HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20070910
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 10, 2007
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT
on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #73, 2007 - Meter Replacement Contract
b) Resolution #74, 2007 - Piano Purchase Wheeler Opera House
c) Resolution #75, 2007 - Amended Housing Authority IGA
d) Ordinance #30, Review
e) Minutes - August 27,2007
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #39,2007 - Parking Rate Increase P.H. 9/24
b) Ordinance #40,2007 - Expansion of Residential Parking Area P.H. 9/24
c) Ordinance #41, 2007 - Supplemental Appropriation P.H. 9/24
IX. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #28, 2007 - 508 E. Cooper Avenue Subdivision
X. Action Items
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting September 24. 2007
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
MEMORANDUM
Via
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Tim Ware, Director of Parking
THRU:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO:
August 27, 2007
MEETING DATE:
September 10, 2007
Meter Replacement Contract (Resolution # i-.5 )
RE:
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of the attached contract between the City of
Aspen and Precise Park Link for the replacement of 59 Pay-and-Display Parking Meters.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the 2007 Asset Management Plan and
capital budget in 2006 that included this project.
BACKGROUND: The city implemented the paid parking system back in 1995 using Pay-and-
Display Meters. The units were installed over a three phase process over three years.
.
During the selection process it was decided that wherever possible, the meters would be mounted
on existing light poles. This was done to prevent street clutter and to take advantage of the AC
power available at these locations.
DISCUSSION: The parking meters have been in use for approximately 13 years. These units
typically have a ten year lifespan. The meters are exposed to all weather extremes and heavy use,
but they have been maintained very well by staff over the years. However, now the units are
showing deterioration in the main housings as well as in the brackets that attach them to the light
poles.
Technology has come a long way over 13 years and while we have been able to adapt the units
over the years to newer systems, they have reached their upgrade limits with the current internal
parts.
Staff is recommending that the units be replaced in two phases. The first 25 would be done in the
fall of2007 and the remaining 34 would be replaced in the spring of2008.
Page I of2
FINANCIALIBUDGET IMPACTS: This project will impact the Transportation Fund budget
for $954,320 over a five year period. This includes the 59 units, brackets, delivery and
installation and a 7% interest rate. The replacement project was included and approved in the
2006 budget process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Currently all but four of the meters make use of AC power.
All of the new machines will be installed with solar panels as the primary power source. This is
an excellent way to showcase solar panels for people. While the city's electricity is already 75%
renewable, many people still view solar as something that is not ready for use today. Having
solar-powered parking meters throughout town will educate people about the wide availability
and reliability of solar power, and will send a message consistent with the City's environmental
leadership goals. This will also contribute to the City's greenhouse gas reduction goals and will
reduce air pollution at the source of the power plants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Transportation and Parking Department recommends the
approval of the contract between the City of Aspen and Precise Park Link.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could direct staff to postpone this project for one more year.
PROPOSED MOTION: ") move to approve Resolution # 73 on the consent calendar of
September 10, 2007."
CITY MANAGER COM,MENTS: ~~ ? ~
/r.etft..-~{JIJ.. 9_.o.LD_~_
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Exhibit One - Contract for 59 Pay-and-Display Meters
Page 20f2
RESOLUTION # t~
(Series of2007)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND PRECISE PARKLINK INC. SETTING FORTH
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING PAY-AND-DISPLAY
PARKING METERS 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 Precise Parklink Incorporated, 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 Precise Parklink Incorporated regarding
Pay-and-Display Parking Meters, 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 ~t>6R,(o ,40'1-
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Precise Parklink Incorporated, ("Professional").
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 the spring of 2008. 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
$954,319.10. 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-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.
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,
-
PSI-971.doc
Page 1
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 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.
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.
Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnifY and hold harmless the City, its
officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and
demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from
bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of
any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such
injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in
part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the
Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or
agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any
workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any
subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to
provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of
the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the
defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is
determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or
Page 2
-
PSI-971.doc
damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or
its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable
to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees.
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) 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.
-
PSI-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
Professional'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.
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.
Page 4
-
PSI-971.doc
Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the
entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or
written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof
not expressly incorporated in this writing.
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:
Street Address
City, State & Zip Code
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.
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.
Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties
hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwith-
standing anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the
City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his
absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the
Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
16. Illegal Aliens - CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
a. Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed
House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added
new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new
laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen,
from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly
contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work
-
PSI-971.doc
Page 5
under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include
certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions
have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
b. Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference
are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of
Aspen.
"Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program
created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law
156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department
of Homeland Security.
"Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement.
"Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a
subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that
are merely incidental to the required performance.
c. By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who
are newly hired for employment in the United States; and
(ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot
Program in order to verifY that new employees are not employ illegal aliens.
d. Professional hereby confirms that:
(i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees
without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for
employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to
confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new
employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the
United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verifY through participation
in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new
employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if
Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to
entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply
to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verifY such
application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional
Page 6
-
PSl-971.doc
shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall
in writing verifY same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until
Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed,
whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or
effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
(iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake
pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for
Services is being performed.
(v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing
work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with
a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall:
(1) NotifY such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within
three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor
has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and
(2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within
three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the
subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new
employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not
terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during
such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the
subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal
alien.
(vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that
the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking
pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
(vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services
pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of
Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for
Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential
damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection
8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
(ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or
affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United
States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal
law,(2) shall comply with the provisions ofCRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall
produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to
the effective date of this Agreement.
-
PSI-971.doc
Page 7
17. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions,
conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or
limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof
and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing
signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as
from time to time in effect.
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 PAGEl
-
PSI-971.doc
Page 8
ATTESTED BY:
By:
Title:
Date:
WITNESSED BY:
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
PROFESSIONAL:
-
PS 1-971.doc
Page 9
EXHIBIT "A" to Professional Services Agreement
Scope of Work
Parklink will provide and install 59 units of Pay- and-Display parking meters. This includes
shipping, installation, and custom mounting brackets for all units.
25 units will be installed in the fall of 2007
34 units will be installed in the spring of 2008
All parts are covered under a one year warranty plus shipping costs.
Precise Parklink will provide one installer with the City of Aspen providing assistance and all
necessary vehicles and staging area.
-
PSI-971.doc
Page 10
-'-"'---"._~.
EXHIBIT "B" to ProCessional Services Agreement
Rate Schedule
Price per unit
$16,174.90
Payment schedule
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$100,000
$231,580
$213,580
$213,580
$213,580
-
PSI-971.doc
Page 11
MEMORANDUM
V\b
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM
Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director
THRU:
ACM Randy Ready; Wheeler Board of Directors
DATE OF MEMO:
28 August 2007
MEETING DATE:
10 September 2007
RE:
Purchase of Stein way D 9' Grand Piano
SUMMARY: Contract approval is sought for the purchase of a 1999-vintage Steinway D 9' grand
piano, as replacement for the Wheeler Opera House's resident piano. Staff and Board recommend
approval of the request.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None.
BACKGROUND: The Wheeler Opera House has used a Baldwin 9' grand piano as its resident piano
since it was donated to the facility by the Wheeler Associates and The Thrift Shop in the early 1990s.
Replacement is necessary due to the substandard condition of the Baldwin after years of benign neglect
and rough wear and tear in a challenging environment, and because current industry standards are much
more restrictive in tenns of artists' preference, frequently requiring rental of an outside Steinway.
DISCUSSION: The Steinway family of pianos have been the gold standard of piano instruments for
well over a hundred years now; however, when Stein way went through an unfortunate era of ownership
by a conglomerate entity in the 1970s and into the 1980s, the quality of the instruments dropped and
other manufacturers' models approached or surpassed Steinways for music hall purposes. It was during
this time that the Wheeler Associates and The Thrift Shop made a gift of a 9' Baldwin piano to the
Wheeler Opera House.
Because of the high amount of use and constant moving of the Baldwin, and because of the unusually dry
conditions associated with the high Rockies, the Baldwin has developed multiple deficiencies, including
three substantial cracks in its soundboard, which is the heart of the instrument and can be compared to a
cracked foundation in a multi-story building. Just as the cracked foundation can be addressed and
replaced at great expense, the Baldwin can be broken down and have its soundboard replaced; however,
at the end of the day it is still a Baldwin and not the instrument of choice for over three-quarters of the
piano artists performing on tour. As far as senior management can detennine, previous technical
management of the Wheeler did not pay close attention to the treatment or condition of the instrument in
the 2003 - 2005 period, resulting in this advanced core damage (as well as substantial cosmetic damage)
to the Baldwin.
A high percentage of the better piano artists are registered Steinway-endorsed artists, and the Wheeler's
ability to attract these artists is dependent on being able to provide a Steinway D 9' grand piano, which in
recent years has returned to being the industry standard. At present, the only solution for this is to pay a
substantial rental and/or cartage fee (as high as $1,700 per rental) to a supplier in Denver. Even if this
expensive option was pursued, the caliber of artists that the Wheeler desires to attract to Aspen would far
prefer performing on an instrument that is fully acclimatized to our altitude and humidity, rather than risk
tuning and sound issues associated with a piano from out of the area. Finally, there are also considerable
concerns regarding delivery to Aspen from the Denver area during the winter season, as the time between
delivery and performance rarely allows very much contingency room.
A first-class performance hall such as the Wheeler is expected to own and maintain a first-rate house
piano. Wheeler management has located a very satisfactory instrument through the end-of-season piano
sale conducted at the Benedict Tent, and this piano is properly seasoned and requires not further breaking
in [the break-in period can last as many as ten years, depending on the amount and type of use the
instrument receives]. Wheeler staff is ready to move ahead with the instrument's purchase.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $71,000, inclusive of transportation and a five-year parts and labor
warranty. [Please note that the list price for a new or gently-used Steinway D is approximately
$100,000.] Wheeler staff recommends payment for this purchase out of 2007 departmental savings and
carryforwards.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and Board recommend approval of the request.
ALTERNATIVES: The condition of the Baldwin piano has deteriorated to the point where it is not an
acceptable financial or artistic alternative, which would limit alternative scenarios to individual rental
situations with the Steinway supplier in Denver.
PROPOSED MOTION: Council moves to approve Resolution #11 to contract with Wells Music, for
the purposes of purchasing a Stein way D 9' grand piano for the Wheeler Opera House.
~ER~E'):~' '!y::;;;:~ ~~~, V/f.s
RESOLUTION # W
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND WELLS MUSIC, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
STEINW A Y D 9' GRAND PIANO 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 Wells Music, 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 Wells Music regarding purchase of a
Steinway D 9' grand piano, 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::.tt I~M~"-,Ib)~
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into, this 10th day of September
2007 between the City of Aspen, Colorado, herein after referred to as the "City"
and Wells Music hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor".
WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase a Steinway Piano
serial number CD 212 hereinafter called the UNIT(S) being more fully described
and attached herewith as 'Exhibit A' , in accordance with the terms and
conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated
Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its
Bid.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations
hereinafter set forth agree as follows:
1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the
UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Document and more specifically
in Vendor's Bid for the sum of Seventy One Thousand Dollars ($71,000).
2. Delivery. (fOB 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO)
3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract
Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said
Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if
fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties. (five year parts and labor).
5. Successors and Assians. This Agreement and all of the covenants
hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and
the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee,
successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the
Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or
obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or
construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except
to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in
accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim
damages or to bring any suit. action or other proceeding against
either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of
any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein
contained.
7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms,
covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed
by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any
subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein
contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
8. Aareement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement
was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and
shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts
of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce
any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
10. Waiver of Presurnotion. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed
through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree
that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or
against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties
in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
11. Certification Reaardina Debarment, Susoension, Ineliaibility, and
Voluntarv Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this
Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred,
suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily
excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State
department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid
that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier
transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In
the event that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to
certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and
was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties Aaainst Continaent Fees. Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts
of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been
employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an
agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona
fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the
Vendor for the purpose of securing business.
Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any
offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval,
recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a
purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement
standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory
capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination,
claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement. or
to any solicitation or proposal therefore.
Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of
the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall
have any interest. direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof,
except those tl)at may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved
the execution of this Agreement.
In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions
against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City
shall have the right to:
1 . Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the
City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor,
contractor or subcontractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise
recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the
Vendor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale
contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior
to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole
discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best
interests and convenience.
14. Fund A vailabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the
current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being
appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this
Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to
meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon
the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement.
15.Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an
amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid
until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed,
sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility,
national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the
employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor
agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code,
section 13-98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor
further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado
Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended, and other applicable
state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair
employment practices.
17 .Intearation and Modification. This written Agreement along with all
Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties
and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements
of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or
employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at
a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to
modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such
Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and
be executed by the parties hereto.
la.Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor,
as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents
that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes
of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete
authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions
specified herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused
this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three
(3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the
original.
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
By:
City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
VENDOR:
By:
Title
Exhibit "An
11 KEYBOARD INVOICE
Wells 685 South 8roadway. Denver. CO 80209-4095
M Telephone: 303.177.1900 FAX: 303.777'()535
USl~' Keyboard Service: 303,777.4144
Name. __,...._.__,,~J_b l'.L..lL~~~.:_,_.J:;LU~-,~~~~... -ff'; '.f (L._
:~:r:s,s.Jt~~:~,:,~?'."'c~!:. ~L~/)~~~:~:~~:,;:~~~~.;~;U (
Tel. (H) ..1,~:.c.~,.i...:J:.J_:,",::".~~::',S~>1fet. (W) .~.~/.!L:iL.,~ i!:'"l.~'-:,:,.:J:.:.~::..(~"i.._
"""ell C<<:e . ~ 1\1&<1 Code
Cell
~mall.,_......._,.... ._.....,
Make
"
1'....rJ..:~Ll.l.!
Ac~# FOR ~:A,~EU~E::~:.. ,..1
Store... ......_::.:','"....... .__' ...j
Saia.person /.: h /1::. [ ~ ""- ,I
::7::~ . -- -I
r' ~.
._.-..~_.,.~-_._..-._..
;
[.-'''.1'.-.''---1
w.~'j:j;f.._f!lst4:=', r-;;~-:r---:- l
FI~';-~;--c;;;;;'1~':~' ,_..,~_,___.._~~_,__~.~,_~,__+.,,____~~l:,!f!!;~tJ~~_.-....=.
~."._.....__..___~._.,,__,.,_'_'_~'_~'_"""'" , I
~_~~~~r.~~~~_~ R.O.A.# ..._c._~~~,.L~eli~~~:l~__ ,.,_.,__.___",_____
filing Fee./Non-flllng Ins. Rate i. :
.-......-,-............,-,.-... ...,...,-. '===1'-' ,...--.... % ,SaIe$Tax! L /f."'/n/'T
Delivery date '[.-~~,-=_1=_-::::;-_-'.~..z::;::--=.-::;-.=...,- ~ ~ -::==
='"~=v Ii...- ..~'-,: . (~
16888 ^-_./:"'/jp::.u /,t,f<.:wJh~,______..__ ....~__:::.5''!....!'i ..__
Customer Signature Date
..",-,....=1
I
I Deliver:
I Pick up:
I
/
:,{..;i{/ '.
..." Grand Piano
Delivery Instructions
Vertical Piano 'J Organ
EKB Owners Man\ial
EKB
RR
'~ench
Bench
J Piano
! Organ
Direction/speciallnstructions..J:J1Aff.1..S},.(j,.T:o.,;"....__..,..___,..,._,....._.__....,_.._..._..
.~ 'j
. .._.__..,___.bZ'2.'Ld~,.1::JJ '-dt::.4C--
"'lHN(.~L. J .~~r;z~. . 5,-'
" _1'
.'- 'J L.'
I
I C.O.D.__.
i
Merchandisi:>,Rec:dby
Check#__.....___._, Rec'd by ___,_,_,_,___,_,_ :..._
,_____, . Receivlpg 4ate.~ . .__
Vie
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Operations Manager
THRU:
Tom McCabe, Housing Executive Director
THRU:
Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager
DATE:
September 10, 2007
RE:
Amending the Third Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement
regarding the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
SUMMARY OF ISSUE: Amend the Third Amended and Restated Intergovernmental
Agreement Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to note the updated state statutes governing
housing authorities and to clarifY duties to be accomplished by the Executive Director.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Third Amended and Restated Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority was amended and approved in late
2002.
BACKGROUND: The Third Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter 3rd IGA) was approved on October 28,
2002 and was recorded at Reception No. 477066. Since this was approved and adopted, a new
State Statute concerning housing authorities has been enacted. Also since the previous version,
the Housing Office, City Council, and the BOCC have established additional categories under the
housing program. This request is to modifY the language in the lGA to bring it up to date in
these regards.
The Executive Director is also requesting that certain sections of the IGA be clarified such that
APCHA's responsibilities are more clearly understood. The Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) reviewed the amendments at a worksession held July 17, 2007. Their comments and
suggestions have been incorporated into the discussion items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: There are two types of areas to be discussed - minor updates and
clarification.
Minor Changes:
. Amend the IGA to reference the updated State Statute, Section 29-1-204.5,
"Establishment of multijurisdictional housing authorities". The newer version of the
statute expands the ability of multijurisdictional housing authorities to raise funds. A
copy of this Statute has been attached; however, listed below are the additional potential
revenues sources that can be initiated by the Housing Authority:
. To levy, in all of the area within the boundaries ofthe authority, a sales or use tax, or
both, at a rate not to exceed one percent, upon every transaction or other incident with
respect to which a sales or use tax is levied by the state. This tax can be in addition to
any other sales or use tax imposed pursuant to law. The executive director shall begin
the collection, administration, and enforcement of a sales and use tax on a date
mutually agreeable to the department of revenue and authority. Such funds can only
apply to the planning, financing, acquisition, reconstruction or repair, maintenance,
management and operation of housing projects or programs within the means of
families oflow or moderate incomes.
. To levy, in all of the area within the boundaries of the authority, an ad valorem tax at
a rate not to exceed five mills on each dollar of valuation for assessment of the
taxable property within such area. This tax can be in addition to any other ad valorem
tax imposed pursuant to law.
. No action by an authority to establish or increase any tax or development impact fee
shall take effect unless first submitted to a vote of the registered electors of the
authority in which the tax or development impact fee is proposed to be collected
. Amend the IGA to include the new category levels 5, 6, & 7, and to link all references to
the terms specified in the Guidelines. Staff has discussed the need to add more verbal
descriptors to associate with the expanded categories or to drop the verbal descriptors
entirely and simply use category numbers.
o The APCHA Guidelines identifY the categories as follows:
.
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category, 5, 6, 7 and RO
Low income level
Lower moderate income level
Upper moderate income level
Middle income level
Upper middle income level
.
.
.
.
o The HUD guidelines define 5 income categories for their various programs. They
are:
1. Extremely low mcome, which IS less than 30% of the median family
income;
2. Very low income, which is between 30% and 50% of the median family
Income;
3. Low income, which is between 50% and 80% of the median family
Income;
4. Middle income, which is between 80% and 120% of the median family
income; and
5. Above middle income, which is over 120% of the median family income.
HUD has defined the Area Median Income (AMI) at $89,300 for Pitkin County
and Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) has defined the AMI for
Pitkin County at $68,300 for a single person household, or $87,800 for a
household of three. To put this into perspective, listed are the income limits for
Categories I - RO per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines,
and how each of the 5 income categories defined by HUD would compare using
HUD's AMI at $89,300 and CHF A's AMI at $68,300.
No. Of De endents
o Dependents
1 Dependent
2 Dependents
3 or More Dependents
Maximum Incomes for SALES/OWNERSHIP Units Only
(See Income Verification, Part III, Section 2, No.1)
Cate ory 1 Cate ory 2 Cate 0 3
$31,000 $48,000 $77,000
38,500 55,500 84,500
46,000 63,000 92,000
53,500 70,500 99,500
Cate 0 4
$125,000
132,500
140,000
147,500
Maximum Incomes for SALES/OWNERSHIP Units Only
(See Income Verification, Part III, Section 2, No.1)
No. of Dependents Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 Category RO
o Dependents $134,000 $147,000 $162,000 N/A
1 Dependent 141,500 154,500 169,500 N/A
2 Dependents 149,000 162,000 177,000 N/A
3 or More Dependents 156,500 169,500 184,500 N/A
AMI Less than 30% 30% to 50% 50% to 80% 80% to 120% Greater than 120%
$68,300 $20,499 $34,149 $44,299 $81,959 $81,960+
$89,300 $26,700 $44,999 $71,249 $107,000 $107,001+
The specific categories would compare with HUD's or CHFA's maximum
percentages as follows:
Cat. 1 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 4 Cat. 5 Cat. 6 Cat. 7
$68,300 45% 70% 113% 183% 196% 215% 237%
$89,300 35% 54% 86% 140% 150% 165% 181%
Staff will be bringing forward at the joint work session a recommendation for
identifying Categories I through RO as the State Statutes are specific that any
funds collected via taxes or impact fees are programs within the means of families
of low or moderate incomes.
Items that need Clarification:
. What specific city document is being referred to in the 3rd IGA regarding the strategic
master plans and whether this document is considered to be the Aspen Area Community
Plan, the EPS study or another document? The BOCC believed that the "guiding"
document was the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP).
. The EPS study calls itself the "Aspen Affordable Housing Strategic Plan" yet it is seldom
referred to as such at councilor arnong staff. The EPS study is one that considers six site-
specific options in detail and four prototypical sites thought to be representative of
multiple development opportunities. The AACP is a big picture document that identified
22 properties for potential development and it is not clear if the city regards any of it's
documents as the de facto "Strategic Master Plan" or "Housing Strategic Master Plan" or
"Master Housing Plan". All these terms are used in the IGA. The Executive Director
would like one term to be used throughout the document and, to identifY which document
if any, that is considered the de facto "Master Housing Plan". The EPS study recognized
six public-held sites and three infill sites for development potential for employee housing.
The BOCC requested staff to provide a list of the 22 properties identified in the AACP,
along with the six mentioned in the EPS study and the status of each of those projects.
They are listed below:
o AABC - Potential partnership type project to contain 20 to 50 units
o Core and in-town infill - Potential partnership type project to contain 45 to 100
units
o MAA Seasonal Housing - Partnership project and is classified as Burlingame
seasonal housing and contains 100 units (96 two-bedroom seasonal units and 4
one-bedroom long-term units)
o 7'h and Hopkins - Potential private project to contain 20 to 40 units
o Moore Property - Potential private project to contain 30 units
o Buttermilk Base Housing - Private mitigation for up to 88 units
o 7th and Main Street - Public project that contains 12 deed-restricted units
o Truscott Expansion - Public project that added 97 deed-restricted rental units
o U.S. Forest Service site - Public project proposed for 50 to 120 units
o Hines/Highlands - Private mitigation that contains 21 deed-restricted rental units
and 67 deed-restricted ownership units
o North 40 - Private RO project that contains 72 deed-restricted RO units
o Moore PUD - Private mitigation and now known as Five Trees and contains 31
single-family deed-restricted homes
o Aspen Country Inn - Public rental project that contains 40 deed-restricted units
o Snyder - County public project that contains 13 deed-restricted units
o Marthinson-Nostdahl - A buy-down project for mitigation of the redevelopment
of the Paragon and contains 10 deed-restricted ownership units
o Woody Creek Mobile Home Park - Deed-restricted as Category 6 with the
potential of a build-out of 58 units
o Bass Parcel- Open space
o Burlingame Ranch - Potential for over 300 units
o Moore Open Space
o City Golf Course
o Aspen Mass - No longer a viable site for employee housing
o Cozy Point - Potential for 5 units
The EPS study identified the following publicly-held sites:
o Aspen Mass - Mentioned above and no longer a viable site for employee housing
o Burlingame Ranch - Current approvals for 296 units
o Parcel D - Now known as Annie Mitchell and contains 39 one-bedroom units
o Rio Grande - Recognized 17 deed-restricted and 6 free-market
o Truscott - Phase III would redevelopment the 100 building into 16 additional
units
o U.S. Forest Service - Recognized 51 deed-restricted and 21 free-market units
The EPS study identified the following infill sites:
o East End (Schlumberger) - Recognized 6 deed-restricted and 4 free-market units
o Commercial (i.e., The Gap) - Recognized 20 deed-restricted and 6 free-market
units
o Lodge (i.e., Aspen Manor) - Recognized 16 deed-restricted and 4 free-market
units; the redevelopment of this project contains time shares and one 2 deed-
restricted units
. Paragraph 3g specifies investigating housing and employment conditions and the needs
within the jurisdiction of the City or the County and the means and methods for
improving those conditions. While housing "conditions and needs" are understood and
routinely updated by APCHA, what specific employment "conditions and needs" is to be
address? The BOCC suggested removing the mention of "employment conditions. "
. Paragraph 3h specifies code changes associated with the provisions of the City and
County Strategic Master Plan. Again, which document(s) is (are) being referred to as the
Strategic Master Plan.
. Should language be added in the 4th 1GA dealing with the potential of buying property
outside of Pitkin County and/or partnering with other entities outside of Pitkin County?
The BOCC recommended addressing this issue at a later date.
· Are there any other issues that the commissioners or council would like to change or add?
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications for this request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no environmental implications for this
request.
RECOMMENDATION: Endorsement of the recommended minor changes and clarification of
the referenced issues. These items will then be taken to a joint work session with the City
Council and BOCC for final review and comment. Once all entities have weighed in, a formal
approval will be requested of the County and the City for approval of the 4th Amended IGA.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
A - Red-lined copy of the Fourth Amended and Restated IGA
B - State Statute 29-1-204.5, Establishment of rnultijurisdictional authorities
RESOLUTION #75
(Series of 2007)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
REGARDING THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an
intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, a copy of which agreement is annexed
hereto and made a part thereof, and
WHEREAS, the City and County entered into an intergovernmental
agreement in January 1984, a first amended and restated intergovernmental
agreement in 1989, a second amended and restated intergovernmental agreement
in 1999 and a third amended and restated intergovernmental agreement in 2002
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that
intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County regarding the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Office, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and
does hereby authorize the Mayor of the City of Aspen to execute said agreement
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 September 10,2007.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FOURTHTHIRJ> AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
THIS FOURTHTHIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as
"Intergovernmental Agreement") made and entered into this day of
,20012" by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, a
home rule municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"); and the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of Pitkin County, Colorado, a body corporate and politic
(hereinafter referred to as "County"):
WITNE S SETH:
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by article XX, section 6 of the Colorado
Constitution and City and County are each authorized by Article XIV, Section 18 of the
Colorado Constitution, and Section 29-l-~204.5, Colorado Revised Statutes to contract
with each other to establish a multi-jurisdictional housing authority as a separate
governmental entity; and
WHEREAS, the City and County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement
on January 9, 1984, a First Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement on
September 26,1989, and a Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement
in September, 1999, and a Third Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement
on October 28. 2002. establishing a multi-jurisdictional housing authority under the
provisions of C.R.S. 1973, Section 29-l-~204.5 which authority is known as the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Authority") for the
purpose of providing a program and a system to assure the existence of a supply of
desirable and affordable housing for permanent residents, persons employed in the City
or the County, senior citizens, disabled persons and other population segments residing or
needing to reside in the Roaring Fork Valley which are necessary for a balanced
community; and
WHEREAS, the City and County desire to create an independent housing
authority that has all of the powers set forth at Section 29- I -~204.5, C.R.S., and that
will function as an advisory and recommending board to the Aspen City Council and the
Board of County Commissioners on all matters relating to affordable housing in their
respective jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to further amend and to restate the
ThirdSeseHa Amended Intergovernmental Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived
hereby, the City and the County amend and restate the Intergovernmental Agreement of
Page 1
January 9, 1984, llflti.-the Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement of
Julv 25. 2000 and the Third Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement of
October 28. 2002, effective on the date first stated above, to read as follows:
I. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY - PURPOSE.
