land for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain housing
mitigation. Sarpa noted they were in a partnership with Smuggler Racquet Club.
Sarpa said that this was an extension of Smuggler Mine and the cabin drives a lot;
HPC review was first and designated that the cabin historic.
Sarpa said there was an old mine shaft located on the site; they hired HP Geotech
and will stay away from the shaft with buildings. Weil said that HP recommended
50 feet away with all but one building. Vann stated that it was not an open mine
but there were boulders pushed into it with top soil on the top during the superfund
reclamation; they were told that they could drive over it. Sarpa noted they also
have hired Tom Dunlop who was knowledgeable about the site.
John Moore said the courts building was sunk down 10 feet to comply with the
height requirements. Bill Lipsey, architect, said with the 2 indoor tennis courts the
building starts out at 120 feet by 120 feet with the clubhouse and affordable unit it
came out with a simple gable structure to accommodate the uses. Lipsey said the I
story structures were subordinate to the big structure; one side had the clubhouse
and the other an affordable housing unit.
Weil stated with the influences of the cabin and the mine there were no places to
have any more street presence for the affordable housing; there was simple design
for the buildings. Wei1 said there were balconies, porches and the common
element ofthe rusty metal roofs like the tennis building. Weil said the cabin would
stand on its own and the architecture of the affordable units would be their own
architecture.
John Rowland said that he like the playfulness of the balconies. Weil replied that
the balconies move at different elevations.
Liz Atkins asked why staff wanted the street presence on the uphill side when the
view was that way. Garrow replied that staff was taking a long term view of
development in this area of town and the entrances were still off of the parking
area; there was a street presence.
4
e.x:hAblt L
Aspen PlanniDl! & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 06. 2007
David Guthrie asked if the slope reduction was based upon the old topo or the new
topo. Sarpa said they were using the most current survey information and they
have reviewed it with staff. Weil said that there was a field topo from Sopris
Engineering in the packet. Vann said there was far more land area to
accommodate the density than was needed. Guthrie voiced concern for the
placement of the new bus stop and the decision would be at final. Guthrie said
there was parking heading in on Matchless. Weil responded there was a grade
change and a bit of a berm. Vann said there was a landscaping plan and at final
there would be a comprehensive landscape plan submitted and reviewed with
parks. Guthrie said that parking was a huge concern in this area. Atkins said that
she had issues with parking.
Steve Skadron asked why so much was happening at final in this case. Garrow
replied part of it was the unique circumstances of the lot without zoning; the
proposed zoning requires conditional uses. Skadron voiced concern for the bus
stop also. Skadron asked the applicant's responsibility with the racquet club was.
Sarpa replied that they approached the Smuggler Racquet Club to purchase part of
the parcel for the mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Skadron asked who
the Smuggler Racquet Club was. Moore replied it was 105 members with an
equity club that you buy into with annual dues; it was a non-profit 501C7. Moore
said it was laid back and the membership was limited; there were some social
functions, brunches and pot luck dinners. Skadron asked how busy the club was.
Moore said that the nets would be up in May and weather permitting people would
book the courts. Skadron asked why this application came in as one rather than
two separate applications. Garrow replied that it was one parcel. Vann said that
they originally thought that it was in the county; council likes to see the big picture
to see how everything works together and not parts of the puzzle. Vann said the
projects were sufficiently interrelated that it made sense to process as one
application.
John Rowland asked for a summary of the HPC process. Garrow responded that
the historic maps were reviewed by the historic preservation officer who
determined the materials used on the cabin were historic as part of the old
Smuggler mine used as an assayers office. Sarpa said the cabin has to be
disassembled, a foundation built and reassembled; HPC said that it had to go back
in the place exactly where the cabin sits now.
Liz Atkins asked if the outdoor tennis courts had lights and if they anticipated
using the indoor courts at night. Moore replied there were no lights for the outdoor
courts and do not anticipate any lights; conceivably the indoor courts will be used
at night, they can put a limit on but he did not think there would be any activity
afterlOpm.