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter referred to as
"Authority") has been established as a multi-jurisdictional housing authority for the
purpose of assisting the City and County, upon request by either party, in effecting the
planning, financing, acquisition, construction, development, reconstruction or repair,
maintenance, management and operation of housing projects pursuant to a multi-
jurisdictional plan to provide residential facilities and dwelling accommodations at rental
or sale prices within the means of families or persons of low, moderate and middle
income who are employed in the City or the County, who reside or need to reside in the
City or County, and who have identifiable needs for affordable housing; e.g., limited
incomes, senior citizens and disabled persons, as defined by the Authority in published
guidelines. The Authority shall be a political subdivision and a public corporation of the
State of Colorado, separate from the City and County, and shall be a validly created and
existing political subdivision and public corporation of the State of Colorado. It shall
have the duties, privileges, immunities, rights, liabilities, and disabilities of a public body
politic and corporate. The provisions of Articles 10.5 (the "Public Deposit Protection
Act") and 47 (the "Savings and Loan Association Public Deposit Protection Act") of
Title II, Colorado Revised Statutes, shall apply to monies of the Authority.
The Authority shall have any and all powers, duties, rights and obligations as such
are set forth herein and subject to the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement. In order to
facilitate management oversight and to provide additional resources to the Authority, the
Authority shall delegate to the City certain administrative functions as more fully
described herein.
II. BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
A. Number; Manner of Appointment, Qualifications, Etc,:
The Board shall consist of five (5) Directors (hereinafter referred to as
"Directors"), and one (1) alternate, serving staggered terms to be appointed as follows:
I. Two Directors shall be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. Two Directors shall be appointed by the City Council.
.
3. One Director and one alternate shall be appointed jointly by the
Board of County Commissioners and the City Council.
Page 2
4. No Director shall be a member of the Board of County
Commissioners, the City Council, or an employee of the City, County, or
Authority. All Directors and the Alternate Director shall be residents of Pitkin
County.
5. As soon as reasonable after the effective date of this Amended
Agreement, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners shall appoint
initial Directors as set forth above for the following initial terms:
One Director appointed by County:
One Director appointed by City:
One Director appointed by County:
One Director appointed by City:
One Joint Director:
One joint alternate Director:
4 years
4 years
3 years
3 years
3 years
3 years
6. The terms of each Director and the Alternate Director following
the initial term shall be for a period of two years. Notwithstanding the terms set
forth herein, Directors and the Alternate Director shall continue to serve as
Directors until such time as a successor has been appointed.
7. Directors appointed by the City Council may be removed at the
sole discretion of the City Council. Directors appointed by the County
Commissioners may be removed at the sole discretion of the County
Commissioners. The Jointly appointed Director and the Alternate Director may be
removed at the sole discretion of either the City Councilor County
Commissioners. Upon the removal of a Director or Alternate Director, a
replacement shall be appointed by the respective governmental entity(ies) that
originally appointed the Director for the unexpired term of the removed Director
or Alternate Director.
B, Officers:
The officers of the Authority shall be a Chair, a Vice Chair, a Treasurer, and a
Secretary.
1. Chair. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Authority. At
each meeting, the Chair shall submit such recommendations and information as
she or he may consider proper concerning the business, affairs and policies of the
Authority.
2. Vice Chair. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair
in the absence or incapacity of the Chair; and in case of the resignation or death of
the Chair, the Vice Chair shall perform such duties as are imposed on the Chair
until such time as the Authority shall select a new Chair.
Page 3
3. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall perform the duties of the Chair in
the absence or incapacity of both the Chair and the Vice Chair. With respect to
expenses incurred directly by the Authority (as distinguished from expenses of
either the City or County for affordable housing projects and their operations),
either the Treasurer or the Secretary shall approve all orders and checks for
payment of money and shall payout and disburse such monies under the direction
of the City's Finance Director. The Treasurer shall serve as advisor to the
Authority and the Board on financial matters.
4. Secretarv. The Secretary shall ensure that the records of the
Authority are properly maintained, shall act as Secretary of the meetings of the
Authority and ensure that all votes are recorded, and shall ensure that a record of
the proceedings of the Authority are maintained in a journal of proceedings to be
kept for such purpose, and shall perform all duties incident to his or her office.
5. Election or Appointment. The Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer, and
Secretary shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Authority from among the
Directors of the Board, and shall hold office for one year or until their successors
are elected and qualified.
6. Vacancies. Should the office of Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer, or
Secretary become vacant, the Board shall elect a successor from its membership
at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of
said office.
C Voting Requirements:
I. Quorum. The powers of the Authority shall be vested in the
Directors of the Board in office from time to time. Three Directors of the Board
shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting Authority business and
exercising Authority powers and for all other purposes. When a quorum is in
attendance, action may be taken by the Authority upon a vote of a majority of the
Directors of the Board present. The Alternate Director may be counted for
purposes of determining the existence of a quorum at a meeting and may have his
or her vote counted only if at least one Director is not present.
2. Manner of Votinf!. The voting on all questions coming before the
Authority shall be by roll call, and the ayes and nays shall be entered upon the
minutes of such meeting by name, except on the election of officers that may be
by ballot.
D, Duties of the Officers.
The officers of the Authority shall perform the duties and functions of the
Authority as prescribed herein and such other duties and functions as may from time to
Page 4
time be required by the Authority, the by-laws or rules and regulations of the Authority,
or upon the request ofthe City and County.
III. DUTIES OF THE PARTIES.
A. Personnel,
I. An Executive Director of the Authority shall be employed by the
City who shall report to and be supervised by the City Manager. The City Manager and
County Manager shall jointly hire the Executive Director. The City Manager shall have
the authority to terminate the employment of the Executive Director in accordance with
City Personnel Policies and Procedures, but shall exercise this authority only after
reasonable consultation with the County Manager.
2. The Executive Director and all other personnel employed to work
under the supervision of the Executive Director shall be City employees, subject to the
City's payroll, benefits, and personnel policies and procedures (including disciplinary
procedures).
3. The Executive Director shall work under the supervision of the
City Manager and shall receive work assignments from the City Manager. Directors of
the Housing Authority may suggest work assignment for the Executive Director to the
City Manager, but shall have no authority to directly assign work, tasks, or priorities to
the Executive Director or any of his or her staff.
4. Nothing in this Agreement shall create, or is intended to create, or
shall be construed to constitute a contract of employment, express or implied between the
Executive Director and the Authority, the City or the County.
B, Finances and Accounting.
1. The Executive Director shall annually consult and cooperatively
work with the City and County Finance Directors to prepare proposed budgets for the
City and County relating to affordable housing in their respective jurisdictions. The
Authority, upon reviewing the annual budget as presented by the Executive Director shall
make recommendation to the City and County for their adoption. The annual budgets
shall include funds necessary to reimburse the City for overhead expenses for personnel,
finance, administrative, legal, and asset management services consistent with fees
charged to other City departments.
2. The Executive Director shall annually consult and cooperatively
work with the City's Finance Director to ensure the proper care and custody of all funds
of the Authority, the prompt payment of all obligations of the Authority, and the keeping
of regular books of accounts showing receipts and expenditures of the Authority. The
Executive Director shall render to the Authority, the City and the County, at their regular
meetings, or sooner if requested, an account of Authority transactions and also of the
Page 5
financial condition of the Authority. The Executive Director shall give such bond for the
faithful performance of his or her duties as the City may require.
3. All accounting, payroll, and audit services for the Authority shall
be performed by the Finance Department of the City.
4. The City's procurement policies, contract documents, and approval
policies shall be used for all procurements of goods and services of the Authority except
for any goods or services purchased entirely for County projects. A County project shall
be defined for purposes of this section as any purchase for goods or services funded
entirely by County funds or a combination of County funds and funds from a source other
than from the City.
5. For each fiscal year of the City, the County and the Authority
(each January I through each December 31), the City and County shall each appropriate
their prorated share of operational monies necessary to provide for any budgeted deficit
arising in connection with the Authority's operations which has been approved by the
City and County, provided, however, that bonds, notes or other obligations payable solely
from revenues as described in Section III hereof shall never constitute an indebtedness of
the City or the County. The City and County shall each pay for 50% of the normal
operating expenses of the Housing Office. This shall include such normal operating
expenses as guideline development, qualifYing applicants, enforcement, property
management, etc. The City and County shall pay its share of any special projects, which
either party may request to be included in the Annual Work Plan.
6. The County shall pay to the City for the benefit of the Authority its
share of the Authority's annual budget upon the request of the Finance Director of the
City. Both the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners shall approve any
increases to the expense budget.
7. On or before April 15 of each fiscal year, the actual operations for
the Authority for the immediate preceding fiscal year shall be reviewed by the City and
County Finance Directors with the Executive Director for the determination of any
necessary final reimbursements (and, therefore, necessary supplemental appropriations of
monies by the City and the County) as a result of any non-budget appropriation of
Authority staff or expenditure. The City and County hereby agree to make all necessary
appropriations within a reasonable time to reconcile the final appropriations of each
entity.
C Operations.
I. Annual Work Plan. The Executive Director, with the assistance of
the Authority, shall annually prepare a detailed Annual Work Plan that specifies goals,
tasks, responsible employees and timelines, for the operation of the Authority. The
Annual Work Plan shall include a summary detailing progress made in the
implementation of action plans set forth in any adopted Strategic Master Plan and
Page 6
recommendations for changes to the Strategic Master Plan. Following the review of the
Annual Work Plan by the Authority, the Executive Director shall meet with the City
Manager and County Manager for approval. The Authority shall review the Annual
Work Plan as approved by the City Manager and County Manager and shall make
recommendations to the City and County for its approval and adoption. Upon the
adoption of the Annual Work Plan by the City and County, the Executive Director shall
regularly meet with the City and County managers to review the progress of the
implementation of the Annual Work Plan.
2. Annual Emplovee Aff(mklbJe Housinf! Guidelines. The Executive
Director shall prepare Emploveef.ffer.aallle Housing Guidelines every three years,
including updates and recommendations for changes every year that:
a. Identify "low, lower moderate, upper moderate, middle and
upper middle income persons and families" eligible to participate in the
housing program established by the City and County; and
Should these category designations reflect the State Statute?
b. Qualifications for ownership and rental of low, lower
moderate, upper moderate, middle and upper middle income housing
within the City and the County for the population segments identified by
the Authority as required by existing agreements and land use regulations.
The Authority shall review the EmploveeAffer.aallle Housing Guidelines, including
deletions and additions, submitted to it by the Executive Director and shall make
recommendations to the City and County for their approval and adoption.
3. The Housinf! Authoritv. The Authority shall meet monthly to
conduct its business in accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Law, Sections 24-6-
401, et seq., C.R.S. and the City of Aspen Municipal Code. The Authority shall be
responsible for the following duties:
a. To act as emplovecaffereable housing advocates in all of
its business by representing the views and perspectives of the larger
communities of the City and County and translating those views and
perspectives into concrete recommendations to the City and County.
b. To review and make recommendations to the City and
County with respect to the Annual Work Plan, Housing Guidelines,
Affordable Housing Action Plans of the Aspen Area Community Plan, any
Emploveef.ffenlable Housing Strategic Master Plans adopted by the City
or County, and advise on any other emploveeafforeaele housing related
matters referred to it by either the City or County.
c. To review specific development proposals initiated by the
City or County and make recommendations thereon upon the request of
either the City or County.
Page 7
d. To assist the City, County, and Executive Director, upon
request, to define the need, planning, undertaking, construction, operation,
or financing of low, lower moderate, upper moderate, middle and upper
middle income housing for the population segments designated here or
identified by the Authority residing in or needing to reside in the City or
the County; and
e. To assist the City, County and Executive Director, upon
request, to plan, finance, acquire, construct, reconstruct or repair,
maintain, manage, and operate housing projects pursuant to the Annual
Work Plan; and
f. To assist the City, County and Executive Director, upon
request, to purchase, acquire, obtain options, hold, lease (as lessor or
lessee), sell, or otherwise dispose of any real or personal property,
commodity, or service from firms, corporations, the City, the County,
other governmental entities or any other persons; and
g. To assist the' City, County and Executive Director, upon
request, to investigate housing ana emj'lleYlflent een6itions ana needs
within the jurisdiction of the City or the County and the means and
methods for improving those conditions; and
h. To review growth management policy applications (or
equivalent application procedures as the same are developed or established
from time to time) by developers for low, lower moderate, upper
moderate, middle and upper middle income housing in the City or the
County as requested by the respective Community Development
Departments of the City or the County for conformance with housing
needs; and
1. To enforce all aspects of the emplovecafferaaele housing
program, including, but not necessarily limited to, deed restrictions,
guidelines, and qualifications; and
J. To establish a system to hear appeals from the
interpretation or implementation of the Emplovec,^.ffor.a!tllle Housing
Guidelines and issue final administrative determinations on such appeals.
4. The Executive Director. The Executive Director shall be
responsible for the following duties in addition to any duties assigned to him or her by the
City Manager:
Page 8
a. Working closely with the County and City managers to
develop an Annual Work Plan and thereafter implementing said Work
Plan under the supervision of the City Manager; and
b. Maintaining records of existing low, lower moderate, upper
moderate, middle and upper middle income rental or resale restricted
housing for the population segments designated herein or identified by the
Authority and assure that such housing is used and occupied in accordance
with existing City or County development approvals, contracts, or
financing requirements; and
c. Taking all steps reasonably necessary to assure that all deed
restricted units of housing comply with City and County regulations or
resolutions concerning rental or resale restricted housing; and
d. Negotiating contracts as required to provide for
management of P"lffiaRent Meaerate HelisiRg deed-restricted APCHA
units (as that term is defined in .'\ut-herity EmplovecAfferaaale Housing
Guidelines as such guidelines are published, modified, amended and
supplemented from time to time); and
e. To review and recommend establishment of a computerized
rental availability record system for use by the City, the County, the
population segments designated herein or identified by the Authority and
members ofthe general public; and
f. Taking all steps reasonably necessary to provide for
marketing and reviewing qualification of applicants for rental deed
restricted or for sale emplovecafferaaele housing units, and for marketing,
reviewing qualifications of applicants for, and arranging for transfer of
title of deed restricted units; and
g. IIlYes~igatiRg helisiRg iIfla empleyment eeRaitieRs and
Reees withill the jarisaietieR ef the City er the Celffity aIla the means aRe
metRe as fer iHlflre'lillg t-hese eelleitiells; aaa
g. Investigating housing needs within the iurisdiction of the
Citv or the Countv and the means and methods for improving those
conditions; and
h. To develop and recommend code changes associated with
the provisions of the City and County Strategic Master Plan (as the same
may be modified, amended and supplemented from time to time); and
i. To maintain data indicating housing needs in the City and
the County for the population segments designated herein or identified by
the Authority.
Page 9
5. Proiect Manarzement Services bv the City. The City and County
acknowledge that the City, because of its current personnel and expertise in construction
management, is in a better position than the County to provide construction management
services for the development and construction of emolovecaffor-daele housing. The City
agrees to negotiate in good faith with the County to provide construction management
services for County funded and sponsored emolovecafferaal3le housing projects. Said
agreements shall be on a case-by-case basis and shall include provisions for scope of
services to be provided, reimbursement schedules, management responsibilities, and
appropriate indemnification and insurance. The parties hereto agree that the City shall not
be required to provide construction management services at any time that the City, in its
sole discretion determines that it does not have the personnel or resources to provide such
services. Cell!lty prejeets eUlnHtly iaentiFiea as reEj:uiring rnanagemeHt serviees kern t.!J.e
City ineluaes the Stillwater f.ffeffiaele Housing Prejeet ana the Weeay Creek Mobile
Heme Prejeet.
C Long-Range Planning.
I. Master Housinrz Plan. The City and the County, individually or
jointly, may periodically adopt a Housing Strategic Master Plan to assist City, County
and Authority in the development of priorities, policies, and implementing actions that
maximize emoloveeafforaable housing development. financial support shall be
designated to the City or County based on who is directly benefiting from the effort. The
Strategic Master Plan may include the following:
· Identification of existing community housing needs by type.
· Determination of the potential development of affordable sites located
within the jurisdiction of the City or County.
· Evaluation of the economic performance of the City's or County's
affordable housing sites and prototype projects and comparisons of
their relative costs and benefits.
· Specifications for an emolovecafferaaele housing program and
phasing schedule that best meets program objectives consistent with
available funding sources and levels.
· Recommendations for strategies and actions that implement the
housing development program.
IV. BONDS. NOTES AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS:
A. The bonds, notes, and other obligations of the Authority shall not be the
debts, liabilities, or obligations of the City or the County unless expressly assumed by the
City or the County;
B. The City and the County may provide for payment to the Authority of
funds from proprietary revenues for services rendered or facilities provided by the
Page 10
Authority, from proprietary revenues or other public funds as contributions to defray the
cost of any purpose set forth herein, and from proprietary revenues or other public funds
as advances for any purpose subject to repayment by the Authority;
C. To carry out the purposes for which the Authority was established, the
Authority is authorized to issue bonds, notes, or other obligations payable solely from the
revenues derived or to be derived from the function, service, or facilities of the Authority
or from any other available funds of the Authority. The terms, conditions, and details of
said bonds, notes, and other obligations, the procedures related thereto, and the refunding
thereof shall be set forth in the resolution authorizing said bonds, notes, or other
obligations and shall, as nearly as may be practicable, be substantially the same as those
provided by law for any of the contracting parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement;
except that bonds, notes, or other obligations so issued shall not constitute an
indebtedness of the Authority, the City or the County within the meaning of any
constitutional, home rule charter or statutory limitation or other provision unless
expressly assumed by the City or the County. Each bond, note, or other obligation issued
under this subsection shall recite in substance that said bond, note, or other obligation,
including the interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues and other available
funds of the Authority pledged for the payment thereof unless expressly assumed by the
City or the County and that said bond, note, or other obligation does not constitute a debt
of the Authority, the City or the County or within the meaning of any constitutional,
home rule charter or statutory limitations or provisions unless expressly assumed by the
City or the County. Notwithstanding anything in this Section IV to the contrary, such
bonds, notes, and other obligations may be issued to mature at such times not beyond
forty (40) years from their respective issue dates, shall bear interest at such rates, and
shall be sold at such prices at, above or below the principal amount thereof, as shall be
determined by the Board.
D. The resolution, trust indenture, or other security agreement under which
any bonds, notes, or other obligations are issued shall constitute a contract with the
holders thereof, and it may contain such provisions as shall be determined by the Board
to be appropriate and necessary in connection with the issuance thereof and to provide
security for the payment thereof, including, without limitation, any mortgage or other
security interest in any revenues, funds, rights, or properties of the Authority. The bonds,
notes and other obligations of the Authority and the income therefrom are exempt from
taxation, except inheritance, estate, and transfer taxes pursuant to the Colorado Revised
Statutes.
V. LEGAL ASSISTANCE:
Legal assistance for the Authority shall be provided both by the City and County
Attorney's Office for specific problems related to Authority programs; subject, however,
to the availability of staff time of the respective attorney offices. The Executive Director
may retain independent counsel whenever the City or County Attorney's Offices are
unable or unwilling to provide legal representation to the Authority. In addition, the
Executive Director may retain independent legal counsel, as needed, for day-to-day
Page 11
consultation and legal advice. The City Attorney shall review all contract documents that
purport to legally obligate the City in any fashion. The County Attorney shall review all
contract documents that purport to legally obligate the County in any fashion.
VI. DISPOSITION OF ASSETS UPON TERMINATION:
In the event of the termination of this Intergovernmental Agreement which
termination may only occur in accordance with the requirements and limitations of
Section VII hereof, and the resulting dissolution of the Authority, the assets of the
Authority shall be distributed as follows:
A. All assets acquired from contributions from the City or the County shall be
returned to the contributing party if said assets are still in existence.
B. If assets contributed to the Authority are not in existence, the contributing
party shall have the option of receiving the fair market value of the asset at the time of
disposal by the Authority in either cash or assets of the Authority.
C. All remaining assets acquired by the Authority after the date of this
Intergovernmental Agreement from funds provided by the parties shall be distributed to
the parties on the basis of the appraised value of said assets at the time of termination and
in the same proportion as the respective contributions of funds by the parties for
acquisition of the asset.
D. The City and the County may agree to dispose of any assets of the
Authority in any other acceptable manner.
E. If the City and the County cannot agree on the disposition of any assets of
the Authority within sixty (60) days after termination, said assets shall be subject to an
independent appraisal and shall be sold at public auction as soon as practicable with the
proceeds allocated to the City and the County in the same proportion as the total
contribution of funds by the respective parties for acquisition of the asset.
VII, ANNUAL RENEWAL AND TERMINATION:
The term of this Intergovernmental Agreement shall be from the effective date
hereof through December 31, 2001;, and shall automatically be renewed for successive
one-year periods thereafter. Either party hereto may terminate this Intergovernmental
Agreement for any reason upon ninety (90) days' written notice, provided, however, that
this Intergovernmental Agreement may not be terminated or rescinded so long as the
Authority has bonds, notes, or other obligations outstanding, unless provision for full
payment of such obligations, by escrow or otherwise, has been made pursuant to the
terms of such obligations; provided, however, that if full payment has been provided by
escrow, such termination or recision shall not occur unless nationally recognized bond
counsel has delivered an opinion to the effect that such termination or recision, in and of
Page 12
itself, will not adversely affect the tax status of the interest on such escrowed obligations.
Furthermore, this Intergovernmental Agreement may not be terminated if the Authority
has obligations to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under any
Low Rent Public Housing Program, or other similar program, unless those obligations are
assumed by the City or the County.
VIII. MODIFICATION OF THIS AGREEMENT
This Agreement may be modified by written amendment approved by the City
Council and Board of County Commissioners, acting separately.
IX. NOTICES:
Any formal notice, demand or request provided for in this Intergovernmental
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly given if deposited in the
United States Mail, postage prepaid to:
City of Aspen, Colorado
c/o City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado
c/o County Manager
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
c/o Executive Director
530 East Main Street, Lower Level
Aspen, Colorado 81611
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Intergovernmental Agreement on the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Page 13
ATTEST:
Clerk and Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Chairman
Page 14
Document 1 of 1
Source:
Colorado StatuteslTlTLE 29 GOVERNMENT - LOCAUGENERAL PROVISIONS/ARTICLE 1 BUDGET AND SERVICES/PART 2
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS/29-1-204.5. Establishment of multijurisdictional housing authorities.
29-1-204.5. Establishment of multijurisdictional housing authorities.
(1) Any combination of home rule or statutory cities, towns, counties, and cities and counties of this state may, by
contract with each other, establish a separate governmental entity to be known as a multijurisdictional housing
authority, referred to in this section as an "authority". Such an authority may be used by such contracting member
governments to effect the planning, financing, acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance,
management, and operation of housing projects or programs pursuant to a multijurisdictional plan:
(a) To provide dwelling accommodations at rental prices or purchase prices within the means of families oflow or
moderate income; and
(b) To provide affordable housing projects or prograrns for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction
of the authority.
(2) Any contract establishing any such authority shall specifY:
(a) The narne and purpose of such authority and the functions or services to be provided by such authority;
(a.5) The boundaries of the authority, which boundaries may include less than the entire area of the separate
governmental entities and may be modified after the establishment of the authority as provided in the contract;
(b) The establishment and organization of a governing body of the authority, which shall be a board of directors,
referred to in this section as the "board", in which all legislative power of the authority is vested, including:
(I) The number of directors, their manner of appointment, their terms of office, their compensation, if any, and the
procedure for filling vacancies on the board;
(II) The officers of the authority, the manner of their selection, and their duties;
(III) The voting requirements for action by the board; except that, unless specifically provided otherwise, a majority
of directors shall constitute a quorum, and a majority of the quorum shall be necessary for any action taken by the
board;
(IV) The duties of the board, which shall include the obligation to comply with the provisions of parts 1, 5, and 6 of
this article;
(c) Provisions for the disposition, division, or distribution of any property or assets of the authority;
(d) The term of the contract, which may be continued for a definite term or until rescinded or terminated, and the
method, if any, by which it may be rescinded or terminated; except that such contract may not be rescinded or
terminated so long as the authority has bonds, notes, or other obligations outstanding, unless provision for full payment
of such obligations, by escrow or otherwise, has been made pursuant to the terms of such obligations;
(e) The expected sources of revenue of the authority and any requirements that contracting member governments
consent to the levying of any taxes or development impact fees within the jurisdiction of such member. If the authority
levies any taxes or development impact fees, the contract shall further include requirements that:
(I) Prior to and as a condition of levying any such taxes or fees, the board shall adopt a resolution determining that
the levying of such taxes or fees will fairly distribute the costs of the authority's activities among the persons and
businesses benefited thereby and will not impose an undue burden on any particular group of persons or businesses;
(II) Each such tax or fee shall conform with any requirements specified in subsection (3) of this section; and
(III) The authority shall designate a financial officer who shall coordinate with the department of revenue regarding
the collection of a sales and use tax authorized pursuant to paragraph (f.l) of subsection (3) of this section. This
coordination shall include but not be limited to the financial officer identifYing those businesses eligible to collect the
sales and use tax and any other administrative details identified by the department.