5
~'>(YUVJitL-
Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 06. 2007
LJ Erspamer asked if this was a 100% affordable housing project. Yann and Sarpa
replied 100% with no free market cornponent on this site. Erspamer agreed that
this was a pedestrian area; he asked who would be involved in placing sidewalks.
Yann replied that they would cooperate with staff and engineering on sidewalks,
street lights and a RFT A bus stop. Erspamer asked where the snow storage would
be located. Yann replied that the final PUD would have designated snow storage
areas. Erspamer asked if they were aware of the traffic count on the Spruce and
Park comer. Vann said that Park Circle was adequate to carry the number of cars
and engineering did not require anything from this applicant. Erspamer asked
where they will park because 50% of the parking on Race Street was taken away.
Liz Atkins asked why they needed 38 parking spaces for 7 tennis courts. Moore
answered they have 8 or 9 functions a year and a toumament in the summer; they
will use those parking spaces.
Ruth Kruger asked what the categories were and ifthe affordable housing units
were for sale or rental units. Yann replied they were all for sale units and the exact
categories would be in accordance with APCHA prior to final approval. Kruger
asked how many spaces would be eliminated on Park Circle. Vann responded
none would be taken away as part ofthis project.
Public Comments:
Vince Galluccio, public submitted a letter and drawings into the record. Galluccio
asked the commission to look at the plan and said that the cabin could be moved.
John Rowland stated that he was perplexed with the cabin not being moved. This
was a great piece of property for employee housing.
Atkins said that she was concemed about the views; there were great views from
that parcel and the parking should not separate the views.
Kruger stated there were guidelines and regulations.
David Guthrie said that the Park Circle should not be an artery to Smuggler; there
was the whole point of design guidelines that this was part of the community.
Guthrie asked if they need to make findings and objective standards for projects.
Kruger said this was a great location for more affordable housing in town. Kruger
voiced concern for the project being under-parked; she said that parking should be
addressed at conceptual and that parking for this project should be more than 35
6
ti~L
Aspen Planniol!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 06. 2007
spaces. The commissioners supported more parking on the site. Skadron was not
as concerned about the parking.
The commission supported requesting HPC take another look at the placement of
the cabin.
MOTION: Elizabeth Atkins moved to continue the hearingfor the Smuggler
Racquet Club to April3rd; seconded by LJ Erspamer. All infavor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
7
&Ih\attJ\._.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007
Ruth Kruger opened the regular Planning and Zoning in the Sister Cities at 4:40
with LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck, John Rowland, and David Guthrie present. Dylan
Johns and Steve Skadron were excused. Jim True, Special Counsel and staff in
attendance were: Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community Development and
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Brian Speck said that the Council meeting last night was disturbing because of
Torre's comments about the meeting room full of just people from the trade and
not representative of the community. Speck took exception to that remark and said
that everyone was in some trade.
Joyce Allgaier provided the updated schedule for the Code Amendments to
Council. Ruth Kruger stated that the P&Z Commissioners would meet as often as
necessary to get things into a position where the Council can act in the time frame
so that the business can get done.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/6/7):
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club.
Jessica Garrow stated there were a few changes form the March 6th meeting and an
update from HPC regarding the cabin location.
Garrow said the site plan changed on the lot closest to Park Circle where the
affordable housing will be developed and the number of units has been decreased
and the number of parking spaces was increased. There were 44 spaces proposed
spaces on site with spaces #31 - 44 as double stall spaces (stacked parking) and the
land use code counts those spaces as 1 instead of2. The Applicant proposed
assigning parking spaces to individual units. This would be done in Special
Review during the final review. Kim Weil, architect, said that because I space was
handicap there were actually 43 spaces on site counting the double loaded spaces
as one each.
Garrow said that HPC was willing to look at the cabin with a more significant site
plan and landscaping plan that framed the cabin, which would help reduce the
prominence of the cabin.