(3) The general powers of such authority shall include the following powers:
(a) To plan, finance, acquire, construct, reconstruct or repair, maintain, manage, and operate housing projects and
programs pursuant to a multijurisdictional plan within the means of families of low or moderate income;
(a.5) To plan, finance, acquire, construct, reconstruct or repair, maintain, manage, and operate affordable housing
projects or programs for employees of employers located within the jurisdiction of the authority;
(b) To make and enter into contracts with any person, including, without limitation, contracts with state or federal
agencies, private enterprises, and nonprofit organizations also involved in providing such housing projects or programs
or the financing for such housing projects or prograrns, irrespective of whether such agencies are parties to the contract
establishing the authority;
(c) To employ agents and employees;
(d) To cooperate with state and federal governments in all respects concerning the financing of such housing
projects and programs;
(e) To acquire, hold, lease (as lessor or lessee), sell, or otherwise dispose of any real or personal property,
commodity, or service;
(f) To condemn property for public use, if such property is not owned by any governmental entity or any public
utility and devoted to public use pursuant to state authority;
(f.1) (I) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7.5) of this section, to levy, in all of the area within the boundaries
of the authority, a sales or use tax, or both, at a rate not to exceed one percent, upon every transaction or other incident
with respect to which a sales or use tax is levied by the state. The tax imposed pursuant to this paragraph (f.1) is in
addition to any other sales or use tax imposed pursuant to law and is exempt from the limitation imposed by section 29-
2-108. The executive director of the department of revenue shall collect, administer, and enforce the sales or use tax, to
the extent feasible, in the manner provided in section 29-2-106. However, the executive director shall not begin the
collection, administration, and enforcement of a sales and use tax until such time as the financial officer of the authority
and the executive director have agreed on all necessary matters pursuant to subparagraph (III) of paragraph (e) of
subsection (2) of this section. The executive director shall begin the collection, administration, and enforcement of a
sales and use tax on a date mutually agreeable to the department of revenue and the authority.
(II) The executive director shall make monthly distributions of the tax collections to the authority, which shall
apply the proceeds solely to the planning, financing, acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance,
management, and operation of housing projects or programs within the means offamilies oflow or moderate income.
(III) The department of revenue shall retain an amount not to exceed the cost of the collection, administration, and
enforcement and shall transmit the amount retained to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same amount to the
multijurisdictional housing authority sales tax fund, which fund is hereby created in the state treasury. The amounts so
retained are hereby appropriated annually from the fund to the department to the extent necessary for the department's
collection, administration, and enforcement of the provisions of this section. Any moneys remaining in the fund
attributable to taxes collected in the prior fiscal year shall be transmitted to the authority; except that, prior to the
transmission to the authority of such moneys, any moneys appropriated from the general fund to the department for the
collection, administration, and enforcement of the tax for the prior fiscal year shall be repaid.
(4) The authority established by such contracting member governments shall be a political subdivision and a public
corporation of the state, separate from the parties to the contract, and shall be a validly created and existing political
subdivision and public corporation of the state, irrespective of whether a contracting member government withdraws
(whether voluntarily, by operation of law, or otherwise) from such authority subsequent to its creation under
circumstances not resulting in the rescission or termination of the contract establishing such authority pursuant to its
terms. It shall have the duties, privileges, immunities, rights, liabilities, and disabilities of a public body politic and
corporate. The authority may deposit and invest its moneys in the manner provided in section 43-4-616, C.R. S.
(5) The bonds, notes, and other obligations of such authority shall not be the debts, liabilities, or obligations of the
contracting member governments.
(6) The contracting member governments may provide in the contract for payment to the authority of funds from
proprietary revenues for services rendered or facilities provided by the authority, from proprietary revenues or other
public funds as contributions to defray the cost of any purpose set forth in the contract, and from proprietary revenues
or other public funds as advances for any purpose subject to repayment by the authority.
(7) (Deleted by amendment, 1. 2001, p. 966, S 1, effective August 8, 2001.)
(7.1) The authority may issue revenue or general obligation bonds, as the term bond is defined in section 43-4-602
(3), C.R.S., and may pledge its revenues and revenue-raising powers for the payment of such bonds. Such bonds shall
be issued on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in section 43-4-609, C.R.S.
(7.3) The income or other revenues of the authority, all properties at any time owned by an authority, any bonds
issued by an authority, and the transfer of and the income from any bonds issued by the authority are exempt from all
taxation and assessments in the state.
(7.5) (a) No action by an authority to establish or increase any tax or development impact fee authorized by this
section shall take effect unless first submitted to a vote of the registered electors of the authority in which the tax or
development impact fee is proposed to be collected.
(b) No action by an authority creating a multiple-fiscal year debt or other financial obligation that is subject to
section 20 (4) (b) of article X of the state constitution shall take effect unless first submitted to a vote of the registered
electors residing within the boundaries of the authority; except that no such vote is required for obligations of
enterprises established under paragraph (n) of subsection (3) of this section or for obligations of any other enterprise
under section 20 (4) of article X of the state constitution.
(c) The questions proposed to the registered electors under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (7.5) shall be
submitted at a general election or any election to be held on the first Tuesday in November of an odd-numbered year.
The action shall not take effect unless a majority of the registered electors voting thereon at the election vote in favor
thereof. The election shall be conducted in substantially the same manner as county elections and the county clerk and
recorder of each county in which the election is conducted shall assist the authority in conducting the election. The
authority shall pay the costs incurred by each county in conducting such an election. No moneys of the authority may
be used to urge or oppose passage of an election required under this section.
(7.7) (a) For the purpose of determining any authority's fiscal year spending limit under section 20 (7) (b) of article
X of the state constitution, the initial spending base of the authority shall be the amount of revenues collected by the
authority from sources not excluded from fiscal year spending pursuant to section 20 (2) (e) of article X of the state
constitution during the first full fiscal year for which the authority collected revenues.
(b) For purposes of this subsection (7.7), "fiscal year" means any year-long period used by an authority for fiscal
accounting purposes.
(8) An authority established by contracting member governments shall, if the contract so provides, be the successor
to any nonprofit corporation, agency, or other entity theretofore organized by the contracting member governments to
provide the same function, service, or facility, and such authority shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges and
(f.2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7.5) of this section, to levy, in all of the area within the boundaries of
the authority, an ad valorem tax at a rate not to exceed five mills on each dollar of valuation for assessment of the
taxable property within such area. The tax imposed pursuant to this paragraph (f.2) shall be in addition to any other ad
valorem tax imposed pursuant to law. In accordance with the schedule prescribed by section 39-5-128, C.R.S., the
board shall certifY to the board of county commissioners of each county within the authority~ or having a portion of its
territory within the district, the levy of ad valorem property taxes in order that, at the time and in the manner required
by law for the levying of taxes, such board of county cOrnIDissioners shall levy such tax upon the valuation for
assessment of all taxable property within the designated portion of the area within the boundaries of the authority. It is
the duty of the body having authority to levy taxes within each county to levy the taxes provided by this subsection (3).
It is the duty of all officials charged with the duty of collecting taxes to collect such taxes at the time and in the form
and manner and with like interest and penalties as other taxes are collected and when collected to pay the same to the
authority ordering the levy and collection. The payment of such collections shall be made monthly to the authority or
paid into the depository thereof to the credit of the authority. All taxes levied under this paragraph (f.2), together with
interest thereon and penalties for default in payment thereof, and all costs of collecting the sarne shall constitute, until
paid, a perpetual lien on and against the property taxed, and such lien shall be on a parity with the tax lien of other
general taxes.
(f.5) (I) To establish, and from time to time increase or decrease, a development impact fee and collect such fee
from persons who own property located within the boundaries of the authority who apply for approval for new
residential, commercial, or industrial construction in accordance with applicable ordinances, resolutions, or regulations
of any county or municipality.
(II) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (f.5), an impact fee may only be imposed
by an authority if all of the following conditions have been satisfied:
(A) No portion of the authority is located in a county with a population of more than one hundred thousand;
(B) The fee is not levied upon the development, construction, permitting, or otherwise in connection with low or
moderate income housing or affordable employee housing;
(C) The rate of the fee is two dollars per square foot or less; and
(D) The authority also imposes a sales and use tax pursuant to paragraph (f.l) of tills subsection (3), an ad valorem
tax pursuant to paragraph (f.2) of this subsection (3), or both.
(g) To incur debts, liabilities, or obligations;
.
(h) To sue and be sued in its own narne;
(i) To have and use a corporate seal;
(j) To fix, maintain, and revise fees, rents, security deposits, and charges for functions, services, or facilities
provided by the authority;
(k) To adopt, by resolution, regulations respecting the exercise of its powers and the carrying out of its purposes;
(I) To exercise any other powers that are essential to the provision of functions, services, or facilities by the
authority and that are specified in the contract;
(m) To do and perform any acts and things authorized by this section under, through, or by means of an agent or by
contracts with any person, firm, or corporation;
(n) To establish enterprises for the ownership, planning, fmancing, acquisition, construction, reconstruction or
repair, maintenance, management, or operation, or any combination of the foregoing, of housing projects or programs
authorized by this section on the same terms as and subject to the same conditions provided in section 43-4-00S r R "
shall assume all the obligations and liabilities of such other entity under existing contracts to which such other
entity is a party.
(9) The authority granted pursuant to this section shall in no manner limit the powers of governments to enter into
intergovernmental cooperation or contracts or to establish separate legal entities pursuant to the provisions of section
29-1-203 or any other applicable law or otherwise to carry out their individual powers under applicable statutory or
charter provisions, nor shall such authority limit the powers reserved to cities and towns by section 2 of article XI of
the state constitution. Nothing in this part 2 constitutes a legislative declaration of preference for housing projects
owned by authorities over housing projects owned by other or different entities.
(10) An authority and the property of an authority shall be exempt from all taxes and special assessments on the
sarne basis and subject to the same conditions as provided for city housing authorities in sections 29-4-226 and 29-4-
227.
Source: L. 77: Entire section added, p. 1393, S I, effective July 7. L. 2001: Entire section arnended, p. 966, S I,
effective August 8. L. 2002: (10) added, p. 1937, S I, effective June 7.
Editor's note: (1) This section was enacted as S 29-1-203.5 in Senate Bill 77-488 but was renumbered on revision in the
1977 replacement volume for ease of location.
(2) Section 4 of chapter 346, Session Laws of Colorado 2002, provides lhat the act enacting subsection (10) applies only with
respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
@ 2007 by The Committee on Legal Services for the State of Colorado and Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the
LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew
Bender Master Agreement.
Vld
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
TO:
DATE:
September 10, 2007
RE:
Ordinance #30, Series of2007, Review of Potential Historic Resources
SUMMARY: IdentifYing and protecting properties that illustrate the history of modern Aspen is
an activity that the City has been undertaking since designation of the Lift I site in 1974. The
first Community Plan, written in 1986, stated the need to protect more recent architecture. This
goal was renewed in the 1993 plan, and the 2000 plan. It has been a major focus of the historic
preservation program, certainly since the last formal city-wide historic resources survey in 2000
and the adoption of new HPC regulations in 2002.
An impressive total of 257 buildings from Aspen's first 13 years of history have been protected.
This represents 92% of the landmarked inventory in town. Only 22 buildings from Aspen's last
113 years of history are currently landmarked. These properties amount to 8% of the
designations in Aspen. There is no reason to believe that only Aspen's Victorian residents
produced places worth saving, however, creating a review process for younger properties that is
clear and acceptable to the public has been challenging. Ordinance #30, Series of 2007 is a
means of ensuring that properties can be evaluated for their significance in Aspen's history
before they are lost through alterations or demolition.
Council has undertaken many hours of discussion since the adoption of the Ordinance. A
primary concern expressed with the regulation in its current form is the fact that it affects many
more properties than will likely ever meet the designation criteria. In addition, there has been
criticism of the designation criteria. Following is a range of options for moving forward. Staff
requests Council direction. Whichever option is selected, we recommend that the historic
preservation policy and economics task forces that have been discussed go forward for the
betterment of Aspen's program. To the extent that Council's direction requires formal code
amendments, Staff will schedule hearings in front of HPC, P&Z and Council for adoption of an
Ordinance.
Option 1: Maintain the current ordinance and proceed with the scope of work that has
been presented; the establishment of a policy task force and an economics task force, proposals
for improved regulations and incentives, and on-going survey work to narrow the field of
affected properties to those that are truly eligible, eliminating non-qualifying sites from
consideration. Council approved this action on August 26'\ including the allocation of $206,000
in funding and the direction to staff to bring forward a code amendment requiring designations to
be by a "supermajority" of HPC and Council.
PROS: Staff is ready to begin work immediately, and expects to be complete within 6 months.
CONS: Ordinance #30 continues to operate in the meanwhile, without significant arnendment
and property owners are left in a state of limbo for half a year if they do not wish to make an
application for determination of potential historic resources within the current system.
Option 2: Pursue action described above, but direct staff to bring forward substantive
amendments to the current ordinance in short order; related to the issue of "supermajority,"
length of time that the determination of no historic resources remains valid, minimum age for
designation without owner consent, etc.
PROS: Some of the areas of the current ordinance that are recelVlng criticism would be
revisited. Some aspects of the Ordinance that may cause unnecessary delays could be improved.
CONS: Council would adopt substantive amendments before HPC or the policy committee
would likely have been able to complete a thorough and balanced evaluation of significant
preservation issues.
Option 3: Revise the Ordinance to only apply to a list of potentially eligible, but currently
unprotected properties as developed by staff. Direct staff to return to Council asap (shorter
than the 6 month timeframe discussed under Option I) with an ordinance formalizing the list
concept, including a possible update ofthe version presented in July to ensure that the evaluation
is as accurate and comprehensive as possible. Staff can build on previous research to minimize
the budget expenditure for surveying, accomplishing it mostly in-house.
PROS: The Ordinance becomes much more focused, clarifying the types of buildings that may
be considered important to Aspen's sense of history. Roughly 95% of the sites currently subject
to Ordinance #30 would be exempted from the regulation.
CONS: A list becomes a static document. As time marches on, a new ordinance would be
required to address sites that move into the realm of historic significance.
Option 4: Repeal the Ordinance; reverting to the 2002 regulations, which allow for
designation of properties at least 40 years old with or without owner consent, Direct staff to
bring forward amendments to correct past issues with the operation of the laws.
PROS: From the point of view of property owners, a number of sites would be exempt from
regulation, at least for the short term, since the minimum age for designation without consent
would return to 40 years.
CONS: The City would return to the previous circumstance, where no property is protected
unless the City initiates a designation application and there is uncertainty as to what will trigger
the initiation of such applications. In the meantime, damaging alterations or demolition could be
undertaken. The City is in a reactionary position, potentially bringing up the need to consider
landmarking in an 11th hour approach. No property less than 40 years old could be protected
without the owner's consent.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
VI' a.
'='
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Tim Ware, Director of Parking
THRU:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO:
August 23, 2007
MEETING DATE:
September 10,2007
RE:
Ordinance Amendment
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Transportation and Parking Department is requesting
amendments to the Aspen Municipal Code section 24.16.180 Time Restricted Parking Areas in
Residential Permit Zones and section 2.12.060 Parking Fees.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the July 10,2007 City Council work session, staff was
instructed to expand the paid parking program into the residential zones surrounding the
commercial core area. This action also includes a code amendment limiting the amount of time to
park in the remaining spaces in the residential zones and fee adjustments to the entire on-street
parking and parking garage management program.
BACKGROUND: In 1995, the City of Aspen implemented the parking management program in
the commercial core and the Residential Permit Parking areas. This program included several
payment and permit options to address the diverse needs of many different types of customers.
The Transportation and Parking Department has reviewed the program over the last two years
and has identified some options to improve the parking program that Council may wish to direct
staff to explore and implement.
In our review, staffs primary focus was on implementing programs that would help reduce levels
of traffic and improve pedestrian friendliness in town during the peak seasons. A number of
parking program modifications have been offered for consideration as potential measures for
reducing parking occupancy, encouraging transit ridership and increasing revenue generation for
TDM programs. These include changes to residential parking, service vehicle parking and
seasonal fee variations in the commercial core.
Pagelof4
The purpose of the current residential parking permit program was to prevent spillover parking
from the commercial core into residential areas once the paid parking component was put into
place. The program allows for up to two hours of parking without a permit Monday through
Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm. Residents are issued permits that exempt their vehicles and their
guest's vehicle from the weekday time restrictions.
DISCUSSION: Parking staff would like Council to consider modifications to the residential
parking program and the current paid parking fees. At the July 10, 2007 work session council
was presented the paid parking expansion, residential time restriction adjustment and a 30% fee
increase. The fee increase outlined below would be the second fee increase in the twelve years
since the introduction of the parking management program.
Rio Grande Parking Garage
Hourly Parking Rates
Maximum Daily Fee
Validation Stickers
Unlimited Monthly Pass
Lost Ticket Fee
Special Event Pass
Access Replacement Card
On-Street Parking Fees
Multi-Space Meters
Single-Space Meters
Residential Day Pass
Residential Paid Parking
Residential Space Rental
Business Vehicle Permit
Lodge Guest Permit
Construction Vehicle Permit
Residential
Commercial Core
Current
$1.25/hr
$12.50/day
$4.00 per visit
$150.00/month
$12.50
$4.00/day
$10.00
Proposed
$1.50/hr
$ 15.00/day
$5.00 per visit
$200.00/month
$15.00
$5.00/day
$20.00
Current
1st hr $1.00
2"d hr $2.00
3'd hr $2.00
4th hr 3.00
$.25/per 15 minutes
$5.00/day
N/A
$5.00/day
$300.00/6 month period
$1.50/week
Proposed
1st hr $2.00
2"d hr $2.00
3rd hr $3.00
4th hr $4.00
$.50/per 15 minutes
$7.00/day
$1.00/per hr $7.00/day max.
$IO.OO/day
$500.00/6 month period
$2.00/week
$20.00/month
$20.00/day
$40.00/month
$25.00/day
Page20f4
Timed Parking in the Remaining Residential Permit Parking Areas:
Staff is also requesting an amendment to section 24.16.180 of the Aspen Municipal Code
regarding timed parking restrictions in the residential zones that would take effect once the paid
parking program is expanded.
Current Ordinance
In any area designated as a residential permit zone, which is posted as Time Restricted with
certain permits exempt, it shall be unlawful for any person to park any motor vehicle on the street
longer than the posted time limit unless there is a valid and properly-displayed permit on the
vehicle corresponding to the permits which are posted exempt; provided however, that the
provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency, government, delivery, or service vehicles
while engaged in such delivery or service.
Proposed Ordinance
In any area designated as a residential permit zone, which is posted as Time Restricted with
certain permits exempt, it shall be unlawful for any person to park any motor vehicle on the street
longer then the posted time limit and may not re-park the same vehicle within the same permitted
residential zone area for a period of 12 hours unless there is a valid and properly-displayed
permit on the vehicle corresponding to the permits which are posted exempt; provided however,
that the provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency, government, delivery, or service
vehicles while engaged in such delivery or service.
FINANCIALIBUDGET IMPACTS: The capital costs are approximately $950,000 for the
acquisition of new parking meters and signs. The operational costs associated with these
ordinances include the need for maintenance of the new equipment and the addition of two full-
time enforcement officers.
The fee increase will result in approximately $454,598.00 of new revenue for the on-street
programs and $81,390.00 for the Rio Grande Parking Garage.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Environmental Health Department believes these
changes are crucial to the City's efforts to reduce PM-lO pollution (over 83% of which is caused
by traffic on high pollution days), carbon monoxide pollution, ozone and other vehicle pollutants,
and to meet the city's commitment to capping traffic at 1993 levels. The two-hour shuffle of cars
severely reduces the effectiveness of the paid parking program in encouraging mass transit use
and carpooling. Given the great challenges of global warming as well as conventional air
pollution, incentives for reducing vehicle trips are essential. When the paid parking program was
implemented in 1995, it was believed that the "two-hour shuffle" would be ended. Not only has
that not happened, but hundreds of single occupant vehicles each day are moved repeatedly,
which undermines the city's efforts to promote mass transit, reduce air pollution, and meet
greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Page 3 of4
The Environmental Health Department would like to see an even stricter approach in some areas,
especially conversion of monthly passes to daily fee passes. (With monthly passes, since you
have already paid for them, they encourage rather than discourage driving.) But we understand
that Transportation and Parking staff seek to achieve a balance between meeting council's
environmental sustainability goals, and avoiding significant disruption, so are recommending a
more moderate approach.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Transportation and Parking Department recommends that
the City Council approve the Rio Grande and On-Street proposed parking fee increases and the
amendment to the Aspen Municipal Code section 24.16.180 Time Restricted Parking Areas.
AL TERNA TIVES: Council could opt to amend either ordinance or delay implementation.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance !6fllld Ordinance #~n first reading at
the September 10, 2007 City Council meeting."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment HA" Ordinance #.$9
Attachment HB" Ordinance # ttO
Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 6C(
Series of 2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING SECTION 2.12.060 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN TO AMEND FEES RELATING TO PARKING.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users
of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly
approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect for
parking on City streets need to be revised as part of the City's overall Transportation
Demand Management Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section I
That Section 2.12.060 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets the applicable fees for paid parking, is hereby amended to
2,12.060 Parking fees.
The Transportation and Parking Department shall charge the following fees for parking:
I. Rio Grande Parking Plaza Fee Options.
A. Hourly parking rates
Maximum daily fee
Validation stickers
Unlimited use monthly passes
Lost Ticket Fee
Special Events Pass
Access Replacement Card
B.
C.
D.
F.
G.
$1.50/hour
$15.00/day
$ 5.00 per visit
$200.00Imonth
$15.00
$5.00/day
$20.00
II.
Commercial Core Pay Parking Fees.
Between the hours of7 a.m. and 6 p.m.
First hour $2.00
Second hour $2.00
Third hour $3.00
Fourth hour $4.00
Single Space Meter fees
$.50 per 15 minutes
Between the hours of 6 p.m. and 3 a.m.
Free
III.
Residential Permit Parking Program Fees.
Residential Day Pass Fee
Residential Paid Parking Fees
Space Rental Fee Per Day
Outside of Residential Paid Parking Zone
period.
Resident Permits:
$7.00
$1.00/hour $7.00/day max.
$10.00 per day
Up to 2 hours free per 24 hour
First 2 permits for residence and guest is free.
Third permit: $25.00
Fourth permit: 50.00
Fifth permit: 100.00
(No more than five permits shall be issued per residence)
Resident Guest Permit free
Lodge Guest Permit $2.00/permit
High Occupancy Vehicle Permit Free
Business Vehicle Permit $500.00/6 month period
Host Guest Permit Fee $25.00/replacement
The Residential Permit Parking Program restrictions shall be in effect from 8 a.m.
until 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, (official holidays excepted), unless otherwise
specified.
Two 6-month periods are established for the Business Vehicle Permit: Winter
Season, November 1 through April 30, and Summer Season, May I through October 31.
IV.
Miscellaneous Parking Fees.
Delivery Vehicle Permit
Service Vehicle Meter Fees
$ 100.00/yr.
$50.00 deposit/meter
$25.00 admin fee/meter
$1.00 fust hour
$.50 each additional hour
($4.50 daily maximum)
Construction Vehicle Permit
In Residential Permit Parking
Commercial Core
Handicapped Parking
Permit Replacement Fee
$40.00/month
$25.00/day
Free
$25.00
Tow Truck Cancel Fee
Boot Fee
In-car meter fee
Ticket Late Fee
Towing Fee (including processing)
Towing Fee (to impound)
$25.00
$35.00
$75.00
$10.00/each
$120.00
$150.00
Section 2
The effective date of this ordinance shall be December I, 2007.
Section 3
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4
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
hereof.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of September 2007, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of
the City of Aspen on the 10th day of September 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of September 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW-9/612007 _G:\john\word\ords\fees03 .doc
ORDINANCE NO. t+O
Series of 2007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING SECTION 2.16.180 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN TO AMEND TIME RESTRICTED PARKING WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL
ZONES.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring users of the City of
Aspen residential parking areas to adhere to all time restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain time restrictions currently
in effect for parking on City streets need to be revised as part of the City's overall
Transportation Demand Management Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section I
That Section 2.16.180 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets the applicable time restrictions, is hereby amended to
In any area designated as a residential permit zone, which is posted as Time Restricted
with certain permits exempt, it shall be unlawful for any person to park any motor vehicle
on the street longer then the posted time limit and may not re-park the same vehicle
within the same permitted residential zone area for a period of 12 hours unless there is a
valid and properly-displayed permit on the vehicle corresponding to the permits which
are posted exempt; provided however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to
emergency, government, delivery, or service vehicles while engaged in such delivery or
service.
Section 2
The effective date of this ordinance shall be June I, 2008.
Section 3
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is fo~ 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
hereof.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of September 2007, in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of
the City of Aspen on the 10th day of September 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of September 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW_9/6/2007_G:\john\word\ords\fees03.doc
Vile
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor & City Council
RE:
Paul Menter, Finance Directa
Don Pergande, Budget Man
August 30th, 2007
FIRST READING: Adoption of Budget Supplemental- Ordinance NO.~ (Series
2007) This item will be discussed on September 10th, 2007.
FROM
DATE:
SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2007 budget that increases total appropriation from $128.6 million
to $141.0 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter-fund transfers, this request increases budget authority from
$103.2 million to $115.3 million.
Interfund transfers are required reallocations of City resources between funds. Interfund transfers are not
expenditures, and should therefore not be included in an analysis of the true cost of City operations. Transfers do,
however, require appropriation authority from Council. Attachment D provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2007
inter-fund transfers.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The
referenced attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority.
CITY OF ASPEN - 2007 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
Description Amount Reference
2007 Adopted budget: $128,563,320 See Attachment A
Total New Requests: $12,497,861 See Attachment B
Technical Adjustments: ($31,631) See Attachment C
Total Supplemental
Requests: $12.466,230
TOTAL ORDINANCE: $141,029,550 See Attachment A
Less Interfund Transfers: $25,721,689 See Attachment D
NET APPROPRIATIONS: $115,307,861 See Attachment A
Different categories of requests include:
. Attachment B: "New Requests" of $12,497,861 include requests for formal appropriation of funding
issues previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year, and new requests. Narrative justification of
each new request is provided as part of this memorandum below.
· Attachment C: This attachment details all of the requested technical adjustments, ($31,631) in total.
. Attachment D: This attachment details all budgeted interfund transfers of the City for 2007 of
$25,721,689, in total.
New Reauests:
In the General Fund, new requests to be reviewed by City Council, total $658,295. These requests are
made up of the following:
City Manager, $36,677: Two supplemental requests provide for the council approved purchase of the
keypad voting system and onsite training for use of technology ($25,709) and the refunding of Entrance to Aspen
expenditures originally paid out of City Manager's budget ($10,968), to be reimbursed by the EOTC. Both of these
are one-time appropriation requests from General fund cash reserves.
Community Development, $464,500: $206,000 for contractual services associated with historic
preservation, Ordinance #30 approved by council on August 30th. $40,000 is requested for HP Video and
Consultant, funds approved by Council on July 2nd, $36,500 for a grant match for the preservation of the Aspen
Grove cemetery, also approved as a one time request by Council on March 26th. $16,000 is requested as a one
time request for 3D modeling and software approved by Council on April 16th, and an additional $6,500 for labor
cost for continued work on model (this is a new one-time request). Other one time requests include, $ 14,000 for
additional printing costs of Land Use Code and information due to moratorium, revenues will be received to offset
costs, $85,000 for AACP update of community data to use in the rewrite of Aspen Area Community Plan, $25,000
for building permit review consultant, and $25,500 for a full time position for zoning and planning support, funding
covers the remainder of the year. On going requests include, and $10,000 for code books and items for resale.
Costs of one-time appropriation requests, not offset by revenue, are from General fund cash reserves.
Engineering Department: $97,416: Two supplemental requests seek additional appropriations for the
Council approved Construction Mitigation Officers, $77,416 (see attached memo). and $20,000 to cover
engineering's portion of the 517 E. Hopkins rent for the remainder of 2007. Both of these are one-time
appropriation requests from General fund cash reserves.
Building Department: $41,202: One time request of $41 ,202 for fire department inspections of sprinklers,
this inspection fee is 60% of the annual fire sprinkler fee. Sprinkler inspections are offset by revenue, at 100% of
direct costs.
Environmental Health, $3,000: One time request for an appropriation for the purchase of an air flow meter
for the City's PM 1 0 air monitor. The meter is required under a change in the Air Quality Statute, 40CFR58.
GIS Department, $15,500: One time request is for addition payroll appropriation authority to cover duties
of staff member on maternity leave.
Housing Development Fund: $9,893,876: The Housing Development Fund requires formal appropriation of
$9,588,876 in total for the property acquisition of: 488 Castle Creek $5,398,876; 802 W. Main $3,690,000; and
the down payment on 517 Park Circle $500,000. An additional one-time request of $305,000 is requested for the
early redemption of the 2003 GO Truscott Bonds, saving the City $6,000 in interest costs over the coming year.
The Finance Department has determined that the Housing Development Fund has sufficient cash balances to
support this request.
Parks Capital Fund, $165,639: Requests provide for formal approval of funding authority for the Council
approved proposed park enhancement and historic restoration plan of Pioneer Park, $10,000, $146,139 for
Council approved addition of a picnic pavilion at the Aspen Recreation Center, portion funded by the Aspen
Rotary Club, and $9,500 for the reimbursement of a snowmobile purchased in January 2007, will be reimbursed
100% by Pitkin County Open Space and Trail Board.
Water Utility, $180,521: Appropriation requests provide for part time ($10,800) and full-time ($19,721)
funding for data analyst and Canary Initiative Facilitator, approved by Council August 23'd, and $150,000 for
replacement of portion of Red Mountain Waterline, approved by Council May 30th.
Hydroelectric Fund, $201,030: Appropriation requests provide funding for the capital purchase of the
turbine runner per replacement contract with GE Energy. Total cost of turbine is $356,030; remaining $155,000
will be funded by existing 2007 budget authority.
Transportation Fund: $1,176,500: Two supplemental requests seek additional appropriations for the
Council approved TOM measures $226,500, and the expansion of the paid parking system to residential areas
$950,000. TOM measures will be funded from General Fund cash reserves. Residential parking meters will be
partially offset by revenue in 2007, with the remaining appropriation funded from the Transportation Funds
budgeted appropriations.
Truscott Housing Fund, $35,000: This request totals $35,000 for maintenance wages and supplies due to
higher than budgeted personnel costs as a result of overtime wages from snow removal and emergency calls, as
well as under budgeted insurance items. Higher than anticipated apartment turnover, also resulted in extra work
and facility improvements.
Asset Management Fund, $187,000: $162,000 is requested for implementing a mechanical systems retro-
fit for energy savings at the ARC, approved by Council in April 2007 (see memo for details). The increase in
project costs was authorized in Council work sessions in April. Engineering is requesting $25,000 for an additional
vehicle for new construction mitigation officers, positions were approved by Council and require additional site
visits.
Technical Adiustmentllnterfund Transfers:
Asset Management Funds- Asset Management is requesting a one time reduction of ($747,260) to the
2007 budgeted appropriation, due to a change in capital project priorities, funds from projects deleted/reduced will
be redistributed to fund new requests.
General Fund- General Fund is requesting $226.500 in total. $226,500 is a transfer to fund the TOM
measures in the Transportation Fund, approved by council in May, 2007. This request will be funded from
General fund cash reserves.
Parks Operational Fund - Parks fund is requesting $165,639 in total. $165,639 is a transfer to the Parks
Capital Fund to fund approved capital projects. (See Above).
Wheeler Fund- Wheeler carry forward funding for the City AABC housing project for remaining 2006
balance of $323,490. This was an oversight in the first supplemental in 2007.
Please feel free to contact either Oon Pergande or Paul Menter with questions regarding any of the appropriation
requests included in this ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 4/
(Series of 2007)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING A DECREASE IN THE ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF -$560,260, AN INCREASE
IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $884,795, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS FUND
OF $165,639, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER FUND OF $323,490, AN
INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $9,893,876, AN
INCREASE IN THE PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $165,639, AN
INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND OF $180,5210, AN INCREASE IN THE
RUEDI HYDROELECTRIC FUND OF $201,030, AN INCREASE IN THE
TRANSPORT A TION AND PARKING FUND OF $1,176,500, AND AN
INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $35,000,
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND,
PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, PARKS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND, RUEDI HYDROELECTRIC
FUND, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND, AND THE TRUSCOTT FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND, PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER
FUND, RUEDI HYDROELECTRIC FUND, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
FUND, AND THE TRUSCOTT FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental
appropriations as itemized in the Attachment A.
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR
POSTED ON FIRST READING on the 10th day of September, 2007.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 23rd day of April, 2007.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
John Worcestor, City Attorney
Attachment A
Total City of Aspen 2007 Appropriations by Fund
Total 2007 Amended
Expenditures & 2007 Expenditure
Fund Name Transfers Out Supplemental #2 Budget
General Government Funds -----
,l\.sset Management Plan $12,017,100 ____m -$560,260 $1 ~~456,840
General Fund $29966010 $884 795 $30 850 805
Subtotal General Gov't Funds: $41,983,110 $324,535 $42,307,645
-- ---
SpecialHevenue Funds
Parks and~pen~pace $9,972,890 $165,639 ---- $10,138,529
JVhe~ler Opera House $4,650,590 $323,490 $4,974,080
~.cJging TaxFLJI1~_ $1,151,260 $0 $1,151,260
Parkin\llmprovement Fund __$2:111.060 $0 $2Tl1,060
Housing Developmenl $29,203,090 $9,893,876 ---- $39,096,966
Early Childhood Educ. Initiative -
AVCF -- $517,320 $0 $517,320
Kids First I Yellow Brick -- $1769 240 -- ill $1 769240
Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds: $49,375,450 $10,383,005 $59,758,455
- Debt Service Funds - -- -- - --
Debt ServiceFund $3 758 360 ---.-- $3 758360
ill
Subtotal, Debt Service Funds: $3,758,360 $0 $3,758,360
Parks Capital Improvement Fund $3,894,610 $165,639 $4,060,249
---- - - --- - - -,
Enterprise Funds
----- -------- ----..-- ------
Wate...J.lti~ty -- - $_9,801,550 $180,521 $9,982,071
-- - ------
_Electric Utility _, ___ -- -- $~936,0~0 $0 ------ $6~936:640
Stormwater Fund - $12,910 $0 $12,910
_n ______ - -------- -----
Ruedi Hydroelectric Fa<:ility -- $447,310 $201,030 $648,340
-$3}15,180 ------ - $4:891,680
Transportation Fund -- ---- -- $1,176,500 .-
---_.- $~,182~
rvlunicipal Golf Cour~_ $1,182,690 ..:&Q
TruscottHolJ~ing ---- $2,025,680 -- $35,000 $2,060,680
Marolt Housing __ - $1 171950 ill $1171950
----- -
Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: $25,293,310 $1,593,051 $26,886,361
Health Ins. Internal Service Fund $3,162,500 $0 $3,162,500
Trusf 8. Agency Funds - - - -
$1,022,200 - -- -
Housin\l Authority ___ __ -..-- ---- $0 $1,022,200
Smuggler Mounlain Fund .__ $73 780 ill $73 780
Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds: $1,095,980 $0 $1,095,980
-- -
ALL FUNDS: $128,563,320 $12,466,230 $141,029,550
------- ----..---- --------- - ----
- ------- ------- - -
Less Interfund Transfers $25,329,550 $392,139 $25,721,689
------ -,- . ------ - - --- -
EQUALSNETALCFUNDS - .. ---- ------ -------
APPROPRIA TlONS: $103,233,770 $12,074,091 $115,307,861
City of Aspen 1
2007 _Supp~emental~udget__1
New Fu~dinjl Reque~ts
DeDartment
~ity Ma~ager
0010~05007 Jl2999183~99
00105.05QO~8399~
C~ITI~un!!y ~velC?Pn:-ent
00l.13.13~0"82900
001.13.13200.82908
- -
001.13.*****.82999
- -
001.13.13200.80012
001.13.13400.82999
- -
001.13.13400.82999
OQl.13.13000.8290~
001.13.13200.80012
- -- -
Olll.13.,134()0.829(jO_
001.13.13400.82999
--- -
~gin~ri.!!9 Departmen~
001.15.15000.80'
-- --
DQ1.~15000.H"**
Building I~pectio~
001.21.21000.82900
- -- -
One time requsts, unless other:!!'ise no~d
'1
I-
I _ _ _ ,
Requesting refund of Entrance to Aspen expenditures originally paid from the I
I City Manager's budget be returned. Expenditures were sent to Pitkin County to
be refunded from EOTC monies. 5-15-07 = $4,334.82 and 7/31/07 = I
1$6,632.76 for a total of $10,967.58.
'Council approved the purchase o{:3" wireless -keypad voting system, The
~system is $_21,70~. ~':Isite t~jnjng is aI?P~~~~atefy__$4g_~O for 2 days.
Subtotal, Ci Mana e~
~ew Re~uest DescriDtion
! - -- -- ----
HP Video & Consultant - Backfill- On 7/2/07 Council approved funds to move
! forward on producing a video to educate the public on post war
architecture.{See attached Memo for details)
1 ... ... ... ...,
Sketch Up 130 Modeling - On 4/16/07 Council approved funds for work on the
J sketch-~~ modeling~ a w~rk!,~sionJSee attac~ed Memo for d~i1s) _
I
I Aspen Grove Cemetery - On 3/26/07 Council approved funds for a grant matchl
f(jr preservation of the Aspen Grove Cemetery. (See attachi:l!d Memo !or details)
! Sketch Up 1 3D Modeling - Labor - Laborfur our-intem to continue work on-the
3D model for additional massing and etc.
i Printing -of LU Code & InfO . Due to the Moratorium we need to publish-copies
of the land use code and etc. for resale. Revenues will be received from the
Isales.
- - --- --
I Prior to initiating the rewrite of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the
,associated public process, up-to-date community data is needed. Staff is
,drafting an rfp for an Existing Conditions Report and a Build-Out StUdy to be
!accomPlishedwithPrimarilYCOnsuttantservic~~_ _ _ _ J
1- Items For Resale - Joint Costs -We have had to increase our inventory of code '
books due to an increase in sales. The cost is split with County in the IGA and I
: revenue is received from the sales. (On-going Request)
!Zoning/Permit Telch - Part timezo-ning and parftime planning sup-port. - I
I Permanent full time position. Cost requested represents funding for remainder
I of 20QZ.. ~lJlI timE!:2osi!iCln il'!~O~ _will b~t $2~,62~ __ _ I
I ComDev's engineering review of building permits is running about 3-4 months
behind schedule. The backlog is due to the volume of permits and the number I
lof on-site engineering inspection requests. Staff would like to engage
! consultant services on a temporary basis to focus on permit reviews. Staff
jestimates this catch-up will cost about $25,000. {$100Ihr x 20 hrs/wk x 3
----'mo~!1s.)____ ___ ___ __ _ __ __ ___ _ J
- I Council approved Aug 27th - Ordinance 30 Support _ Economic Analysis,
! Context Paper, Property Analysis ($22,500 was approved on 712107 by Council!
i for a consultant to revisit the historic preservation ordinance.) {See attached
~Mem.E.fordE!tail~L__ _ __ _ _ _
Subtotal, Communi
1
ment:'
!
Develo
I
: Construction Mitigation Officer-Two new-hire approved by CounCil (See
i attached Memo for details)
i Rent of 51-'7 E-:-Hopkins Ave~ Engineering is responsible for onequarter offent
for office_space. (See attached Memo for dE!~il~ _ _ __ __
i-SUbtotal, En ineerin :
-!
2006 Fire Sprinkler Fees - We have an existing agreement with the fire district
I to provide inspections on fire sprinkler permits for a fee of 60% of the annual
I fire sprinkler permit fees. In the past the funds have been paid directly out of
: !h_e rev~ue ~ccou~!which doe~ no! follow Ta~~r regulati~ns. _ _
+-
,
Subtotal Buildin Ins ectionS!
Attachment B
- -
I
!
Ammmt -~ubtotal bv Dent
.,
$_10,988
$25,709
$40,000
I
$16,000j
$36.502..
$.6,500
1-
$l.i"OOO I
$85.000
--,
$10,00ll!
!
$25,50llJ
,$25,OQO 1
!
$206,OQO 1
-I
$77,4~ I
,
$20,000
- 1
!
$41.202
- T
,
~
,.
$36,677
$464 sgiJ
$97,416
$41 202
City of Aspen
2007 Supplem~...!!tal Budg~t
Ne,,!,!"undlngBeques~_
~eDartment _
Environmental Health
001.25.25500.83999
GIS
001.60.60000.83999
~ousi_~g_ D~velo~m~nt Fu~d
150.23.23129.86000
- ---
150.2~23130.B6()00
150.23.23131.86000
150.98.TBD
Parks Capita~
340.94.TBD.82999
340.94.TBD.86000
- -
340.94.81020.86000
- .-
Water Fund
421.43.43500.80012
- - -
421.43.43500.80012
421.94.44601.86000
- -
~ne time_requst~, unles!' olhe~se not~
.1
New Eleauest Descriot_i.on
I Environmental Health is asking for a one-time supplemental to purchase an air i
flow meter fOf the City of Aspen's PM 1 0 air monitor (TEOM sampler) for $3000.
I This flow meter is required under a change in the Air Quality statute, 40CFR58 I
IAPpendixAthatneC{Seea~ched Memo for details) __ ..
, Subtotal, Environmental Health
I -
Gis is a three person department and one staff ember will be taking maternity
! leave from approximately mid-August through mid-November. In order to
maintain our existing level of services to internal and external customers, we
! are seeking approval of funds to hire a temporary employee for four months.
,This will allow a few weeks overlap prior to and after the leave (See attached
_!Memo forde~!ls).
,
Subtotal, GIS'
SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND
1-
488 Castle Creek Property Acquisition
)51 !Pa~ c;ircle po~ertx.~~quisitio~ Down P~yment
802 W. Main Property Acquisition
12003GO Truscott Bond Redemption--= One time 'request to payoff principle on
I outstanding bonds. Redemption of this Bonds early will save the City the
interestcosts~th~_pnnciple. _. ._._.. __ 1-
I subtotal. Parks and 0 en S ace Ca ital Fund:
,.1
On June 6, 2006, City Council approved a proposed park enhancement and I
I histonc restoration plan for Pioneer Park. Most of the work was completed by a I
I private donor. The Parks Department is requesting $10,000 in supplemental I
funding for expenses incurred for the completion of the Pioneer Park
Improvements project. Expenses include project management, design and
I installation of a new irrigation system and removal and replacement of a stone
fence. (See attached Me.!'lo forde~ls)
1 .-- --.--.- -- -
IOn Apnl19, 2007, City Council approved the addition of a picnic pavilion at the I
! Aspen Recreation Center on Rotary Field in partnership with the Aspen Rotary ,
,Club in honor of the club's centennial year. This shelter will provide a venue, !
I with weather protection, for special events and occasions. Also included is an
electric grill, which can be safely used when fire bans are in place. The shelter
I will be constructed with recycled lumber and solar powered lights. Costs
; include in-house project management design coordination and landscaping,
I and contractual services to build the shelter. The Rotary Club will contribute
,$50,000.00. (see attached Memo for details)
1-'.-- - - -
The Nordic Program had to purchase a new snowmobHe on an emergency
I basis in January 2007 to replace a machine that had broken down and was
irreparable. The Pitkin County Open Space and Trail Board approved this
I purchase and will reimburse the City 100%. The Parks Department is
requesting appropriation of $9,500.00 to cover this expense.
r-- -- --- -
- Subtotal, Parks and 0 en S aceca ital Fund!
L
I August 23, 2007 Council memo requests funding for a part-time data anaiyst
I position to take responsibility for data collection, verification, and reporting in
connection with new Canary Tag program. Audit reports will need to be filed
with greenhouse gas registry in connection with this new program to maintain
I credi~ty a~.accountability...:.. See atta~~ed Memo_for detailsl
I August 23, 2007 Council memo requests funding for a full-time Canary Initiative I
I Facilitator. This person will assist Global Warming Project Manager in
I developing and implementing Canary Plan goals and programs. This position I
will be funded through the REMP program; however the City needs budget
! authority to fund position. Supplemental request is to cover four months of
; salary for this position. See attached Memo for details)
1 May'3()ttl;-20()7 Council approv-ed supplemental of 150,000- for replacement of
portions of Red Mountain Waterline coinciding with Pitkin County's
i reconstruction of same road. Total cost to City for our portion of this project is
$314,716. (See attached Memo for details)
I -- - '
Subtotal Water Fund~
I AttllChmentJ3
1-
_Amalml
, Subtotal bv D~Dt.
$3.000 .
I
$15,500
$5,398,876 1
$500,000
$3,690.000 I
$305,,0001
$1(),OOO I
I
$146,139 L
I
I
$_9.500 I
-I
$10,1300 I
$19.721
i
$150.000 !
$3 000
$15500
$658 295
$9 893 876
$165639
$180521
City of Aspen ~_
;2007 Supplt:~mental Budget___
N~~ Funding R_~~ests
DeDartment
!:t.ydroelectric.~und
444.94.43504.86000
Transportati()"__ Furl_d
450.32.32000.83999
4~9_}2.32100.8"'***_
Truscott
491.01.45005.83999
- ---
4~01.45005.800!2..
Asset Management ~ital
000.72.82062.86000
000.41 ~83005.86000
Total New Requests
One time requsts, un~es~ otherwise ,!~~ed
New Reouest Descriotion
1-_ ~ .~n _ -.,
:June 11, 2007 Council-approved supplemental of $201 ,030 for the purchase of I.
the turbine runner per replacement contract with GE Energy. Total turbine cost
I is $356,030., Remaining $155,000 of this replacement will be funded by
i existing 2007 budget previously eannarked for Bassler relay. (See attached
'Memo for details)
Subtotal, Hvdroelectric Fund:
1
Residential Meters- Expand paid parking system into resid~ntial areas.
i Supplemental budget request for funding to implement Council directed TDM
imeasures for the summer of 2007. This request includes funding for two i
temporary parking enforcement officers, new RFTA bus service from the Brush I
~ Creek parking lot, traffic control costs for the Cemetery Lane and Truscott
i intersections, advertising money to promote the TDM measures, and funding
; for engineering consultant to collect and analyze traffic data from the summer !
TDM measures. (See Attached Memo for Details)
I --- --Subtotal, TransDoltation Fund:
,
Ongoing request to increase Maintenance wages and supplies- Maintenance
staff costs are higher than budgeted due to overtime wages from snow removal
land emergency calls as well as under-budgeted insurance items Also due to I
higher than usual apartment tumovers and extra work to continue to improve '
the overall condition of the property. On-Going Request (See attached Memo
~details) __ _
: See a_bove explanations _ __ -~ 1
Subtotal. Truscott Fund:'
1- __ __.
The ARC is implementing a mechanical systems rem-fit for energy savings. A I
contract was approved by City Council in April of 07 authorizing the
i implementation of this project along with an increase to the project amount by
__JJ162,OqO. (See attached Me_mo forde~~) ___ j_
Additional vehicle for Engineering Department- construction mitigation officers-
i Formal appropriations of 2 approved positions by city council requiring
_J!ransportation for_site .visits. (See atta<2h~_d Memo for de~~sL
Amlnml__
$201.030 ,
$950.000 !
I
$226.500 I
$10.000
$25.000
$162.000
$25.000
I
~ All Funds:
r-
Subtotal.'AssefManagement ea-riltal Fund:
_ _ i
'$12,497,861 I
I Attachment B
,
,
I
~ Subtotal bv DeDt
$201,030
$1,176500
$35 000
,
I,
$187,000
$12,497,861
Ci!Y Of ~spell. _ + 1 Attachment C
,- - - - - - - - - , -
~007 Technic"'- Adjustment~ i - - - - - - - [ - - -. -
- - - - - - - - - - L - --
Department/Fund - j Technical Ad~ustment Descf.iDtion Amount Subtotal bv Dept
I
- - - - - 1 - - - - - 1- -
General Fund .J
- - - 'One Time reduction tolUnd additional Capital projects -
i
I'n 2007 . Reduction to porjects not moving forward in
TBD- Reconciliation from AMP this budget year I ($747.260)[
,- - I ($747,260
Subtotal, General Fundi
General Fund 1
-- - -- ---- - . Transportation TDM measures transfer j-- - '-.., ,-
001.95.32100.95450 $226,500,
- - 1 . ,. - --., _ __ ,. _ __ __ . - -- - - $226,500
Subtotai. Generai Fund 1 ,
Parks Fund # 100 I
. [This is a tranSfer from the Parks OperationalCash- [ -, i - -
reserve to fund additional capital projects requested in [ ,
100.95.00000.95340 1 the.seconclsupple.rnental. _ _ _. _ .1 $165.639 I
- - - - - - - ,-
[ Subtotal, Parks Fund $165,639
Wheeler Fund #120 1- _ _ _ _ _ I
- - - - - - ,- - -
. Wheeler cany forward funding for the City MBC 1 [
[housing project for remaining 2006 balance of 1 i
i $323,490. This was an oversight In the first
120.94.82054.86000 I supplemen~ In 2007. 1 $323,4901
- - - - - - - - - - $323,490
Subtotal. Wheeler Fund [
Total Technical Adjustment ,All Funds: , ($31,631)1 ($31,631)
Attachment 0
CITY OF ASPEN _ _ 1
2007 Interfund Transfer - Updated with Changes for 2nd Supplemental
.. Transfer From Fund j- Transfer ~o F~nd I. Amount of Trans:~ .
000 ",:_AssetManagement _ I _____ ___ _
- --- :W.f1eel~r qperiHouse $186,4701998 Street Improvements 10 Yr IF Loan
__..I'W~l?_eler Opera House $65,QOOiRedBrick WestEncfPrOject 10-yrTF Loan
Kid~i_rst F_~nd - ---- - $18\~~O j 19~? Street" I~!ove~~~ts 10 Y-rJ~_Loan
'Debt Service Fund $406110 Transfer to Debt Service Fund
--. Subtotal, TranSfers F-rom Asset ---- -- ----- -- ---
1 Mana ement Fund: $839,2701
I
__ ~5, 186,~70 .Fur1~ .New a-net Carry Forward Capital Projects
$99,350i 1/3 Global Warming-EH and CWF-Projects ---
__ ~81 ,9~]lAnn-uai-~_~r!i~1 Subsl~Y of Fo,?d Tax-Refund
$~?_6,850 _Transfer - Zupancis P!()pertY R~-purchase
$226,500 TOM Measures --
$156- qUOD ,Operations-- Sub~idy-
$6,871.530 '
001 - General Fund
,AMP Fund
IWater_ld!iJity}~6d ____
I Parks and Open Space Fund:
-~-H-ousing b~velopment Fund
7~~_l""!!iPortation Fund__ 1
I'Transportation Fund I
,Subtotal, Transfers-from- GeneraTFund:--
100_-_Parl<~~nd Ope,,_ Space F~nd ____ 1___
I Parks and Open Space Capital Fund I
i Debt Service Fund-
--- ---
; Debt Service Fund
1- '..-
I Debt Service Fund
I
+-
,
I Parks and Open Space Capital Fund i
-r- .--- .
General Fund
----;SLJbtotaCTransfers tram P~irks and-i
Open Space Fund:
~20 --=_~~eele~ Opera House Fun_~_
i General Fund
- --:SubtotaI,Wheeler Opera House:
140 - Parking Garage Fund
.- ,- - I:ebt Service Fund
------- -- ---
l TranspOlt~tCl!l FtJ~
General Fund
. Subtotal, Pa-rkin- Gara e Fund:
150 - t:lousing_,?eveloPrnent Fun(j
- - 145l? -tran~portatior1 Funcf
:450 Transportation Fund
~scott I Renta! Housing ~ u~d
I
iTruscott Lands~ping - ~40 funds
I
T
1
1-
,Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing Fund
r----
_~t1()using gffice Op~ra!ions F~~__
,
I General Fund
Subtotal, Housiil--bevelo ment Fund:
151 . Early Childhood Fund
---- ------ --TKids FirsT"Fund------
; Kid-sFirst Fund--
- JKids FirsfFund _ _ _ _ I
,no SubtotaT,"Eart Childhood Fund: I
15?__:J:Jay Ca!~ (Kids Firs! !Yellow Brick) Fund
- --TGeneral Fund-----
--J
I
'I- Transfer to fund budgeted 340 Capital improvement
$3.582,290. projects.
$850.900' Parks 2005 Open Space Bonas--
$860;690 [-Parks_Portion, -2001--SaJ~_~)a:l( Revenue -l3o_':l_~s
i2005 Parks and Open Space Revenue Bonds-
$951.160 refunding 1999 bo"ds., _, ..,
1 Transfer to fund budgeted 340 Capital improvement
~65,6~~Jprojec~- Se<:x)nd ~~pplemental__ _ __ _
i Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0
$67~_ 980.fund Op_erations
I
$7,082,659 !
I Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0
_ $2_39 7?O..:Fu~d ()perations___ __ ___
$239,720 --
12004 Certificate of Participation (Refunded, Originally
: issued in 1989 to construct Rio Grande Parking
$689.500 Garage
$183,B70!5Veihead,AdrTlin,-and Dial a Ride-
--- lOver-head Payment--Generaf Govemment Support-o
$154960 Fund Operations
$1,028,3301- - -,
__ 1______
$750,000 Burlingame mitigation
--$15,OOOiBurlingame ear share vehicle
$1 ,341,f90:-Jruscott r: 2001 HOUSIng Bo-rids Subsidy
-- -This is the second year-of a three years transfer for
$50,00~dsca~':l!J at Truscott __ _ __
I Marott Ranch Seasonal Housing, Subsidy for
$35,000 Budgeted Capital Improvements
-- jAPCHAHousl"ng office, operations Subsidy (50% of
$177,070 total Subsidy. split with Pitkin County
-- - . Overhe-ad-Payment - Generar<3overnment Suppa-reo
$497360 i Fund Operations
$:1,865.620 t- -'--
~1Q,g06LPaymen(fo Kids F-i~ffo~ AdrTj!n. serVICes
$3,650! f'ayment to Kids Fi~tf()r-Admin. SerVices
__~12 8~_Q_f)aymen~_lE_Kids~_i~st for Admi~. Se-rVrces
$26,490' -._-
$31 ,BOO. Transfer - New Pro e
er Position
Attachment D
CITY OF ASPEN
-~ ,- - ---- ,-, -, ,-
2007 Interfund Transfer - Updated with Changes for 2nd Supplemental
I -- ---- I ,- I ------ - -----
I
Transfer From Fund ---- Trandp..r To Fun-d ~-,
Amount o!Transfer ~ Purp()&e_of Interfund Tra~sf_er
! General Fun~ i - - I Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0
Subtotal, Kids First Fund: I ~,FundOp~~t~ons _ ___
$95,240,
340 - Parks and Op~_~_ Space Capital F!1nd_ I Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0
,
General Fund $31,130.Fund Operations
421 - Water Utility Fund I
,
Return on Investment Payment, General Fund Sale
General Fund $1 ,009,pool()L~~nd to Wat~! Utility lor Opera~r1~ Faci_~!!es
Parks and Open Space Fund i $150,000. Water usage Conservation Programs
- 1-' ~ : Overhead Payment--- Gemenil-GcwernmenfSupport 0
,- General Fund -~ $618040 I F~~_Oper~tions -- -----
iSubtotal, Water Utililv Fund:: ,
I $1,768,040 .
1~31 - Electric ':Jtility Fund ___ $385,84QrF~nch~~e Fe~ Tra~_i'-fer to G-~neral Fund -- __
- --- General Fund
-, 1 , Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0
1 ,
_ _~_eneral Fund , $314,330 _ Fund Operations
- -- H_ --- _ I pur~ase-(,f Hydroelectric power from City-owned ..
~- ~i Hydr2~lectri~ Fun~ c-' $410,000 GE~nerating Facility
- i General Fund 1 ---- $84,350 1/3 Global Wanning-EH and CWF projects
-- 'Water Utility Fund -- -- $1~7 21 ni-~Iectri~ Utility_-portion- of Utilitx Billing Services .,
--~ Subtotal, Electric Utilitv Fund: , $1.351,730
444 -~e_udi t1ydr~lectric Fund - ---- I u_ 1
I __n 'Overhead Payme-nt - Gen-eral Government Support 0
General Fund $11,410iFund Operations
450 - Transporta~~_on Fund u_ + - I
r- Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0
-- General Fund $402.440 I Fund Operations
-- ---- - -----
------ J~~rks an~ Qpen_ Sp~~_Fund____ L $337,140 Contribution for Mall Rubey Par1<. Mall Maintenance
~ Subtotal, TransDortation Fund $739;580 .. ,-, - __"n --,
471 . Golf Course Fund ------1 Oveihead-Payment -- GEmeral Government" Supporfo
--, ----" ----- - I
I
I Gene~i_L!~d $115720, Fund Operations
-- -- Subtotal, Golf Course Fund: $11S,720i .---,--,
491 - Truscott Rental Housing Fund ---- - - I ------- I Overhead Payment ~ General Governineni-suppor{ 0
- - I I
,
General Fund $22,400, Fund Operations
- ---- - - ----- JDverhe~d Payment ~_ Housing-Operations Support of
~ - ~using Operations Fund 1- $5.1JB.O Fun_~ 9peration_~_ ___
,Su-btotai, -Truscott Housinn Fun-d-: $74.180
49~_. Marolt_Ranch Seas~~_~_1 Housin!l~und -~ I -
r G~neral Fund I Overhead Payment - -Gener-al Government Support 0
- - $17,720,FL.!!ld()p~~~tions__ _ ___
-, ! Overhead Payment - Housing Operations Support of
- t Housing Operations Fund I - ~~nd Op~'!Jtions____ ___
-- - Subtotal, Marolf Ran-ch Fund: $43,850
620 - t:tousing Offi.c_~_Q~erations _Fund _ ,
~- ,- fverhead- Payment - Generai -Government Support (,
I General Fund:
, $74,870 Fund Operations
~uggler_I:'i_~~_sing Fun~ n ---- I,. ~_, ~.~ ,__ u_._
Overhead Payment - General Government Support 0
- - General Fund ,J;5.670I Fund Operations -
------ ---- I Housing Operations Fund u I .l3..51Q Housing Overhead -
is-ubtotal:-Smuaaler Fund- I $9.180-'-
---- -, -- ---- - -
501 - Health Care Fund: $2,453,1401 '
---- I -------- ---- n_
i Health Care Internal Service BudQet
~, I 1 $25,721,6891- __n_ ----
2007 TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS
THE CITY OF AsPEN
Back Up Documentation For:
Attachment E
Memos
&
Detail Descriptions for Requests
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
10hannah Richards, Executive Assistant
COPY:
Paul Menter, Finance Director
RE:
Community Development: 2007 2nd Supplemental Budget Requests.
DATE:
August 24, 2007
Community Development is requesting the following items in the 2007 Fall
Supplemental Budget. We are happy to explain any of these in greater detail as needed.
New Requests -
Planning Technician - $25,500. The demands on the Planning division have exceeded
the Department's current capacity. The Department is understaffed for the current level
of zoning permit review and current planning caseload. A Planning Tech position could
handle the majority of day-to-day public requests for information, administer zoning
reviews for simple projects, and assist with zoning enforcement. The efficiency of
existing caseload planners would be improved with these tasks being handled by a
Planner Tech. This would be a new position.
Continued Sketch-Up Modeling - $6,500. In 2007, the City Council approved funding
for the purchase of the Sketch-Up computer program and for wirefrarnes of all buildings
within the City. The Community Development Department hired a summer intern, Drew
Alexander, to help create a 3-D Sketch mode with the wireframe data. The Department is
requesting $6,500 to continue Drew's employment through the end ofthe year. Drew
will continue to work on the model presented to City Council on August 6, 2007.
The Community Development Department has requested funds in the 2008 Budget to
continue the Sketch-Up Modeling work. Part of this request would fund a part-time
temporary position for Drew to continue working on the model in 2008. This $6,500
Supplemental request ensures the model will continue to progress in 2007, and be of use
in 2007 Public Hearings.
Historic Preservation Support (Ordinance 30) - $187,000. See separate memo.
Items/or Resale -Joint - $10,000. The Building Department is increasing sales ofIRC
and IBC code books and study guides. Additional funds are requested to keep an
inventory of books to meet the sales demand. 50% of the costs incurred are split with
Pitkin County
AA CP Existing Conditions Report - $50,000. Prior to initiating the rewrite of the Aspen
Area Community Plan and the associate public process, up-to-date community data is
needed. The last AACP update started with this basic reconnaissance. Staff is drafting
an rfp for this work to be accomplished with primarily consultant service. There is a
potential to split some of this cost with Pitkin County and this will be discussed further at
the September 4th joint meeting.
2006 Fire Sprinkler Fees - $41,202. We have an existing agreement with the fire
district to provide inspections on fire sprinkler permits for a fee of 60% of the annual fire
sprinkler permit fees. In the past the funds have been paid directly out of the revenue
account which does not follow TABOR regulations. For 2006 it will need to be expensed
and for 2007 the funds will be put into a liability account.
Printing of Land Use Code - $14,000. Due to the moratorium and newly adopted
regulations, the Department needs to reprint the City's Land Use Code and Commercial
Design Guidelines. Revenues will be received from sales of these items.
Telephone Fees - $1,500. Additional funds are requested for Treo phones for staff
members and additional plan costs.
Building Department Fuel- $3,000. With the addition of a building inspector to staff
and the increase of inspections, additional funds are requested to cover fuel costs.
Previously Approved Requests -
Sketch-Up Funding- $16,000. As part of the Spring 2007 Supplemental Budget the
Community Development Department requested and gained approval for $16,000 to fund
the Sketch-Up 3-D modeling (April 16, 2007, work session). The request was approved
as part of the 1st supplemental of the year but not included in the budget. The money has
been spent.
Aspen Grove Cemetery - $36,500. On March 26,2007, City Council approved funding
for the preservation ofthe Aspen Grove Cemetery. The request was approved as part of
the 1st supplemental of the year but not included in the budget. The City's funding is a
100% grant match. No money has been spent on this project.
Historic Preservation Education DVD - $40,000. On July 2nd, City Council approved
moving forward with producing a DVD on post-war architecture. Staffhas prepared a
request for proposals and is soliciting interest.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Ireland and City Council
cc:
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer flU., . A
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director \JIM/VI
Paul Menter, Finance
FROM:
RE:
Request for Supplemental Funding for Revisions to Ordinance #30, Series
of 2007 and Chapters 26.415 and 26,420, Historic Preservation and Benefits
DATE:
August 27, 2007
SUMMARY: City Council held a work session regarding Ordinance #30, Series of 2007 on
August 14, 2007, attended by staff, HPC and many citizens. The outcome of the meeting was
direction to staff to lead in the completion of the following activities:
(1) the establishment of a "Blue Ribbon" committee to study the economic impacts of
historic preservation regulations in Aspen.
Staff comments: Staff sees this as a small group (8 to 10 people) comprised of property
owners, real estate professionals including appraisers, a Council member, an HPC
member, and a consultant who specializes in development of historic properties. This
component relies heavily on experts in our own community. Staff estimates this item to
cost $25,000.
(2) a second "Blue Ribbon" committee to review the current historic preservation ordinance,
specifically the review criteria and evaluation tools used for landmark designation.
Staff comments: Staff sees a need to develop a "context paper" for post war
architecture. Context papers describe the types of architecture of various periods and
their local importance. The City has developed and relies on context papers for the
period of history that the city already regulates. A context paper would likely reveal a
need to revise the City's property scoring system, landmark criteria, and design
guidelines. Staff estimates a context paper would cost roughly $20,000, updates to the
scoring system and criteria to cost $10,000, and updates to the design guidelines to cost
$20,000. Staff estimates an additional $5,000 for incidentals related to public process.
Total cost of this item is estimated at $55,000.
(3) development of a comprehensive list of 20th century era properties found to be eligible
for landmark designation.
Staff comments: Staff see this item as the most time-intensive. Staff has approached
this as a two-phase process. First, analysis of the "easy" properties. It is a large
undertaking to complete this work in a form that can claim to be a thorough and
accurate analysis of each property's history. Many properties will likely be able to be
rejected from the list quickly, based on recent experience. This component could occur
between now and the end of the calendar year and staff estimates this item to cost
approximately $20,000.
Phase two would look at the more involved considerations and would necessitate a
consultant. Many of these properties will require involvement and clarification from
property owner's, research at the Aspen Historical Society, etc. Staff has estimated this
1
cost at $96,000. Staff sees phase two initiating after the community has fully discussed
changes to the ordinance, criteria, scoring system, etc, discussed above. Both phases
total $116,000. This represents approximately $55 per property.
(4) The Mayor has suggested to staff one additional item to consider - a "public defender"
type person that the City would retain to assist and advise property owners.
Staff comments: If the items above are initiated, staff expects that the majority of
property owners will postpone making a formal request for determination until any
changes to the system are discussed and decided upon. In this light, funding this
component may not be so critical until later. Staff suggests this component, if selected,
be funded at $10,000. If this service requires additional funding, staff can return to
Council at a later date.
CONCLUSION: With the amount of workload already underway in our office, it is clear that this
work product cannot be accomplished without substantial outside help. Staff believes the
above work plan represents the quickest way to address Council's direction given the existing
constraints on staff. As consultants are contacted and actual work scopes are generated, these
estimates may need to be revisited.
Community Development is requesting:
1) A total of $206,000 for the work product described above.
2) Authorization to proceed on this work prior to adoption of the Fall supplemental budget.
In July 2007, Council gave approval to an expenditure of $22,500 for historic preservation
ordinance review. The request was approved but never incorporated into the budget. That
expenditure will no longer be necessary - it has been assumed into the scope of work
described in this memo.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move the approval of $206,000 in supplemental funds for Community
Development to accomplish the work program as presented."
ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move the approval of $ in supplemental funds for
Community Development to accomplish the work program as amended."
ALTERNATIVES:
1) This request could be considered along with other Fall supplemental budget requests in
October.
2) One or two of the components of this request could be funded and staff could return to
Council for future funding as needed.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner
$85,000 Supplemental Funding Request for Existing Conditions Report
and Build-Out Studyfor Aspen Area Community Plan Revision
DATE:
August 29,2007
The City Council recently provided informal but clear direction to begin preparations for a
revision of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Council further provided direction that it
would fund an Existing Conditions report as a supplemental budget request, and has previously
requested a "Build-Out Study" of the City of Aspen.
Community Development is requesting $50,000 for the Existing Conditions Report, and $35,000
for the Build-Out Study. Both documents would be used as educational materials for the AACP
public process. A draft Request for Proposals is under review by the Community Development
Department, and is attached. A Request for Proposals for the Build-Out Study is currently being
drafted and is not yet available.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Draft RFP for Existing Conditions Report
Page I of I
~TTAc~MfNT A
The RFP Document: City of Aspen Existing Conditions Report
Introduction
The Community Development Department is seeking a research team to generate an
"Existing Conditions" report containing a broad range of information and statistics on a
wide variety of topics. This report is intended as an educational document to be used as
part of a revision of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This document must be prepared
and formatted for easy understanding by the general public. The Vendor would be
responsible for a limited number of public presentations on the "Existing Conditions"
report. This project is estimated to take approximately 4-6 months upon initiation.
Background
The parameters ofthe Existing Conditions document will be identified through a
collaborative effort between the City and the consulting team. The Existing Conditions
document will be separated into chapters that reflect various community issues that will
be explored as part of the Aspen Area Community Plan, such as: Growth Management,
Affordable Housing, Transportation, Historic Preservation, Economic Sustainability,
Environmental Sustainability/Global Warming, Parks & Open Space, ~s & Culture.
The Vendor will need to extract information from past Existing Conditions reports and
other existing documents; consult with a range of City department heads and other City
staff, and consult with a range of organizations outside of City government that may have
relevant statistical information. These organizations potentially include the Northwest
Council of Governments, the Aspen Board of Realtors, the Aspen Skiing Company, the
Pitkin County Assessor's Office, U.S. Census Bureau, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, the Aspen School District, the Roaring Fork Transit Authority, the Aspen
Chamber Resort Association, Stay Aspen/Snowmass, the Aspen Fire Protection District
and/or conduct other research necessary to gather demographic information and other
relevant baseline statistics for the City of Aspen.
Specifications
Please list any certifications, bonds, licenses, and other education or experience that are
relevant to intensive research initiatives, as well as the preparation and formatting of
documents for review by the general public. The City requires Workman's
Compensation and a license to do business within the City of Aspen. It is the Vendor's
responsibility to read the instructions and contract they will be asked to sign if their
Proposal is selected.
Evaluation Criteria and Weights
The following is a list of weighted criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals:
Related Experience
Price
Completion Timeline
50%
25%
25%
Format
Proposals that omit any information or do not use the format requested may result in
disqualification.
Section I Introduction
Section 2 Oualifications
Section 3 Solution
Section 4 Timeline
Section 5 Costs
Introduce Company and staff including awards,
certifications, and education.
List + describe previous experience for this specific
type of work. .
Explain proposal in depth without costs.
Phasing and completion schedule.
Cost schedule, specifYing rates for various
individuals and/or entities.
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU:
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO:
June 29, 2007
MEETING DATE:
July 2, 2007
RE:
Historic Preservation- Designation ofInteriors and
Designation of Post World War II era properties
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The previous City Council requested Staff to research and
formulate criteria for the historic designation of publicly accessible interiors as part of the
"Commercial Core Moratorium" that was adopted in December 2006, and recently extended for
six more months.
Staff would like to update the new Council on the historic interior issue, and also use this
worksession to provide a summary of Community Development's progress with the designation
of eligible post-war era properties as Aspen Landmarks, which is an established goal in the
AACP.
Historic Interior Desil:nation
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During an April 16, 2007 worksession, Council was
supportive of historic interior designation, and directed Staff to look into the Historic
Preservation chapter of the Land Use Code to possibly offer more benefits to historic properties
to offset the impacts of this new area ofregulation.
BACKGROUND: An emergency moratorium was adopted by City Council in December of
2006 that, among other issues, addressed concern over the loss of historic interiors in Aspen.
Since the inception of Aspen's Historic Preservation Prograrn in 1972, the City has not required
HPC review of alterations to the interior of designated buildings. Like many communities in the
country, our efforts have focused on landmark exteriors and the public benefit of their
preservation on streetscapes and neighborhoods.
While the exterior of a building may be its most prominent visible aspect or its "public face," its
interior can be even more important in conveying the building's history and development over
time. Imagine the Wheeler Opera House with the theater moved to the basement level, rather
than the dramatic climb to the third floor that has been the history of the building for almost 120
Page 1 of4
years. Although the Wheeler contains many new materials on the interior due to fires, the overall
sequence of spaces in this structure is important. Other buildings, such as the Pitkin County
Courthouse, contain significant interior woodwork and trim that is original to the building.
Currently we have nothing in place to prevent the removal of historic interior walls, trim, floors,
decorative ceilings, staircases, built in cabinetry, fireplaces, and other special features can have a
significant impact on the experience of being in a historic structure. These actions result in a
certain loss of authenticity.
DISCUSSION:
Interior Designation
At the direction of the previous City Council, Staff is researching interior designation ordinances
from throughout the country to begin a dialogue about interior preservation in Aspen. Attached,
as Exhibit A, are preliminary draft regulations. The criteria, benefits and review process mirror
the processes in the Aspen Municipal Code for the exterior designation of historic buildings. In
addition to arnending the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Aspen Municipal Code,
designating interiors necessitates an additional chapter in the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines to offer clear direction to the Historic Preservation Commission in both the
preservation of elements and appropriate interior alterations. Funding is required to hire a
consultant to survey and produce a list of significant interiors in Aspen.
Staff requests direction from Council on the following items regarding historic interiors:
I. Recently, the City negotiated the preservation of specific historic elements of the Hotel
Jerome and Red Onion interiors; however, there is no guaranteed protection of these
elements for the future since neither interior is designated. Would Council prefer to see
the designation of specific interiors happen concurrent with the adoption of an Ordinance
authorizing the City of Aspen to designate interiors, or as a later discussion?
2. How much of the interior should the City and HPC have purview over- just the
preservation of specific features, or purview over a larger section of the interior to ensure
that new materials/ design in the space are "compatible" with the historic features? How
do we make it clear to property owners what is regulated?
Preservation of Post World War II Architecture
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: A great deal of effort was put into the creation of a new
Historic Preservation Ordinance for Aspen, adopted by Council in March 2002. The ordinance
aimed to improve the procedures by which we designate and regulate properties of historic
significance for the benefit of the community. Staff, HPC and Council have met frequently since
that time to discuss the ordinance as well as the City's efforts to seek designations for important
postwar era properties through the use of incentives and owner consent.
BACKGROUND: Aspen was one of the first communities in the state or the nation to adopt
historic preservation regulations, which was done starting in 1972. We have received
recognition for being on the "cutting edge" in terms of creating new ways of dealing with the
Aspen's heavy development pressure and its impacts on our town's historic character.
Page 2 of4
DISCUSSION: For over 30 years the preservation of Mining Era buildings has been generally
accepted as a necessity and a community benefit since preservation of the built environment
provides a fundamental link to the past. An impressive total of 257 buildings from Aspen's first
13 years of history have been protected. This represents 92% of the landmarked inventory in
town. The Aspen community continues to struggle with how best to practice historic
preservation for the architectural forms that reflect the rest of Aspen's history. Only 22 buildings
from Aspen's last 113 years of history are currently landmarked. These properties arnount to 8%
of the designations in Aspen. There is no reason to believe that only Aspen's Victorian residents
produced places worth saving. Both the 19th Century Mining Era and Post World War II
occurrences, such as the development of the skiing industry and the Aspen Idea, have had a
profound influence on this community.
In the early 1970s, when Aspen citizens initiated efforts to protect the Victorians, those buildings
were approximately 80 years old. A child born at Aspen Valley Hospital today will graduate
from high school 80 years after the end of World War II. Considering the overwhelming
redevelopment pressure in Aspen, we won't have .the opportunity to wait until that child
graduates from high school to debate the significance of Post-War architecture before the best
examples from this era are demolished. Staff fields questions on a daily basis that indicate threats
to the continued existence of remaining buildings constructed during the early ski era. This week
alone, three post-war era buildings with significance that should have been evaluated further,
were demolished.
In order to tell Aspen's unique Post-War story to both future Aspen residents and future visitors,
we will need more than dusty books and photos - we will need the architectural forms and
landmarks that reflect the identity of town. The groundwork for recognizing examples of
Aspen's rich modern history has been laid for many years, at least as early as the designation of
Lift I in 1974. Twenty years ago, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation
Element, called for the designation of post-Victorian era, significant modem buildings. This goal
was repeated again in the 1993 AACP and the 2000 Update. Although the community and the
City of Aspen have placed a value on Post-War buildings and have taken steps to preserve them,
we continue to struggle with exactly what tools we should use and to what extent we will be
insist on the same treatment that is given to Victorians. Only the property owner can currently
file an application for historic designation, unless the resource is at least 40 years old, in which
case, HPC, or City Council can initiate.
The Historic Preservation Chapter of the Municipal Code encourages the identification and
evaluation, and protection of properties that are in the public interest to protect, in advance of
specific issues or conflicts. Per previous Council direction, staff has been focused for some time
on proactively encouraging voluntary designations. In some recent instances this has worked,
but in others, the current practices are resulting in an 11 th hour conflict over pending
redevelopment applications requiring City approval, or outright losses of buildings.
We seek Council approval to continue making progress on public education around this issue, as
well as advancing our regulations and incentives. The development of a compelling and
consistent "message" regarding the important achievements in historic preservation since 1972, and
the value of historic preservation of post-war buildings is essential to accomplishing the goals of the
Page 3 of4
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan and fulfilling the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code
[26.415.010]. During an April 16, 2007 worksession, Council members expressed support for an
outreach effort that will educate the public about Aspen's unique architectural heritage. There
are multiple avenues (brochures, documentary film, walking tours with audio, speakers) that staff
can pursue regarding public education, all of which will need funding. The recent Entrance to
Aspen documentary was able to address a controversial issue in a manner that was generally
well-received. Staff believes a similar approach to the history of preservation in Aspen - up to
and including current issues regarding Post War architecture - would be a strong educational tool
that can help advance the community debate on this subject.
The questions "How did we get here?" and "Where are we now?" would set the tone of the film,
featuring a collage of interviews, narration, photographs, and tours of important buildings. Our
main goal is to educate the local community about their architectural resources and promote
Aspen's unique heritage. In addition to the Aspen community, the film could potentially be used
to familiarize out of town architects and planners to the history and context of Aspen. This
project will have an estimated cost of $40,000.
Some months ago, the City solicited and received an estimate for re-visiting the historic
preservation ordinance in order to overcome procedural issues that have continued to be raised
during controversial designations, and to seek new ideas for incentives. The consultant who
authored the existing regulations has estimated this work to cost approximately $22,500.
Staff is seeking the new Council's support III pursuing this issue as described. including
formalizing approval for budget expenditures.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Interior Designation Criteria
Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Planner
$16,000 Supplemental Funding Request for building height information to
use in the City's 3-D model
DATE:
April 16, 2007
The Community Development Department has requested a $16,000 to be included in the Spring
Supplemental Budget. This memo serves to clarifY why this request is being made at this time.
Unless Council feels differently, Staff will include this request in the Supplemental. Ben
Gagnon will be available to answer any questions about this request at the April 16th City
Council worksession.
Backl!round:
The City Council approved funding in the 2007 budget for the purchase of the Sketch-Up
computer program. The Community Development Department is working in the Sketch-Up
program to model the City in 3-D. This model will be used in public hearings to illustrate how a
specific proposal impacts and fits in with the surrounding areas. In orderto have a usable model
it is important that the information contained in it be accurate. One of the most important pieces
of information that should be accurately depicted in the model is building height. An example of
graphics that can be generated using the City 3-D model is attached as Exhibit A.
Request Summary:
In the memo included as part of the Supplemental Budget Request, a number of options to get
accurate height information for City Buildings are outlined. This memo is attached as Exhibit B.
The Community Development Department has determined that the most efficient way to ensure
buildings are accurately measured and included in the 3-D model is to contract with a private
company to do the height measurements. By contracting this service out, Department Staff will
not be over-extended, and the cost will be less than if a Staff member were responsible for
measuring all the buildings in town. Further, the heights will be more accurate and time
effective if a private company specializing in 3-D modeling does the work. If this request is
granted, the model will be available for use in public hearing three or four months earlier than if
Staff were responsible for the height measurements.
Page I of 1
G: \city\Jessica\SketchUp\4.I 6.07CouncilF ollowUp.doc
Attachment C
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Planner
Supplemental Funding Request: $16,000 for City-wide building height
information to use in the City's 3-D model
DATE:
March 9, 2007
The City Council approved funding in the 2007 budget for the purchase of the Sketch-Up
computer program. The program will be used to model the City in 3-D. In order to ensure
accuracy of the model, exact height measurements are required. There are three options
available to ensure accurate heights are entered into the 3-D model. These options are detailed
below, with Staff's evaluation in italics.
I. Each building in town could be surveyed by a professional Surveyor.
This would require a detailed, and likely lengthy contract with a Survey company. This
option is cost prohibitive, as it requires a private company to create new survey
information for every parcel in town. It is likely this would take a great deal of time,
limiting the usefulness of the City's 3-D model. This is the least preferred option.
2. Each building could be hand measured by Community Development Staff members.
At least two (2) Staff members would be needed for this kind of measurement. This will
take Staff time away from other projects, and could cause delays in existing work
functions. Because this would take a great deal of time, this option would limit the
usefulness of the City's 3-D model, and will cost more than Option 3 below..
3. Building heights could be taken using existing data from GIS aerial fly-overs.
In 2004, the City of Aspen contracted out with Merrick & Company to take aerial images
for use in GIS. When this Merrick & Company did the fly-over, they took detailed data of
the existing structures in the City. The Company can extract that informationfrom the
exiting data and provide the City with a wire frame structure that accurately measures
heights and locations of buildings. This is the most cost effective solution. The data is
readily available and little Staff time would be required to measure buildings. Staff
would be required to determine the heights of structures built since the Spring 2004 fly-
over, which would require minimal Staff effort. This is the most preferred option.
In order to ensure the City's 3-D model can be widely used, it is important to have accurate
information as it relates to the height of buildings. By including accurate heights in the 3-D
model, City Decision-makers and the public can have all the correct information relating to how
a building relates to its surroundings. The total cost for Option 3 would be $16,000.