Garrow stated that there was a change to the resolution in Section 2 the 3Td line
down that a required detailed curb and gutter plan but staff did not feel that this lot
was adjacent to Park Circle and this lot would be addressed in the Development
Review Committee.
2
.. "'--~"--"'-_._.,..,"_.'~----'~-
~:~hmlJ~)____.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007
John Sarpa, applicant, said there Racquet Club members present. Sarpa said the
building evolved from the first. Kim Weil, architect, utilized a site plan and
renderings of the club to show where the affordable housing would be set back
and where the Racquet Club was located. Weil said this tennis club was a non-
profit and their big events every year were pot lucks; the Racquet Club Members
were cost conscious about the redevelopment of the club. Weil said the club
architecture kept with the mining heritage. Weil provided a 3-dirnensional
drawing showing the club, tennis courts and housing unit; the architecture used
rusted metal.
LJ Erspamer asked the height on the club building. Weil replied 28 feet and 33 to
the ridge; they were going down 10 to 12 feet.
John Rowland asked if the design intent was zero eaves. Weil responded yes,
minimal.
David Guthrie asked if the glazing was glass. Weil answered it would be some
type of product to cut down on the glare.
No public comments on the Racquet Club portion.
John Sarpa stated they dropped affordable housing units to accommodate more
parking spaces. Kruger asked how many units were in the new plan. Weil replied
48 bedrooms including the cabin. Sarpa said that they would go to APCHA with
the new plan.
Weil said they added inflection to building A, which resulted in the unit count
going down; there was a story dropped from the middle of the building.
Garrow stated that staff requested enlarging the windows in the bedrooms once
they get to final to provide more light into the bedrooms. Sarpa said that the
windows were kept high because they were bedrooms.
Erspamer asked ifthere would be guest parking. Weil said there would be no more
than 2 spaces assigned per unit so there would be parking available.
Guthrie asked about the landscaping for the parking. Weil said this was conceptual
and they have not modified the landscaping yet but they will.
John Rowland asked if there was historical significance to the fence that goes
around the cabin. Kruger said that when they were on site it was pointed out that
3
~rV1
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007
the cabin was the only historic portion of the site excluding the piece that was
added onto the cabin.
No public comments on the affordable housing portion.
The commissioners supported the conceptual application. Joyce Allgaier asked if
there would be covenants for the use of parking. Sarpa responded that would be
covered with the covenants.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #32, series 0[2007,
recommending the City Council approve the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual
PUD with parking addressed in the covenants and the amendment to Section 2;
seconded by John Rowland. Roll call: Erspamer, yes; Guthrie, yes; Speck, yes;
Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes; APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
1001 UTE AVENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS VARIANCE and PUD AMENDMENT
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for 1001 Ute Avenue. Jessica Garrow
provided the notice to Jim True. Jessica Garrow provided a revised Resolution
with the additions in green and deletion in red.
Garrow explained the required reviews were Residential Design Standards for
secondary mass; 8040 Greenline and 2 PUD amendments.
Garrow said the 8040 Greenline Review was required for any development
proposed within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation. This was for rock fall dangers and
avalanche dangers that have been appropriately addressed and there were enough
utilities to service any development that goes on these properties and the design of
the buildings blend in with the mountain character recognizing that these buildings
will be visible to lower elevations as well as various mountains around town. Staff
and the referral city agencies have reviewed this 8040 application to make sure
those toxic soils, rock fall and avalanche dangers have been dealt with. The
referral agencies and staff felt that all the criteria have been met with the exception
of one. Garrow said that staff felt Criteria #7 has not been met, which was located
in Exhibit B in the packet. Garrow said that when this development went through
the original PUD in August oflast year with council some massing controls were
put into place to ensure the mass was minimized and the applicant has limited the
width and height of the structures. There were two single family free-market
residences proposed on Lots I and 2, which were limited to 5,040 square feet in the
original PUD. Garrow said that secondary mass has not been met and that does not
4