Page 1 of 1
G: \city\J essica \SketchUp\3.9 .07Supplemental.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
FROM:
CC:
RE:
Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
Paul Menter, Finance Director
Resolution No. _' Series of 2007. Aspen Grove Cemetery
Preservation Supplemental Funding Request
DATE:
March 26, 2007
SUMMARY: Community Development Staff submitted a grant request to the State
Historical Fund (SHF) to survey, document, and ultimately put together a comprehensive
preservation plan for the Aspen Grove Cemetery (similar to what was completed at the
Ute Cemetery). The cemetery is owned and maintained by the Aspen Grove
Association. The grant was rejected; however, we can reapply April 3, 2007 (grants are
awarded twice per year).
BACKGROUND: The Aspen Grove Cemetery is appropriately named: it sits in a lush
three acre aspen grove at the base of Smuggler Mountain. The natural landscape
contributes to the serene environment of the cemetery that draws visitors; however the
overgrown state has begun to threaten and in many ways has caused severe damage to
the historic grave markers. Artifacts and grave markers are being obscured and
knocked over by the natural vegetation. Over the past year two aspen trees have fallen:
one chipped a 100 year old wooden marker and the other tree remarkably fell through a
gate that happened to be open in a Victorian era wrought iron plot enclosure. The
overgrown landscape creates a dangerous environment for the grave markers, not just
by knocking into them, but by fostering lichens and other biological growth through tree
sap among other elements that eat away at historic material. It has been privately
managed by a non-profit grassroots group. The volunteers have been unable to attract
members capable of performing the intensive tasks required for the large three acre
site. They are an older group of citizens and are experiencing extreme difficulty
managing the cemetery. Furthermore, it is an active cemetery and without proper
documentation, new plots could accidentally be placed over historic plots. The urgent
need for funding to maintain, document, and create a planning program cannot be
emphasized enough.
CONCLUSION: The project will be completed in two phases: the first phase includes
documentation, planning, surveying; and the second phase will require Parks
Department involvement, volunteers, another grant application to the State and future
funding for implementation of the preservation plan created in phase one. The cost of
phase one of the project is estimated at $71,602. The City of Aspen agreed to pay the
minimum 25% cash match for the SHF grant program or $17,900. The Aspen Grove
grant was rejected based in part because the grant pool was very competitive this year,
the State Historic Fund wanted more details about our preservation plan and because
the city is only matching the minimum required for this type of grant. A few of the
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer
THRU:
Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: July 27,2007
MEETING DATE:
RE: Engineering Department Operation Budget Supplemental Request
SUMMARY: Staff is asking for the sum of $97,416 for the 2007 Engineering Department
Operational Budget in the form of a supplemental request. This addition to the Engineering
Operational Budget will be used to cover costs associated with payroll and benefits for two new
Construction Mitigation Officers and office space needs for the positions.
DISCUSSION: Council previously discussed the appropriations for the costs associated with
hiring two more Construction Mitigation Officers at the City Council meeting on May 29, 2007.
The hiring ofthese officers directly correlates to the City's new Construction Management Plan
requirements that came effective June 29th, 2007.
Due to the lack of space available at City Hall additional office leased space is needed for the
positions. The office space is located at 517 E. Hopkins.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost for the two Construction Mitigation Officers is
estimated to total $77,416 for the remainder of 2007. These two positions have been advertised
with interviews scheduled on August 1 st The given sum will supply payroll and benefits,
training and education, and materials and supplies to the two positions.
The Engineering Department's share of the office space at 517 E. Hopkins Avenue will total
$20,000 for the remainder of 2007. Since the space is shared with other departments, Engineering
is responsible to pay one quarter of the rent, utilities and services ofthe space being leased. The
office space and utilities are estimated to cost the Engineering Department a total of $4,000 per
month, and our lease starts August I, 2007.
TO:
Paul Menter, Finance Director
THRU:
Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director
FROM:
Jannette Murison, Environmental Health Program Coordinator
RE:
2007 Supplemental Budget Request
DATE:
August 20, 2007
Summary:
Environmental Health is asking for a one-time supplemental to purchase an air flow meter for the City
of Aspen's PM1 0 air monitor (TEOM sampler) for $3000. This flow meter is required under a change
in the Air Quality statute, 40CFR58 Appendix A that necessitates monthly flow verifications ofTEOM
sarnplers. Our data will not be considered acceptable if we do not purchase this flow meter so we can
perform the require flow checks.
Aspen has been using a TEOM sarnpler to monitor PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less) for
over 10 years. Particulate matter -dirt, dust and smoke - is a regulated by the federal Clean Air Act.
Particulate matter is associated with increased hospital admissions, greater illness rates, and increased
death rates. This graph shows PM1 0 levels taken from the TEOM sampler compared with traffic levels.
Average Daily Traffic vs PM,10 Levels
2Oll5
BACKGROUND: In the 1980's, the City of
Aspen was designated by EP A as a non-
attainment area for PM1 O. Since then the City
adopted several measures, including
expanding the second-largest mass transit
system in Colorado, paid parking, an anti-
idling ordinance, an extensive
bicycle/pedestrian trail system, a ban on new
wood burning fireplaces, extensive street
sweeping, and requiring emission controls for new restaurant char grillers. These measures helped the
City of Aspen become a maintenance area on July 14,2003.
25 000
20 000
25
20 _
'"
15 .!
Q
10 "':'
:;
5 Co
>-
..
E: 15 000
..
C.
'C
I-
o
10000
5000
M
TWThF
Day of Week
S Su
Staff recommends approval of this
supplemental request to insure that the City's
air monitoring is in compliance with Colorado
and federal law.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Staff estimates from a July quote from Intermountain Laboratories, 1nc./ Air Science, the meter will
cost around $3000. This investment will bring the City's TEOM sampler into compliance with
40CFR58 Appendix A.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Hilary Fletcher, County
Jim Considine, IS Director /l;b(
To:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Steve Barwick, City Manage
Paul Menter, Finance Direct
Cc:
RE:
Supplemental Budget Request - Temporary GIS employee to help during
maternity leave
DATE:
May 24, 2007
---------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The GIS Department is requesting $15,500 for temporary help while an
employee is on three month maternity leave. GIS is a small three person department and in
order to cover critical GIS services, we are requesting temporary help to provide assistance.
This request is being made in order to prevent customer response delays, GIS support issues,
and a back log of database updates. This is a one time request. If Council consents, it will be
added to the next supplemental budget.
GIS provides internal customer support and external customer mapping services for the City
of Aspen and Pitkin County. Last year the GIS Department generated $72,3 I 7 in revenue.
GIS staff has been preparing for the leave by cross-training Assessor mapping tasks,
revamping the customer invoicing and billing system, adding self-help resources on our
webpage, creating metadata on server layers, and collaborating on the customer sales process.
mil c:\gislcity\07 _TempHelp_Supp/ementa/.doc
..
Parks and Recreation
Department
MemorandlU11
From:
Date:
Re:
CC:
Mayor and Council ~
Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation \/111 /
Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and Op ace fY '""'
6/8/06 '
Proposed Pioneer Park Impro~ments
Steve Barwick, City Manager
To:
Thru:
SUMMARY:
The Parks and Recreation Department looks forward to meeting with City Council at the June 13, 2006
work session to present the proposed park renovation plans for one of Aspen's beloved small parks in the
center of town named Pioneer Park
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council reviewed conceptual park improvement plans at a February 21,2006 Council Worksession and
directed staff to move forward with the public process and design effort for this facility.
Background:
Copeland-Twining Pioneer Park, more commonly known as Pioneer Park, is a place that is special to many
residents ofthe West End neighborhood. A proactive citizen, Mrs. Maggie DeWolf, has acted as a catalyst
and privately funded the creation of a rejuvenation plan for Pioneer Park. Mrs. DeWolf and a consulting
landscape architect have been working with city staff to prepare a proposed landscape plan for Pioneer Park.
As part ofthe planning process, the design team held two separate public forums to discuss potential park
improvements with the community. Public feedback was taken and incorporated into plans and the final
design represents a collaboration of community feedback. Additionally, the design team met before the
Historical Preservation Commission and received approval for the project through their official process.
Staff is seeking a review and support from City Council for the Pioneer Park Landscape Plan. (Refer Exhibit
A, Pioneer Park Landscape Plan.)
DISCUSSION:
Pioneer Park is a small neighborhood park located in the West End neighborhood. The park was created
and preserved in 1996 from a small portion of the Pioneer Park House grounds, through the generosity
of neighbors and friends. A citizen group led by Les Holst raised $500,000 to purchase the land and then
arranged to gift it to the City for the purposes of a city neighborhood park. Following the park's
creation, the City installed a simple irrigation system to irrigate the turf grass and separate the park space
from the adjoining property. Both the grand 19th Century House of the same name and surrounding
grounds are an important and beautiful town asset. The public park can be used to spend a lunch hour or
to stroll through at dusk. The interior park space is currently screened from the street by large non-
historic evergreen shrubs and shadowed by a number of large fir and spruce trees. The environment has
promoted a variety of undesirable activities to occur.
Proposed enhancements include a refurbishment ofthe park gazebo structure and the perimeter historic
iron fence, removal ofthe perimeter screening shrubs and the addition of perennial flower gardens.
(Refer Exhibit A, Pioneer Park Landscape Plan.) Changes at the park are intended to make the park
more open and visible from the street as well as make the park environment more appealing and
enjoyable for users.
The plan illustrates fO\lTJ4) l)ew latfe perennial flower and shrub gardens that have been designed in a
Victorian vernacular as;~r (4) regional "collections of plants." The proposed enhancements have been
laid out in a typically VictorillIl manner using curvilinear forms set in a roughly balanced symmetry.
Pioneer Park is not being proposed to be an "historic garden," but rather a park and garden that has a
Victorian design influence reflective ofthe W9lt End neighborhood. The existing dilapidated gazebo would
be made handicapped accessible. This restoration has been reviewed and approved by HPC. The large non-
historic evergreen Juniper shrubs would be removed to allow better view into and out of the park and also
make the historic iron fence more visible.
A private citizen benefactor, Mrs. Maggie DeWolf, would fund the majority ofthe proposed park
enhancements. The City is being asked to support the park enhancement project and provide a small level
of funding to complete a renovated and improved park irrigation system, cover staffproject management
time and complete some pruning and removal of selected plant materials. (Refer Exhibit B, Pioneer Park
Proj ect Cost Estimate.)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Primary funding for the Pioneer Park enhancements and flower garden maintenance would be sourced from
a private donor to the City. City of Aspen funding requirements to complete the project include $11,360 for
irrigation design, irrigation installation, tree and shrub removal, and minimal project management. Staffis
requesting this amount in a supplemental appropriation to complete the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The implementation ofthe proposed physical improvements
for Pioneer Park will not have significant environmental impacts. Irrigation systems have been designed to
integrate with existing systems which provide a high level of water conservation. maintenance staff
maintain the turf grass, irrigation system and tree care similar to the existing scenario in place.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is seeking City Council support for the proposed park enhancement/historic restoration plan for
Pioneer Park.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Pioneer Park Landscape Plan
Exhibit B - Pioneer Park Project Cost Estimate
2
~
Parks and Recreation
Department
Memorandtnn
To:
Thru:
Mayor and Council
Steve Barwick, City Manager
Scott Chism, ~'Planner, Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks & Recreation
"
From:
Date:
Re:
4/19/07
,.
Proposed Rotary 'Centennial' Picnic Shelter @ ARC
SUMMARY: .
Staff is presenting a proposal for the addition of a picnic pavilion at the ARC for City Council review and
consideration of funding. Staff is proposing that the development of this picnic pavilion occur in A.ugust/September
2007 as a partnership between the City of Aspen and Aspen Rotary Club. A picnic pavilion with an added feature of
an electric BBQ would significantly enhance the passive recreation opportunities available to the public at the ARC.
Staff supports this proposal and pending City Council approval would coordinate the construction of the pavilion with
the other proposed outdoor pool improvements at the ARC.
BACKGROUND:
The Aspen Rotary Club approached the City of Aspen Parks Department in late 2004 with the idea of a picnic
pavilion that would be built somewhere around the ARC and Rotary Field. Since that time, staff has been
coordinating with Rotary Club representatives to evaluate design concepts and location options.
The Rotary Club has coordinated the final design of the picnic pavilion and obtained a land use approval for the
proposed structure from the Community Development Department. This project is proposed to be partially funded
from the Rotary Club and will be built in honor of the Club's centennial year. (Refer to Attaclnnent D, Pavilion Plan)
DISCUSSION:
A picnic pavilion, other than the gazebo at Paepcke Park, does not currently exist within the City of Aspen Parks and
Recreation infrastructure. A new pavilion located at the ARC would provide a venue for a multitude of possible
events/occasions, including picnics, weddings, outdoor meetings under cover, etc. The proposed improvements also
include an electric BBQ for the purposes of outdoor grilling. An electric powered grill versus a natural gas powered
grill is being proposed to eliminate the fire hazard threat of an open flame near the typically dry native garnbel
oak/grass vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pavilion. Another proposed feature of the pavilion area
is a low, curvilinear sandstone seating wall. The seating wall would be constructed in the same sandstone vernacular
as the other sandstone walls and columns built around the ARC, Rotary Field and Iselin Field.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The comprehensive project cost is currently estimated to be $146.139. (Refer Attaclnnent "A", Estimate of Probable
Construction Costs). The costs include the actual cost of the proposed pavilion, anticipated costs for the seating wall,
integrated electric BBQ grill, landscape restoration, and in-house labor. The Aspen Rotary Club has made a
commitment to contribute $50,000 toward the cost of this proposed project. The balance of the project cost would be
covered by a City of Aspen budget supplemental.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
The design of the proposed picnic pavilion is designed with a timber structure and a weathering steel roof. The roof
materials' will eliminate the need for intensive roof maintenance, saving staff resources. The timber posts and
structure are proposed to be recycled timber. Utilizing construction materials that are recycled provides an
environmental benefit because these products eliminate the need to utilize newly harvested raw materials and reduces
the possibility of materials being dumped in a landfill. A solar powered series of overhead lights for the picnic tables
is proposed to safely light the pavilion. Unfortunately, the level of electricity required for the electric BBQ grill
cannot be supported by the solar system without significant additional infrastructure. However, all of the City's
electricity is sustainably sourced from either hydro or wind.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council could choose not to approve or support this proposed community asset. The Rotary Centennial Picnic
Pavilion would not be built and the anticipated sit6 would remain a turflaWll suitable for outdoor picnics without
shelter from weather.
I.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Site Vicinity Plan
Aspen Rotary Centennial Shelter Detail Plan
Picnic Pavilion Architectural Plan
2
Attachment A
ROTARY PICNIC SHELTER
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs Aspen Parks & Recreation Department
17-Apr-07
CONSTRUCTION ITEM QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST
WORK ITEM
22-6"'x26-6'" Timber Picnic Shelter w/ Allow 50,000.00 50,000.00
Metal Roof & Sandstone column bases.
Solar lighting system w/ timer
BBQ Electrical Service 1 LS 6,000.00 6,000.00
Electric BBQ Supply I LS 3,000.00 3,000.00
Crushed Rock (concrete slab base) 1 CY 50.00 50.00
Colored Concrete slab (4" thk 1270 s.t) ~6 CY 500.00 8,000.00
Concrete Pumping (req'd w/ l'td access-4 hr.) j LS 900.00 900.00
Colored Concrete trail repair (4" thk 172 s.t) 2.12 CY 500.00 1,060.00
Bituminous Asphalt Trail patch (3" depth) 1 LS 250.00 250.00
Seating Wall foundation/structure (4.5 cy.) 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000.00
Masonry Seating Wall (20" height) 385 SF 60.00 23,100.00
clad both sides, 115 If.
Masonry Wall Cap (20" x 4" thick) (115 If.) 100 EA 45.00 '4,500.00
Masonry Rotary Column (48" high) 1 LS 3,000.00 3,000.00
Picnic Tables (6'x5') 4 EA 1,000.00 4,000.00
Subtotal Batting Cage Site Work 107,860.00
ROTARY SHELTER LABOR
Project Management/In House Design Coord. I Allow 2,300.00 2,300.00
Clear/Grub Labor (2 days) 1 Allow 3,226.00 3,226.00
Excavation/In House Labor (2 weeks) 1 AlloW 12,905.00 12,905.00
Landscape Installation/In House Labor (1 wk. 1 Allow 3,563.00 3,563.00
Plant Material/Seed replacement 1 Allow 3,000.00 3,000.00
Subtotal Batting Cage Project Labor 24,994.00
Subtotal
Contingency
10%
132,854.00
13,285.40
146,139.40\
Total Rotary Picnic Shelter Cost
AMOUNT I
50,000.00
. 96,139.40
IPROJECT FUND SOURCES
Rotary Club Contribution
2007 Budget Supplemental
Grand Total Rotary Picnic Shelter Budget
146,139.40
j:
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
CC:
Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director
THRU:
Lee Ledesrna, Utility Operations Manager
FROM:
Kimberly Peterson, Global Warming Project Manager
DATE:
August 23, 2007
RE:
2007 Supplemental Budget Requests for Canary Initiative
SUMMARY:
As the Canary Initiative embarks on implementing the Canary Action Plan, we need additional
staff resources. Funding requests for 1.5 staff positions were made in the 2008 supplemental
budget requests. This memo requests pro-rated funding so that those positions can be funded for
the remainder of 2007, as staff is needed irnmediately to achieve the work plan.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
In 2005, the City of Aspen adopted the Canary Initiative to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Since then, a draft Climate Action Plan (a.k.a. Canary Action Plan) has been adopted.
One of the last Council's directives was to "find a way to address greenhouse gas emissions from
air travel".
DISCUSSION:
Funding for Data Analyst:
To address greenhouse gases from air travel, the Canary Initiative is launching a local carbon
offset program called Canary Tags. To administer the Canary Tag program according to
voluntary carbon market standards, it is necessary that we keep close track of all carbon offsets
purchased as well as all investments made in carbon reduction projects and to file audit reports
with a greenhouse gas registry. Credibility and accountability will be key to the success ofthe
Canary Tag program. In that vein, the Canary Initiative needs a part time data analyst who can
take responsibility for all data collection, verification and reporting. 2007 supplemental funding
of $10,800 is requested to cover 2.5 months ofloaded salary, purchase ofa phone and computer
to enable the Canary Initiative to bring the data analyst on board by mid-October.
1
Funding for Global Warming Project Coordinator:
The Canary Initiative has benefited from the services of a full-time Canary Initiative Facilitator
over the past 18 months. This position was funded by CORE. Because this position functions as
a city employee and represents the City of Aspen it makes sense to create a full-time City
position that will be known as Global Warming Project Coordinator. This person will assist the
Global Warming Project Manager in developing and implementing all Canary Plan goals and
programs. This position will be funded through the REMP program; however the City needs
budget authority to fund the position. The City Manager has approved this position as a full-time
City position and Calla Ostrander will start as Global Warming Project Coordinator as of
September 5,2007. 2007 supplemental funding of$19,721.35 is requested for loaded salary to
cover 4 months of this position for the remainder of2007.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Canary Initiative requests $30,521.35 in supplemental
budget funding for 2007 for human resources necessary to implement global warming projects
and programs. Ofthat amount, $19,721.35 will be reimbursed by CORE.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: By launching and maintaining the Canary Tag
program, Aspen citizens, visitors, businesses and special events will be able to reduce the
impacts of their greenhouse gas emissions, thereby having positive environmental impacts on the
City.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that Council approve supplemental funding in the
amount of $30,52 1.35 for the Canary Initiative for the remainder of2007.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not want to approve supplemental funding for 2007, the
Global Warming Project Coordinator will have to be terminated as a City employee and revert to
being a CORE employee, if possible. If2007 supplemental funding is not approved for a data
analyst, those functions will have to be performed by the Global Warming Project Manager
which will necessitate a reduction in implementing other Canary Action Plan goals and
programs.
PROPOSED MOTION: Adopt the budget recommendations as presented.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
CC:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
FROM:
Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director
DATE:
May 30, 2007
RE:
Red Mountain Waterline replacement
SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Water Department desires to replace portions ofthe 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 of 2007, (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 ofthe 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 rnaterial 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 01/06, (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 ofthe work. Change requests by the City shall be
communicated to the County Engineer and the County shall retain ultirnate 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.
AL TERNATlVES: 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 #
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
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director
THRU:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: May 21,2007
MEETING DATE: June 11,2007
RE:
Purchase of a replacement turbine runner for the Ruedi Hydroelectric
Powerplant.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends the purchase of a replacement turbine runner for
the Ruedi Hydroelectric Power plant. The recornmended 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 frorn 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 rnachine casting (phase 1) 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 equiprnent. 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 bassler relay 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.
AL TERNATlVES: 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 #
of2007.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
April 18, 2007 GE Energy Standard Services Quick Quote for runner replacement (p. 1-6)
Page 2 of2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Transportation & Parking Department
John Krueger, Lynn Rumbaugh, Tim Ware
THRU:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE:
May 3, 2007
May 14, 2007
DATE OF MEMO:
RE:
Supplemental Request - 2007 Summer TOM Measures
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: To follow up on direction received at the May 1 City Council work
session, staff requests that Council approve the attached supplemental budget request for
$226,500 from the General Fund for the purpose of implementing summer Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures. Council's approval of this item on the May 14 Consent
Calendar will direct staffto proceed with these expenditures and this funding request will be
included on the next supplemental appropriation ordinance.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
. At its May 1 work session, City Council approved a package of summer TDM measures
including enhanced bus service to the Brush Creek park-and-ride lot, afternoon peak hour
intersection improvements, changes to carpool parking policies, increased residential
enforcement, carpool facilities at Brush Creek and marketing/promotion efforts.
. At its April 23 meeting, City Council expressed concerns about summer traffic congestion.
Council requested that staff generate a menu of short-term options to help mitigate the traffic
congestion problem this summer.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen Area Community Plan states that traffic entering and exiting
Aspen should be kept at 1993 levels in perpetuity. This goal has been met through a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program that includes: paid parking;
frequent transit service; carpool incentives; a carshare service and employer outreach. Although
Average Daily Traffic has remained at 1993 levels, peak congestion hours have extended
resulting in longer periods of congestion. In summer 2006, 40-minute travel times between
Aspen and the Airport Business Center were commonplace, even during mid-day hours. In April
2007, Council requested that staff bring forward a menu ofTDM options that could be instituted
quickly for the purpose of easing summer traffic congestion.
Page 1 of4
DISCUSSION: Staff brought forth a number of summer TDM options. At its May 1 work
session, Council approved the following measures for summer implementation:
Brush Creek Transit Service
Staffwill attempt to contract with RFTA to provide bus service between Rubey Park and the
Brush Creek Park & Ride. This bus will depart Brush Creek at :15 and :45 past each hour,
creating IS-minute service when combined with existing departures at :00 and :30. This service
will be free to the users. In addition, the City will cover fares for riders boarding existing Valley
bus service (:00 and :30 departures) between Aspen and Brush Creek. This service will operate
from 6am-6pm at an estimated cost of$90,OOO.
It is important to note that, although this service will be requested, staff cannot guarantee its
implementation. This is due to the fact that driver shortages continue to be a major problem for
RFTA.
Chan!!:es to Carpool Parkin!!: Pro!!:ram
Staff will modifY the current parking policy in order to encourage increased carpooling.
Specifically, two-person carpools will be allowed free carpool parking year-round provided that
all members of the carpool are of driving age (16 and older).
Currently, free carpool parking permits are provided to carpools of three or more people during
the summer and winter seasons. Two or more people qualifY for a free permit during the spring
and fall shoulder seasons. Staff believes that the benefits of this policy change will be many:
· Eliminate the confusion and frustration associated with seasonal changes
· Eliminate free carpool parking permits being provided to carpools consisting
of only one adult.
· Promote the program's ultimate goal of encouraging adults to carpool,
therefore removing more vehicles from traffic.
· Encourage increased carpooling as forming a two-person carpool is less
daunting than putting together a larger group.
Carpool Permits at Brush Creek
In conjunction with providing carpool permits to groups of two or more people of driving age,
staffwill immediately begin the process of hiring a part-time parking officer to man a summer
carpool permit pick-up location at the Brush Creek Park & Ride. Staffs hope is that solo drivers
will be encouraged to meet at Brush Creek and form casual carpools for the purpose of receiving
convenient free parking.
Increased Enforcement of Residential Parkin!!: Zones
As part of the summer TDM package, staff will innnediately begin the hiring process for a part-
time parking enforcement officer to increase the enforcement of residential parking areas. The
half-time position discussed above will also be dedicated to increased residential enforcement in
addition to services provided at Brush Creek. With the addition of two seasonal staff, the
Page2of4
majority of residential areas could be enforced with more regularity. Staff believes that an
increased need to shujjle on the part of drivers could decrease the incentive to park in these areas.
It is estimated that the cost of hiring two part-time summer officers is $15,000. The estimated
revenue associated with increased residential enforcement is $77,000.
Hwv 82 Traffic Flow Imurovements at Cemetery Lane and Truscott Intersections
Staff will immediately begin working with CDOT on a proposal to eliminate left turns from
Cemetery Lane or Truscott Place onto Hwy 82 from 3-6pm on weekdays during the summer. In
addition, left turns from Power Plant Road to Hwy 82 will be prohibited during these same hours.
Drivers traveling to Bugsy Bamard Park and the City Parks Department will be allowed to make
the left turn. In order to gain CDOT approval for this demonstration, staff would need to hire a
professional traffic control firm to man the impacted intersections. The estimated cost ofthis
traffic control is $50,000.
Traffic Analvsis
In conjunction with the traffic flow improvements discussed above, staff will hire a traffic
engineering firm to perform data collection and analysis at the affected intersections. The
estimated cost of these services is $58,000.
Marketinf!.!Communication
An extensive print and radio campaign will be needed to communicate these options and
policy/traffic changes should they be adopted. In addition, staffwill provide amenities such as
bottled water, coffee coupons, giveaways and appreciation events at Brush Creek to further
highlight the location as an intercept location. Staff estimates a cost of $12,000 will be needed
for the purchase of newspaper, radio and other advertising as well as updating and reprinting of
various schedules, brochures and other public information pieces.
FINANCIAUBUDGET IMPACTS:
As discussed at the May 1 work session, the Transportation and Parking Fund is not equipped to
cover the expenses associated with the above summer TDM measures. With that understanding,
Council agreed that funding would be provided by the General Fund.
A supplemental budget request form is included with this memo as Attachment A.
Expenses
Brush Creek Transit Service
Part-Time Parking Staff
Traffic Control Personnel
Traffic Analysis
Communication/Marketing:
Miscellaneous supplies
Total General Fund Expense
$ 90,000
$ 15,000
$ 50,000
$ 58,000
$ l2,000
$ 1500
$226,500
Revenue
Residential enforcement
$ 77.000
Page 3 of4
Total Revenue
$ 77,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Environmental Health Department is supportive of the
above TDM measures as a means of reducing air pollution and emissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the supplemental
budget request for $226,500.
AL TERNA TIVES:
.Council could choose not to fund this package ofTDM measures.
'Council could choose to fund selected portions of the above TDM measures.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
'Attachment A: Supplemental Budget Request Form
Page 4 of4
CITY OF ASPEN
Supplemental Request Form
DEPT Name:
Originator:
Transportation & Parking
John D. Krueger
Date:
5/2120071
Supplemental Request #1: 2007 Summer TDM Measures
Justification:
Supplemental bUdget request for funding to implement Council directed TOM measures for
the summer of 2007. This request includes funding for two temporary parking enforcement
officers, new RFT A bus service from the Brush Creek parking Jot, traffi control costs for the
Cemetery Lane and Truscott intersections, advertising money to promote the TOM
measures, and funding for engineering consultant to collect and analyze traffic data from
the summer TOM measures.
E~tim AmllY!J!
450.32.32100.80030 80*** Payroll and Benefits-Temp Help $15,000
Enter Eden line Item # here 81"** Training, Travel & Education 0
450.32.32100.82170 82*** Professional Fees-RFTA City Share 90,000
450.32,32100.82999 82- Professional Fees~Services 50,000
450.32.32100.82140 82-Professional Fees-Advertising 12,000
450.32.32100.82180 82-Professional Fees-Planning 58,000
450.32.32100.83999 83*** Materials and Supplies 1,500
Enter Eden line Item # here 84-* Contribution 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 86*- Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 0
Enter Eden line Item # here TOTAL ESTlMATEO COST; $226.500
Supplemental Request #2 Enter name of new request here
Justification'
Describe the need and justification for the new request here. The text will wrap to allow you
to enter up to four lines of justification for this request.
Estim ".rl ('not; AmllY!J!
Enter Eden line Item # here 80*- Payroll and Benefits $0
Enter Eden line Item # here 81-* Training, Travel & Education 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 82*** Professional Fees 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 83-* Materials and Supplies 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 84*- Contribution 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 86-* Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 0
Enter Eden line Item # here TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $0
Supplemental Request #3 Enter name of new request here
Justification:
Describe the need and justification for the new request here. The text will wrap to allow you
to enter up to four lines of justification for this request.
Estimated Cost: Amount
Enter Eden line Item # here 80-* Payroll and Benefits $0
Enter Eden line Item # here 81*** Training, Travel & Education 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 82*** Professional Fees 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 83*- Materials and Supplies 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 84*** Contribution 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 8e*- Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 0
Enter Eden line Item # here TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $0
Supplemental Request #4 Enter name of new request here
Justifi~tion.
Describe the need and justification for the new request here, The text will wrap to allow you
to enter up to four Jines of justification for this request.
E Amount
Enter Eden line Item # here 80*** Payroll and Benefits $0
Enter Eden line Item # here 81*-Training, Travel & Education 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 82*** Professional Fees 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 83*** Materials and Supplies 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 84*** Contribution 0
Enter Eden line Item # here 8e-* Fixed Asset Expenditures >$5k 0
Enter Eden line Item # here TOTAL ESTIMATEO COST; $0
TOTAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS
$226,5001
C:\Documents and SettingsldonplLocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi/esIOLK77\Copy of 2007 sup req sum TDM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Tim Ware - Parking
THRU:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
Transportation & Parking Work Session
PROPOSED PARKING MODIFICATIONS:
In 1995, the City of Aspen implemented the parking management program in the commercial core
and the Residential Permit Parking areas. This program included several payment and permit options
to address the diverse needs of many different types of customers. The Transportation and Parking
Department has reviewed the program over the last year and has identified some options to improve
the parking program that Council may wish to direct staff to explore and implement.
In our review, staffs primary focus was on implementing programs that would help reduce levels of
traffic and improve pedestrian friendliness in town during the peak seasons. A number of parking
program modifications have been offered for consideration as potential measures for reducing parking
occupancy, encouraging transit ridership and increasing revenue generation for TDM programs. These
include changes to residential parking, service vehicle parking and seasonal fee variations in the
commercial core.
1. Residential Parking Modifications
Parking staff would like Council to consider modifications to the residential parking program.
The current enforcement practice involves staggered routes and schedules in order to create
unpredictability and discourage a shuffling of vehicles every two hours. Even with that effort,
it is estimated that over 50% of the vehicles in two-hour residential parking areas are simply
moving their vehicles whenever they are chalked. This results in increased traffic and parking
congestion and a reduction in potential transit ridership.
Parking Officers have completed the process of collecting data on the number of vehicles
parked within a four-block radius of the commercial core to determine the number of cars using
residential parking; how many of these vehicles are permitted; and how many drivers are
simply moving their cars to avoid the two-hour limit. Staff has used these survey data to make
the following recommendations to City Council.
The purpose of the current residential program was to prevent spillover parking from the
commercial core into residential areas once the paid parking component was put into place. The
program allows for up to two hours of parking without a permit Monday through Friday
8:00am - 5:00pm. Residents are issued permits that exempt their vehicles and their guest's
vehicle from the weekday time restrictions.
1
Other permits that are valid within the residential zones include Lodge Permits, carpool
permits, and $5.00 Day Passes.
The residential parking area includes approximately 3,000 parking spaces that are divided into
four different zones that surround the commercial core area and cover the area between the
Castle Creek Bridge and the Cooper Avenue Bridge. Residents who live within the residential
zones receive permits that allow them to park at or near their homes.
The number one enforcement challenge is the two-hour parking allowance without a permit.
Currently officers enforce the two-hour zones by chalking tires or using an electronic vehicle
marking system. The officers make rounds at random times throughout the day checking for
chalked tires.
Staff conducted surveys this winter to determine what kinds of parking are occurring in the
residential parking zone spaces. The three blocks surrounding the commercial core were the
primary focus of the survey. The survey was conducted over a two-week period at various
tirnes of the day. There were approximately 1500 spaces and 4000 parked vehicles observed
during the survey period.
. 49.7% of all vehicles surveyed displayed no permit of any kind. This represents
approximately 500 - 650 cars a day that are rnoving every two hours to avoid
being ticketed.
. 7.3% of the vehicles displayed the $5.00 per day passes.
. 11.9% of the vehicles had valid residential stickers.
. 8.3% had guest passes.
. 8.5% of the vehicles had business residential passes.
. 2.0% had carpool passes. (not including carpool vehicles parked in carpool-only
spaces)
. 2.5% had lodge permits.
. 9.8% had various temporary permits (e.g., short-term residential, construction,
special event permits)
The survey clearly shows that are largest user group of the residential parking spaces are
moving around to defeat the two hour time restriction.
The department is requesting Council's consideration of the following options that would not
only assist with freeing up residential parking spaces, but would have a significant impact on
peak season traffic congestion and increase the incentive for using transit.
Residential Parking Option 1
This option outlines an expanded paid parking system. The paid parking area would expand
approximately three blocks in each direction frorn the commercial core and include about 1500
2
parking spaces (see attached map). The plan would prevent all the shuffling that is occurring to
beat the two-hour restriction. This option would replace the current two hour parking restriction
and would work as follows:
~ $1.00 per hour Monday through Friday !0:00am - 5:00pm.
~ Full day passes from the meter would be $7.00 per day
~ Residential, Guest, Lodge, Carpool and Hybrid Vehicle permits would be exempt from
payment.
~ The rest of the residential areas beyond the additional three-block radius would remain
residential permit parking. The two hour parking would still be allowed but changed to
reflect the following:
Any non-permitted vehicle will be allowed to park for up to two hours in
one zone per 24 hour period. Once a vehicle has been registered in that
zone they will be required to move after that two hours.
This option would provide parking patrons with a considerable number of payment options.
Current day pass customers would no longer need to stop to buy day passes, this payment
option would be available at the residential pay stations, as well.
The plan does require the purchase and installation of70 -75 pay-and-display meters.
Financial Implications
The cost of the additional meters would be approximately $850,000 for the 75 units. An
additional $50,000 for new signs and posts and $50,000 for delivery and installation would also
be needed.
While this option is intended to be in place year-round, using a very conservative revenue
calculation formula of25% occupancy during only peak seasons at $7.00 per day, staff
estimates additional revenue of about $350,000 per year from the meters and citations. When
the current revenue of about $90,000 per year from day pass sales is netted out, net new
revenues from this option would be approximately $260,000 per year. All start-up costs would
be paid off within three years and there are no anticipated increases in labor necessary to
implement this option.
Residential Parking Option 2
The entire residential permit parking zones could be converted into "permit-only" parking. This
would elirninate the two-hour parking allowance. This plan does limit parking options and
present some difficulties for visitors who would be required to obtain a permit of sorne kind
before parking. The "convenience costs" of this option are very significant and the number of
parking tickets issued to violators can be expected to increase dramatically.
Financial Implications
While there are no up-front equipment costs for this option, the big cost would be converting
all the current residential signs for approximately $50,000. There would be additional printing
cost that created by a higher use of one-day passes at $5,000 annually, and public information
costs would need to increase by about $25,000 per year in order to clearly communicate the
need to obtain a permit before parking anywhere outside of the core.
3
Revenues from this option are difficult to predict, but could approximate the $260,000 a year
that Option 1 would produce, once steady cornpliance and a very high level of public
information are attained.
Residential Parking Option 3
This option could involve more orless of an expansion of the paid parking area, with a
corresponding increase or decrease in the "permit-only" parking zone.
Residential Parking Option 4
Leave the residential zones the way that they are.
Recommendations
~ For the residential program staff recommends option 1 or 3. This gives our custorners the most
flexibility and eliminates vehicles moving around to avoid the two-hour limit.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Janet Krasnoff, Operations Specialist, Truscott Phase I
THRU:
Cindy Tucker-Davis, Property Manager Supervisor, Housing
THRU:
Tom McCabe, Director of Housing
DATE:
August 13,2007
RE:
Ongoing Supplemental for Truscott 491 2007 budget
SUMMARY: This is to increase the maintenance wage and supply budget at Truscott Phase 1.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A
DISCUSSION: Maintenance has experienced unanticipated overtime wages due to snow removal and
other emergency after hours calls. Also, there were an unusually high number of turnovers due to
tenants needing to prove their legal status in the country prior to lease renewal. There has also been
extra work performed by our maintenance team to continue improving the property's current condition.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Truscott fund has sufficient cash balances to support this
request. We are estimating that maintenance wages and benefits will need to be increased by $25,000
and maintenance supplies by $10,000. We anticipate that this will be an ongoing issue that needs to be
included in all subsequent budgets.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval to increase budget authority by $35,000 for 2007 and subsequent
years.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve increasing the budget authority for Truscott Phase I by
$35,000.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
TO:
THRU:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
STEVE BARWICK, CITY MANAGER
JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION
P.AUL MENTER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
LEE CASSIN, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
GARY GOODSON, COMMUNITY OFFICE FOR
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
APRIL 30, 2007
ASPEN RECREATION CENTER ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROJECTS
Request of Council:
Staff is seeking the approval of a $1,165,694 contract between the City of Aspen and
Long Building Technologies, for the implementation of energy efficient projects at the
Aspen Recreation Center. Staff is excited to take this step towards a significant reduction
in Green House Gas emissions while reducing utility costs at the ARC and enabling the
ARC to exceed energy reductions set as part of the Canary Initiative Goals. This contract
will take a huge step towards recognizing not only the ARC, but the City of Aspen as
leaders in actively moving forward to further reduce our GHG emissions.
At the same time staff is asking Council for an additional $162,000 in funding for this
project. At this time approved funding is:
. City of Aspen
· CORE (REMP Funds)
· Additional Funding Requested
$919,000
$ 85,000
$162,000
Total
$1,166,000 (rounded up)
1
. Council will find in their packet attachment" A" which includes table 2.1 or the
implementation costs, gas and electric savings and energy reductions, along with
the payback timeline for the implementation costs of this project.
. Item 6.1 of this table identifies the sale of an existing piece of equipment at the
ARC, and an estimate as to the price we could procure for such equipment. Staff
has already addressed and is implementing items 6.2 & 6.3 (the family pool
surfactant and the lap pool cover respectively) of this table.
. Further more Council will see that item 6.19, the solar/thermal component of this
plan has been extracted and placed alone on the bottom of the tabl~. This is due
to a recommendation from staff that this portion of the project should take a
separate parallel track in design to include the outdoor pools and any other
building additions that may be planned. Staff will bring this component of energy
savings back to Council when a direction for outdoor pool construction has been
established.
. Items identified in 6.22 thru 6.24 are all components which have been considered
for any future expansion or increases in use at the ARC. At this time staff is only
recommending the installation of 6.22 and 6.24 of this table. The current
mechanical systems in the ARC are maxed and are unable to handle any
expansion. With the knowledge that outdoor pools will hopefully increase the
user base at the ARC, and the improvement plan identifies added floor space to
the ARC, it makes sense to move forward with these components now rather than
later to accommodate the consideration of future expansion in patron's numbers
as well as square feet to the facility. To wait on such additions to the mechanical
systems would cost 3 times as much in the future.
. Item 6.23 is not being recommended by staff at this time. This is the addition of a
3'd domestic hot water heater to the facility in order to provide a constant delivery
of hot water to patrons when taking showers or washing hands. However, the
systems and space needed for the addition of this boiler are being provided such
that it can be added at such time the user base warrants such an addition.
The implementation of these system retro fits to the ARC will reduce GHG emissions by
over 1.5 million pounds each year. This project would assist the ARC in meeting its 1 %
internal greenhouse gas goals and the Chicago Climate Exchange reduction goals by
reducing emissions 36% compared to the baseline year of 2004. This is a considerable
contribution to the City's Canary Initiative.
The payback on the initial improvements to the existing systems at the ARC is estimated
to be just over $130,000 annually in utility cost reductions or a payback on the
improvements of 7.7 years. With the addition of items 6.22 and 6.24 the return rises to
just over 9 years, but with the consideration for future GHG reductions.
2
Option for Measurement & Verification (attachment "B")
Staff is not recommending the measurement & verification option attached to this
contract. It is not part of the contract price and is only in this packet as an option if
Council chooses to add it. As identified in this attachment, there are too many variables
to accurately measure and verify the accomplishment of projected energy reductions.
Increased usage by patrons, weather conditions, and increases in utility costs can all
affect energy consumption and cost reductions. Long Building Technologies have used
sophisticated engineering calculations which have led to these estimates.
Staff will stay on top of the energy costs at the ARC; compare charges and consumption
by tracking the baseline usage and costs in years 2006 and 2007. In 2008 when the
systems are fully functional, we will compare the % of reductions in cost and
consumption against our baseline with consideration for increases in energy costs and
numbers of patrons served.
Previous Council Action:
In the spring of 2006 Council approved a contract with Long Building Technologies to
perform an energy audit of the ARC and identify the potential for reducing energy
consumption, thus reducing GHG emissions and energy costs at the ARC.
In October of 2006 Long Building Technologies provided the findings of the audit, which
had identified 22 mechanical system retro fits which would significantly reduce energy
consumption at the ARC and reduce utility costs at the same time. The audit has
identified a significant reduction in GHG emissions and a potential of reducing energy
costs by a significant amount each year. A contract was presented to Council at that time
for the design of the system retro fits and the identification of the implementation cost of
these improvements.
The contract before Council at this time is the implementation costs of this project
following the design of system retro fits and upgrades.
Background:
When the City of Aspen adopted the Canary Initiative, and departments were directed
towards energy reductions in City facilities, the ARC began seeking a mechanical
engineering firm who would identify, develop, and implement energy efficient
recommendations for the facility.
The City contracted with Long Building Technologies and moved forward with an energy
audit of the ARC in the spring/summer of 2006. The intent was to improve energy
efficiency at the facility and to meet Canary Initiative Goals, while reducing energy costs
and thus operational costs. A list of 22 projects were identified in the initial audit, and
adopted by City Council in the fall of 2006. At the same 2006 meeting Council directed
3
Long Building Technologies to begin design work on the projects identified in
attachment and come back with implementation costs. What Council has before them
today is a contract for the implementation of the projects identified in the fall 2006 audit
and attachment "A".
Currently, staff has implemented item 6.3, the lap pool covers, as identified in the audit
and attachment "A", and is moving forward with the implementation of item 6.2, the
family pool surfactant.
Discussion:
The City of Aspen organization has identified goals for departments to decrease their energy
consumption by I % annually over a baseline year identified as 2004. In order to accomplish
this goal on an ongoing basis, staff looked to the Community Office for Resource Energy
(CORE), to assist us in how to accomplish this goal. CORE ran some initial calculations and
assisted staff with some minor changes to mechanical systems which were implemented
immediately. At the same time CORE identified that there was a huge potential for energy
savings at the ARC and this needed further and deeper investigation. CORE assisted staff in
the recruitment of Long Building Technologies for the purpose of auditing the energy
consumption at the ARC and thus providing solutions to minimize that energy usage in the
building.
The contract before Council at this time is the final step after and audit of the mechanical
systems, design of the retro fit of these mechanical systems, and now the implementation of
the retro fits to take a monumental step towards reduction in energy consumption and
meeting the Canary Initiative Goals established by this organization.
Not only will the implementation of these improvement allow the ARC to reduce GHG
emissions, but at the same time move in a direction of an increased cost recovery goal at the
ARC.
Staff and CORE would like to note that energy prices are expected to continue increasing
over the next several years, which can adversely affect the cost savings the ARC may
realize. At the same time the GHG reductions will be in place and allow the ARC to
meet Canary Initiative goals.
Financial Implications:
Current expenditure authority along with REMP funding from CORE totals $1,004,000,
amounting to a shortfall of $162,000 to implement the recommendations identified in this
memo and attachment "A". The financial savings to the ARC operating budget is
estimated to be over $130,000 annually.
Recommended funding for this project stands as follows:
Current available funding:
CORE (REMP Funding)
$919,000
$ 85,000
4
Additional Needed Funding
$161,694
Contract amount:
$1,165,694
Staffrecommends that the additional $162,000 needed to fund this contract be taken from
the Asset Management Capital Fund.
Environmental Impacts:
This project will reduce the operational costs of the ARC by over $130,000 annually
according to calculations by Long Building Technologies. In addition it is anticipated to
reduce GHG emissions at the ARC by over 1.5 million pounds each year or the
equivalent of 60 average U.S. homes annually. This would assist the ARC in meeting its
1 % internal greenhouse gas goals and the Chicago Climate Exchange reduction goals by
reducing emissions 36% compared to the baseline year of 2004. This is a considerable
contribution to the City's Canary Initiative.
Recommended Action:
Staff is recommending the approval of this contract for the purpose of reducing energy
costs at the ARC, reducing GHG emissions, and continuing to reflect a leadership role in
our community regarding the goals of the Canary Initiative.
Alternatives:
These projects as designed ~ the alternatives, Councils decision at this point would be
to move forward with the project or not. Staff and the Engineers feel that we have the
best alternatives identified to meet our goals of energy cost reductions and GHG
emissions. Other alternatives would be to eliminate components of this contract.
Proposed Motion:
The proposed motion would be to approve resolution #_, a contract with Long
Building Technologies, for the purpose of energy improvements to the Aspen Recreation
Center, which will ultimately take unprecedented steps toward the accomplishment of the
Canary Imitative Goals, a significant reduction of Green House Gas emissions, and take
steps towards operational cost reductions at the ARC.
Manager's Comments:
5
Attachments:
. Contract by and between Long Building Technologies & the City of
Aspen
. "A" pricing
. "B" Measurement & Verification Option
. "C" Commitment of REMP funds from CORE
. "D" Specifications
. Addendum to Scope of W ark
**************************
6
.._.~_.--.-
- ."........-.----~~...~---
RESOLUTION NO. 3:t
Series of 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROJECTS IN THE ASPEN RECREATION CENTER, BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN AND LONG BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Contract for
implementation of energy efficient projects for the Aspen Recreation Center, between the
City of Aspen and Long Building Technologies, a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for
implementation of energy efficient projects for the Aspen Recreation Center, between the
City of Aspen and Long Building Technologies, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute
said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
^"""O"'h,d"YOf~OO7. ~
~ -~~
Helen Kali erud, 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 on the day hereinabove stated.
C:\Documents and Settings\tima.ASPENPITKIN\LoCal Sening.s\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3D\ARC energyefficient.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Tricia Aragon, P .E. City Engineer
THRU:
Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: August 23, 2007
MEETING DATE:
RE: Additional Vehicle Request for Construction Mitigation Officers
SUMMARY: Staff is requesting $25,000 for the 2007 Engineering Department Capital Budget
in the form of a supplernental request for an additional vehicle.
DISCUSSION: Council previously discussed the appropriations for the cost of two new
Construction Mitigation Officers., and with these new positions Council also discussed the
appropriations of funds for an additional vehicle for transportation around town for site visits for
the Officers. A ballpark sum of $20,000 was discussed at the May 29, 2007 City Council
meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The sum of $25,000 will be used to purchase a new mid-size
pick-up truck for the Engineering Department, purchased through the Streets Department and
added to the rotation of replacement schedule.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a new vehicle for the two new
Construction Mitigation Officers.
ALTERNATIVES: The Engineering Department does currently have one pick-up truck
dedicated to construction mitigation, but with three officers one vehicle is hardly sufficient to
cover the amount of construction square-footage it town.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
lYL
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Jessica Garrow, Plannel\J M~
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
August 27, 2007
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO:
MEETING DATE: September 10,2007
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision (Cooper Street Pier) - Ordinance No.
28, Series 2007 (Parcel 2737-182-24-007)
ApPLICANT /OWNER: SUMMARY:
Cooper Street Co-Tenancy The Applicant requests the City Council approve
Subdivision Review to construct a mixed-use
building.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Commercial Core (CC)
Photo of the subject property
zone district containing a three story
mixed-use building, including:
. 4,373 sq. ft. of net leasable space,
and
. one (1) free-market unit in 1,966
sq. ft. of net livable space.
RE:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC; &
Poss Architecture and Planning
LOCATION:
Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City
and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly
known as 508 East Cooper Ave.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
redevelopment the property as a four story
mixed-use building, including:
. 3,827 sq. ft. of net leasable space,
and
. one (1) free-market unit in 2,008
s . ft. of net livable s ace.
ZONING
COMMISSION
PLANNING AND
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission granted
Growth Management reviews for free-market
residential, affordable housing, and commercial
space, a Special Review to vary the dimensions of
the trash/utility/recycle area, and recommended
City Council grant a Subdivision Review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council
Subdivision Review with conditions.
approve the
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _9.1 0.07Memo.doc
Page 1 of7
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant Subdivision approval for the
development of a multi-family residential unit on the property known as the Cooper Street Pier,
located at 508 East Cooper Ave. The residential unit is part of a mixed-use development.
BACKGROUND: The 2,842 square foot lot is located in the Commercial Core (CC) Historic
District, but is not a contributing structure. The parcel has alley access, but an adjacent building
(the Andres Building, currently housing Prada) extends behind the subject property leaving a
6.34 foot wide "flagpole" of access to the alley for the subject site (see picture below). The
building currently contains a three story mixed use building with 4,373 square feet of net
leasable commercial space and one (1) free-market residential unit of 1,966 square feet.
.~.~..
Cooper St. Pier Parcel
N
A
The Applicant has received approval to demolish the existing building and develop a four story
mixed-use building comprising: a total of 3,827 square feet of net leasable space divided
between the basement, first, and second floors; and one (1) free-market residential unit of 2,008
square feet of net livable area on the third and fourth floors. The redevelopment will include
fewer square feet of net leasable space than the existing building, and will include the same
number of free-market residential units with 42 more square feet of net livable area. The
Pl~inf and Zoning Commission granted the growth management reviews required for this
project.
Design Approved bv Historic Preservation Commission (HPC): The HPC granted a Certificate
of Appropriateness, Demolition approval, and Commercial Design Standard Review for the
redevelopment proposal. 2
I Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 6, Series 2007 (Exhibit E) granted three Growth Management
Reviews for commercial space, for a free-market residential unit, and for affordable housing; Special Review for the
trash/utility/recycle area; and recommended City Council approve Subdivision Review. The Commission reviewed
the proposal at their March 20, 2007 and May 1,2007 meetings. These minutes are anached as Exhibit D.
2 Historic Preservation Commission Resolution 17, Series 2006 is anached as Exhibit C. The Historic Preservation
Conunission reviewed the applications three times before granting approval. The minutes from these meetings
(April 19, 2006, June 14,2006, and July 12,2006) are anached as Exhibit B.
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _9.1 0.07Memo.doc
Page 2 of7
Growth Management and Special Review Granted by Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z):
The P&Z approved Growth Management Reviews for the commercial space, free-market
residential unit, and the affordable housing mitigation as part of the mixed use redevelopment.3
Because the new free-market unit is 42 square feet greater than the existing unit, affordable
housing mitigation 12.6 square feet is required.4 The P&Z granted a cash-in-lieu payment for the
12.6 square feet of net livable space. The P&Z also granted Special Review to vary the
trash/utility/recycle area due to the unique flagpole shaped lot.
Multi-Family Replacement Reviewed Administratively: Because this application was submitted
prior to the adoption of the recent code changes which amended the review procedure for Multi-
Family Housing Replacement, this is an administrative review that is conducted by Staff at the
time of building permit submittal. The mitigation under this review requires 50% of the units,
bedrooms, and net livable area be provided by the application. The existing multi-family unit is
one unit, with one bedroom, in 1,966 square feet of net livable area, generating mitigation of Y, a
unit, Y, a bedroom, in 983 square feet of net livable area. The Housing Authority reviewed the
redevelopment and recommended cash-in-lieu for the partial unit required. The cash-in-lieu
proposed by the Applicant and recommended by the Housing Authority meets the requirements
of the replacement program.5
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.6 The creation of multiple dwelling units (or one unit within a mixed use building) is
considered an act of subdivision. If the Applicant is interested in creating individual ownership
interests in the units, condominiurnization must be undertaken in order to demarcate ownership
units within a single building.7 In reyiewing the Subdivision request, 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 proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the
2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff finds the subdivision will not negatively impact the
surrounding area and is compatible with surrounding development. The Applicant will pay all
applicable impact fees, including the School Lands Dedication Impact Fee and the Park
3 The redevelopment includes less commercial space than the existing building, and there already exists one (1)
free-market residential unit, therefore commercial and free-market residential allotments were not required for this
proposal.
4 This is based on Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.C.6, which states that mitigation is equal to 30% of the new
free-market net liveable space. The P&Z granted cash-in-Iieu because a fraction of a unit was required.
5 Exhibit F outlines the Housing Authority's recommendation of cash-in-lieu, which will be paid at the time of
building permit submittal. The fee is calculated at $305,705.22 for the multi-family replacement program.
6 Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.104.100, is defined as "The process act or result of dividing
land into two or more lots. parcels. or other units of land or separate legal interests. for the puroose or transfer of
ownership. leasehold interest. building, or development..."
7 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.
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier 9. 1 0.07Memo.doc
Page 3 of7
Dedication Fee. The project has received all appropriate Growth Management Reviews and
allocations. The land is suitable for development and subdivision, and provides the affordable
housing mitigation that is required by the Land Use Code.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision to City Council by
a vote of five to one (5 - 1).
Minimum Lot
Size
Minimum Lot
Width
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
Maximum
Height
Pedestrian
Amenit S ace
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
37 Feet
o Feet
o Feet
o Feet; P&Z granted Special Review
to vary the trash/utility/recycle area
dimensions to an alley frontage of nine
and a half (9.5) linear feet with a ten
(10) foot vertical clearance, and
seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in
de tho
Building: 34 Feet along Cooper Ave
44 Feet for top floor (setback from
property line)
Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per square
foot (284.2 s.f. = $14,210 for this lot
Cumulative 4,263 sq. ft. or 1.5:1
Maximum:
7,105 sq. ft. or
2.5:1
N/A
N/A
2,842 sq. ft. or 1: 1
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
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 ofthe property, and
46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
lot lines ad' oinin a Street ri ht-of-wa .
Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Ameni
Cumulative Maximum:
3:1
Cominercial: 1.5:1
up to 2: 1 (with
affordable housing
increase)
Lodging, Arts,
Cultural and Civic,
Public,
Recreational,
Academic uses: 3:1
Affordable
Housing: No
limitation
Free-Market: 1: 1
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _9.1 0.07Memo.doc
Page 4 of?
Maximum
Residential
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
Free-Market Unit:
2,008 sq. ft.
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
sub 'ect to the 2,000 s . t. maximum.
Landscaping
During the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of the project, the Commission discussed
the planting of a new street tree in front of the redevelopment. The proposed tree was requested
by the Parks Department and recommended as a condition of approval. The Commission
discussed the impact the street tree would have on the Cooper A venue View Plane, and voted to
delete the condition requiring a street tree from Section 12, Landscaping, of the Planning and
Zoning Commission Resolution 6, Series 2007 (see Exhibits D and E).
Staff has added the condition requiring the Applicant provide a street tree to Section 12,
Landscaping of the Ordinance. The Parks and Community Development Department believe the
street tree is important to the overall pedestrian experience along Cooper Street. Further, Staff
does not consider a tree to be "development," and therefore considers trees and like landscaping
features to be exempt from view plane review.s
Council Ouestions Raised at First Reading: The City Council asked for clarification on a
number of items at first reading. Staff has highlighted these questions and responded below:
1. Council asked about the nature of the two parking spaces in the adiacent building. The
spaces were purchased at the same time as the Cooper St. Pier property. According to the
Applicant, these spaces were not used by tenants or visitors of the Pitkin County Dry
Goods building and were instead rented on the free-market. Under this proposal the two
spaces will be dedicated to uses in the redevelopment, rather than being rented on the
free-market. Staff and the Applicant are prepared to answer any further questions
regarding the parking at the Public Hearing.
2. Council requested clarification on the Affordable Housing mitigation requirements under
the proposed redevelopment. Affordable Housing mitigation is generated in
redevelopment scenarios when new commercial or free-market residential space is
created.
8 Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review, states in part "When any DroDosed
develoDment infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front of another development which already
blocks the same view plane, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed
development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the adjacent
structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does not further infringe upon
the view plane, and re-redevelopment to reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall exempt the development from the requirements of this section."
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\cityIJessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _9.1 0.07Memo.doc
Page 5 of?
The proposed redevelopment generates less commercial space (net leasable) than
currently exists in the space, so mitigation is not required for the commercial component.
The code requires that 30% of the new net livable area in the free-market component of a
redevelopment be mitigated with affordable housing net livable space. In the proposed
redevelopment, the new free-market residential space created is 42 square feet.
Therefore, 12.6 square feet (30% of 42 square feet) is required to mitigate for the
additional free-market net livable square footage. The Land Use Code states that the
Planning and Zoning Commission may approve cash-in-lieu for required affordable
housing mitigation.9 The Housing Authority recommended cash-in-lieu be permitted
because only a fraction of a unit is required (see Exhibit F), and the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved cash-in-lieu in Resolution 6, Series 2007 (see Exhibit E).
3. Council requested information on who lives in the existing free-market residence. There
is no information available to Staff indicating who lives in this unit. The Applicant will
be prepared to address this question at the Public Hearing.
4. Council requested additional information on how long the existing uses have been located
in the building, and what previous uses were located there. According to Staff at the
Cooper Street Pier Restaurant and Bar, the business has been located in that space for "at
least 30 years." The Pitkin County Treasurer's data goes back 17 years (to 1990) and
shows the following uses on the property:
a. Cooper Street Pier: 17 years (1990-today)
b. Siamese Basil: 3 years (2004-today)
c. Lucci's Italian Restaurant: 13 years (1990-2003)
Referral A2encv,Comments: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen
Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the
proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when
appropriate. These comments are attached as Exhibit F.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project is
consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing a mixed-use building that is located in the
infill area, less than one block from the Ruby Park bus station, and is within walking distance of
commercial and office uses. The project also meets the Managing Growth section as it does not
require any growth management allotments and falls within the 2% desired growth rate for the
City. Staff recommends approval of this project.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 2S, Series of 2007, approving a
Subdivision for the redevelopment at 50S East Cooper Ave."
9 Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.C.7 states, "Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-Iieu payment
shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation /Tom the AspenlPitkin
County Housing Authority."
Staff Memo - 50S E. Cooper Subdivision
O:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _9.1 0.07Memo.doc
Page 60f7
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff findings
Exhibit B - HPC Minutes from April 19, 2006, June 14,2006, and July 12,2006
Exhibit C - HPC Resolution 17, Series 2006
Exhibit D - P&Z Minutes from March 20, 2007 and May 1, 2007
Exhibit E - P&Z Resolution 6, Series 2007
Exhibit F - Development Review Committee meeting minutes dated December 13, 2006 and
Housing Referral dated January 4, 2007
Exhibit G - View Plane language
Exhibit H - Subdivision Definition
Exhibit I - Application
Staff Memo - 508 E. Cooper Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _9. 1 0.07Memo.doc
Page 7 of7
ORDINANCE NO. 28
(SERIES OF 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR 508
E. COOPER AVENUE, PORTIONS OF LOTS L, M, N, BLOCK 95, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-24-007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Cooper Street Co-Tenancy, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting
approval of three (3) Growth Management Reviews, Subdivision Review, and Special
Review to construct a mixed-use building consisting of 3,827 square feet of net leasable
commercial space, and one free-market residential unit; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 12,2007, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution No. 17, Series 2007, by a five to zero (5-
0), approving Commercial Design Review for the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave,
Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; 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 May 1, 2007, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.6, Series of 2007, by a three to one (3-1)
vote, approving three (3) Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-
use building that includes commercial space, and free market housing, approving a
Special Review to vary the dimensional requirements of the trashiutilitylrecycle area, and
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision and
condominiumization to construct a mixed-use building consisting of one (1) free-market
residential unit and 3,827 square feet of net leasable commercial $pace located on the
property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Portions of Lots L, M, N, Block 95, City and Townsite of
Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, on June 25th, 2007 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No.
28, Series 2007, on First Reading by a four to zero (4-0) vote, approving with conditions the
Subdivision and Condominiumization of 508 E. Cooper Avenue, Portions of Lots L, M, N,
Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 10th, 2007,
continued from August 13, 2007, and August 27, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved
Ordinance No. 28, Series 2007, by a _ to _ L---'l vote, approving with conditions
the Subdivision and Condominiumization of 508 E. Cooper Avenue, Portions of Lots L,
M, N, Block 95, 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
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.l 0.07 .doc
Page 1 of?
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 proposed subdivision meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the proposed subdivision, 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 for the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Portions of Lots L, M, N,
Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO to construct a mixed-use building consisting
of one (1) free-market residential unit, and 4,263 square feet of commercial space. The
use mix and dimensional requirements shall comply with the CC zone district, as
described in the staff memorandum and included in the chart below. Specific square
footage requirements may be amended provided compliance with the below stated
requirements of the underlying CC zone district is maintained.
Minimum Lot
Size
Minimum Lot
Width
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
Maximum
Height
Pedestrian
Ameni S ace
2,842 sq. ft.
37 Feet
o Feet
o Feet
o Feet; P&Z granted Special Review
to vary the trash/utility/recycle area
dimensions to an alley frontage of nine
and a half (9.5) linear feet with a ten
(10) foot vertical clearance, and
seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in
de tho
Building: 34 Feet along Cooper Ave
44 Feet for top floor (setback from
property line)
Cash-in-Lieu fee of$50 per square
foot (284.2 s.f.) = $14,210 for this lot
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
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, and
46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from
lot lines ad'oining a Street ri ht-of-way.
Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Ameni
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\cityVessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.l 0.07.doc
Page 2 of?
Commercial: 1.5:1
up to 2:1 (with
affordable housing
increase)
Lodging, Arts,
Cultural and Civic,
Public,
Recreational,
Academic uses: 3: 1
Affordable
Housing: No
limitation
Free-Market: 1: 1
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
subject to the 2,000 sq. t. maximum.
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Cumulative 4,263 sq. ft. or 1.5:1
Maximum:
7,105 sq. ft. or
2.5:1
Cumulative Maximum:
3:1
N/A
N/A
Maximum
Residential
Unit Size
(sq. ft.)
2,842s .ft.orl:l
Free-Market Unit:
2,008 sq. ft.
Section 2: Plat and Al!:reemeot
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 this
approval. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include a commitment to satisfy all
conditions of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 27, Series of 2006 as
well as all conditions of this Ordinance. A final Condominium Plat may 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 Aoplication
The Applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in
Land Use Code Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, are fulfilled. The building permit
application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance, P&Z Resolution, and HPC 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. 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 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 CMP
shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\cityIJessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.l 0.07.doc
Page 3 of7
throughout construction. Staging areas will be identified in the plan, and shall
indicate that the alley shall not be closed during construction.
e. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code
requirements.
f. An approved Landscape Plan, as applicable.
Section 4: Dimensional ReQuirements
The building as presented in the plans contained within the application dated September
2006, complies with the existing 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.
The trash/utility area shall have an alley frontage of nine and a half (9.5) linear feet with a
ten (10) foot vertical clearance, and seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in depth, as identified
in the plans approved through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission
on May 1,2007.
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 Housine
The affordable housing mitigation requirement shall be satisfied with a payment of cash-in-
lieu for 12.6 square feet of affordable housing at the Category 4 level. The cash-in-lieu
shall be paid at the time of building permit and shall be earmarked for APCHA's use to
"buy down" existing deed-restricted units or proposed deed-restricted units to lower
categories.
Section 8: Off Street Parkine
The Applicant shall provide two (2) off street parking spaces on the adjacent property to
the east to be used as parking for 508 East Cooper.
Section 9: 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 ofthe units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 10: 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
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\cityIJessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.l 0.07.doc
Page 4 of7
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
establishments; 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. The glycol heating and snow melt system (if any) must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system.
Any 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 11: Exterior Lie:htine:
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 12: Landscapine:
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 tree protection zones.
b. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits, any and all tree removal will
be approved by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals shall be satisfied
through planting of street trees adjacent to the site or through payment of cash in lieu.
c. Root trenching will be required around all potentially affected 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.
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
O:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.1 0.07 .doc
Page 5 of7
d. The Applicant is required to make improvements to the City ROW through the
installation of a new Cooper A venue street tree, evenly spaced between the two
existing trees located in front of the neighboring properties. Planting in the Public
Right-Of-Way (ROW) will be subject to Landscaping in the ROW requirements.
Plans for the tree planting should be completed and conceptually approved prior to
building permit submittal.
1. If the sidewalk is kept in tact and does not require replacement then the
applicant will have to work with the Parks Department to saw cut a new
tree well.
2. If the sidewalk is replaced in any manner the applicant will be required to
install a structural tree trench within the tree planting zone.
Trench materials, size and location will require approval of the Parks
Department.
The Applicant is required to install new irrigation to the new tree planting and if
possible to the two existing trees depending on the extent of any new tree trench.
Section 13: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall
be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Fee
Schedule, in place at the time of building permit
Section 14: 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 ten percent of the lot
area prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following
calculation:
Lot area = 2,842 square feet
10% of Lot Area = 284.2 square feet
Payment = $50 x 284.2 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $14,210.00
Section 15: 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.
Sectionl6:
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
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\cityIJessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.l 0.07.doc
Page 6 of?
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 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 18:
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.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 25 day of June, 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of _,2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
G:\city\J essica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.1 0.07 ,doc
508 E. Cooper Ave Subdivision
G:\city\Jessica\Cases\Cooper Street Pier\Council\CooperStPier _ Ordinance9.! 0.07 .doc
Page 7 of?
Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria
508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment
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 Finding
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 of the 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 generates an affordable housing requirement of less than one unit. The
Housing Board has approved the payment of cash-in-lieu for this requirement, which will be
used by the Housing Office to provide andlor buy-down Affordable Housing, meeting the goals
in the Affordable Housing section ofthe AACP.
The project is consistent with the Parks and Open Space section of the AACP as it will include
improvements along sidewalks on East Cooper and will pay a Park Development Impact Fee.
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
Review standards as 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. Indeed, the proposed use mix is fully consistent with the existing uses on the
property. Further, the HPC has reviewed the Application for consistency with the neighborhood
characteristics in the Commercial Core. The design has received conceptual approval from the
HPC, and will go to HPC to receive final approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria
508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Findinl!
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 Findinl!
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 of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because offlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed
subdivision.
Staff Findinl!
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 Findinl!
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 borne by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Page 2 of 4
Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria
508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment
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.
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 a cash-in-lieu payment for the required affordable housing
mitigation, as the requirement generated by the new building is a fraction of a unit (12.6 square
feet of housing). The Applicant is also paying the required cash-in-lieu fee for the Multi-Family
Replacement Program, again because a fraction of a unit is required. The Replacement Housing
requirement is not a GMQS or mitigation requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth
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)
Page 3 of 4
Exhibit A, Subdivision Review Criteria
508 E. Cooper Ave. Redevelopment
Staff Findinf!
The development does not require Growth Management Allotments for the free-market unit or
for the commercial area. The free-rnarket unit generates an Affordable Housing mitigation
requirement of only 12.6 square feet of housing. As stated in part D above, the proposed
development generates a fraction of a unit as GMQS mitigation. The Applicant has stated, and
the Housing Board has recommended, that the mitigation be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment.
The Housing Replacement requirements is not a GMQS or mitigation requirement. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
Page 4 of4
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006
508 E. COOPER AVE, - CONCEPTUAL, COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING
Mitch Haas, planning consultant representing the owner.
Bill Poss, architectural firm representing the owner.
Amy disclosed that a few years ago her husband was the project manager for
the applicant's home and that relationship has ended and her family has no
financial involvement with this project and she has been advised by the
attorney's office that this is not a conflict of interest.
Affidavit of posting - Exhibit I
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director informed the HPC and the
public that the hearing has an architectural focus to it, and whether or not the
aluminum window system and corrugated metal of the building is in fact
historic and whether or not the revisions to the fa9ade are appropriate given
the architecture of the downtown district. This hearing is not about the use
of the building that is determined by the owner. HPC cannot force any
owner to maintain a particular business.
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney relayed that the procedure is very
formal and is used at all hearings. Basically it begins with the applicant
submitting an affidavit of notice of public hearing. This means that people
within 300 feet of the project have been notified and that it has been
published in the paper. That gives the board jurisdiction to proceed. Next, a
staff presentation is done following by the applicant presentation. Then the
commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. At this
point they do not comment as to whether they like the applicant or not.
Then the public hearing is open. Public comments in general help the
project and they help the applicant understand how everyone feels about the
project. The board reviews every project based on review criteria and that is
what they base their decisions on. After the public comments the
commissioners can then comment on the project. The applicant can then
respond and give a summation. Then you go to the motion and vote.
Amy relayed that the subject property is in the Commercial Core Historic
District. The site has always been viewed as a non-contributing building to
the district and it is not land marked designated or was it ever considered.
4
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006
The applicant proposed to demolish the existing floor structure and far,:ade of
the building but to retain existing masonry walls that are on the east, west
and rear portions ofthe building. They will reconstruct the project with
mixed use, residential and commercial space and a unit on top of the
building. They are asking for conceptual approval and also commercial
design standard reviews and demolition review. Staff recommends
continuation to restudy designs that do not comply with the design
guidelines.
The photographs reveal that at some point the entire brick fa~ade was
demolished. The store front windows continued to exist into the 1950's and
later that was destroyed. In the 1970's the metal "Cooper Street Pier Far,:ade
was constructed. What was demolished at one point was a bay that
contained a staircase to the upper floor. What we have on the west is an
interior wall not an exterior wall. The staircase came up ,the side of the
building. There is little 19th Century fabric left on the building. The
important part was the far,:ade and that is gone. Staff fmds that there is no
architectural reason to find that this building should be considered historic or
that we should be concerned with the demolition. A number of the aspects
ofthe development are not into compliance and staff recommends
continuation for the following reasons. The proposal includes recessing
most of the ground floor level five to seven feet. The guidelines indicate
that store fronts should meet the street and have windows right up against
the sidewalk. There is a pattern in town where you had a grand first floor
level which the applicant is providing with a 14 foot plate height but the
older buildings had smaller additional floors of consistent height and here
the second floor is around a ten foot plate height and a third floor that leaps
to 14 feet and we find that is not in compliance with the guidelines. Another
point is that there should be a strong comice line and the proposal does not
represent that. The cornice in the packet actually is pulled back from the
second floor. There is also a deck that is cut into the cornice which projects
over the street which would require an encroachment license that takes away
from the a strong cornice line. Amy pointed out that the board and staff
greatly welcomes new designs to the community, this is an historic district
and that design needs to be strongly informed by the context.
Commercial design review needs to be dealt with. Staff finds conflict with
3, one of which deals with requiring that store fronts at the ground level be
right up at the sidewalk. Another requirement is an airlock which is not
5
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006
being provided and also a trash and delivery area. This project does not
have very direct access to the alley.
Mitch said after reading through the memo they agreed with most of the
points brought up. Our intent is to explain some of our rationale for the type
of design that was taken.
Bill said conceptual is to look at the design and get comments from the
board. We feel the approach goes along with what the public wants. We
have attempted to save all of the historic properties and elements that are in
the building now. The interior wall and the eastern exterior or party wall are
being exposed. We are going to expose the peach blow sandstone in the
lower level. This building was the impetus for a view plane that still exists
today and a protection of a view plane. It is called the East Cooper Ave.
view plane. It initiates from about six feet inside the building. The existing
indoor/outdoor dining area is the start of the view plane and we intend to
keep that area. The design ofthe building can be done to give certain
attributes to the design to encourage dining for particular spaces. There are
not a lot of outdoor dining areas designated in the buildings that we have for
downtown. Using that as a start of our design it allowed us to expose the
interior walls and set it back and guide a potential tenant to use that as
exterior dining.
Bill said when they take the paint off and restore the walls they need to make
sure they have the proper water proofing etc. In trying to preserve the front
dining that is why we are setting back the glass. The elements are to
preserve the historic walls, keep the brick and in order to get more vertical
height to the building we would take the railing and create that as a cornice.
We are using the one wall as a key feature inside as we enter the different
levels. We are also lowering the level ofthe basement to make that more
conducive of a restaurant space. The footprint of the bldg. is 2,642 and in
that we have to have two stairs and an elevator for handicapped access.
The owner of this building owns 7 spaces along the back alley and they are
proposing to take I or Y2 spaces to meet our utility and trash area.
Mitch said at P&Z in the growth management review there will be a special
review to alter the trash utility service area requirements, basically turning it
sideways along the alley.
6
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006
Alison asked about the lower level which indicates a door opening into the
parking next door. Bill said the owners also own two parking spaces in the
lower level of the garage and they will go with pent house.
Derek asked if there was any rationale why 6 feet was chosen as opposed to
coming out further etc. What is the rationalization for the second level
parapet? Bill said they wanted to go with what was existing and go vertical
to use up the height.
Mitch said none of the guidelines indicate that the trash area has to be on
your property it just says it has to abut an alley.
Derek asked if the City has looked at what may be development down the
way and how the recycle ordinance and trash will be affected. Bill said trash
companies have given different containers to sort and recycle and have trash.
Chris Bendon said the trash section was amended a year ago and
Environmental Health was very much involved.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing.
Georgeann Waggaman applauded Amy on her critique and Bill Poss for
trying to keep a restaurant on the first floor. The proportions on the first and
second floor are OK. The railing into a cornice is a good idea. Georgeann
recommended a kick plate. The upper floor has become the tail that wags
the dog. HPC needs to look at these seriously because they are an impact to
our community.
Bill Sterling asked Amy what the percentages were for commercial and
residential with reference to the new ordinance that council just past.
Mitch pointed out that this application was in place before the ordinance was
adopted and they do not have those figures.
David Hoefer pointed out that applicants only have to abide by ordinances
that were in effect that the time the application was made.
Chris said top floor is 27 hundred square foot and the new ordinance says
2,000 but they are not subject to that because the application was submitted
several months ago.
7
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORlC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006
Bill Sterling said the ordinance says no more that 50% residential. The
residential is the economic engine that has been unsettling for people
downtown.
Georgeann said visually the building is too tall.
Ann Wycopp said even though the buildings are not on the register they add
personality and flavor to our town. We are all concerned that this town is
going to look like Vail. We do not understand why our town is moving in
the direction it is so quickly.
David McClure, two year resident. He is new to the process and wants to
get involved. It is surprising that the proposal doesn't come in any Closer to
the guidelines.
The chair closed the public hearing.
Derek addressed to the general audience and said this group in this room is
not so different. We are all on the same boat. Some of the phone calls made
were out of panic or plain ignorance. A lot of what came up was that HPC
members don't care about Aspen. Derek said he doesn't want to see Aspen
destroyed. We do have the idea of what preservation is. Preservation is
keeping something alive in the course of changing times. If we can find a
medium and balance and getting to a place where all sides are represented
and we are conscientiously looking at what this means to the bigger picture
of preservation which is the vibrancies and vitality of Aspen. What people
feel is that we are loosing a special place of what Aspen is. We are working
within a set of parameters and we will be conscientious in our decision
making.
Derek feels the massing and scale is clos'e but he also understands the
concerns of the third and fourth level. Regarding of where the facade of the
wall has to sit at street level he is open to the idea of pushing the space back.
The material palate is appropriate.
Jason said the HPC is a voluntary board and we are here because we care
about Aspen. We are here to protect our buildings. This building is not
historic but it is historic in our hearts. Jason thanked the public for being
part of the process. We are dealing with the new view of Aspen vs. the old
view of Aspen. Aspen is a marketable place and this is an opportunity for
8
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19. 2006
people to invest here. Maintaining the visual impact from the street is
important. The existing entrance could be the airlock and raising the cornice
will solve staff's problems and concerns. Regarding the location of the glass
fa9ade, guideline 13.19 talks about repeating patterns along the block. With
the building there is a recessed entryway. Possibly the front should be
recessed instead of at the street frontage. There is a need to create for the
public what Cooper Street pier looked like. The solid brick second story is
true to what the secondary story looked like.
Alison said we sit on this board because we do love Aspen and take a lot of
time and thought with each project. Why things have changed fast is partly
due to property values, they have sky rocketed. Also codes within the town
change. Keeping the walls is wonderful and we are fortunate to have an
architect who thinks about that. The changes in the second story and the
lower cornice being the railing are appropriate. Alison said she likes the
idea ofthe store front moving to the left and there should be an air-lock.
The suggestion that a kick plate be added also enhances the project.
Regarding the third story, it should be kept in line and the upper cornice
should be smaller.
Jeffrey said he has similar concerns as staff. Relating to Chapter #13 Jeffrey
likes the concept of having a recessed seating area that is enclosed but he is
still feeling that there is a strong representation to make that fa9ade be at the
original property line that was historic. The recessed entryway is
recommended. The historic elements of the second course and the store
front on the first story are very close to what the guideline intents are. The
third and fourth floor needs additional study. Possibly the two story fa9ade
should be reconstructed as Amy mentioned. The concern is the height of the
comice and how it relates to the other context around it. Modifications to
the third story would help the relationship to the pedestrian and the street
and the scale of Aspen. Jeffrey said it is commendable that anyone should
sit through a meeting in excess of 2 hours to voice their opinion. The height
requirement has been met. Perhaps a study of a few corner relationships will
help the overall mass and scale of the structure.
Bill said the kick plate is very important and will be added. They will work
on the upper floor and take down the height. The idea was 14 feet on the
first floor, lOon the second, third and fourth. The national guidelines ask
that we not replicate Victorians. The mason historic buildings have stayed
and the wooden ones got torn down.
9
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2006
MOTION: Derek moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual
development for 508 Cooper Ave. until June 14th; second by Alison. Motion
carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Jeffrey, yes.
430 W. MAIN - WORKSESSION - NO MINUTES
MOTION: Jeffrey moved to adjourn; second by Alison. All infavor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
10
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
UTE CITY BAR AND ORILL
trY Cavaleri requested to take out temporarily and salvage one column d
the 0 bottom panels, kick plate of the store front in order to get dirt t of
the but ing. It appears that the column has already been moved ceo
. --
Jeffrey said you are dea' with an historical
of the commercial core. It s ms very evas'
. It is also in the middle
and he cannot support it.
Alison asked w long it would take. Jerry said four wee
mechanized equi ent, 8 weeks without.
Derek said anything we c
Jason said he wou allow it to be opened up but it
the original st
Jerry s' he can agree with Jason's recommendation.
e board decided to do a site visit.
508 E. COOPER AVE. - CONCEPTUAL - COMMERCIAL
DEASIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC HEARING
Bill Poss and associates.
Amy relayed that the applicant has made a number of changes. They raised
the cornice to emphasize two stories. They brought down the height of the
third floor component of the residential building. Staff feels there needs to
be discussion about the ground floor storefront. Pushing the display
windows back is not meeting the guidelines and maybe it is not the best long
term solution. There is very little area in there to put tables in. If the intent
is to do a restaurant then there should be operable windows.
Staff is also concerned about the void that is created by having a long
hallway which goes down the side of the building to access a basement
space. We also brought up that the staircase column is very solid so we
might want to discuss the materials.
'- .
Amy also said the memo discusses the residential unit on. the top.
Unfortunately for the applicant they are the first project coming in proposing
6
.__... '" I
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
a fourth story. Our guidelines envision a 3 story building. I am not entirely
sure how the board treats a building at this height. Possibly we acknowledge
the building at least as being three stories with a minimal residential space
on top. The stepping back is not necessarily consistent with the downtown
and that area needs discussed. Staff recommends continuation.
Mitch Haas, planner
Mike Hall, project architect
Andy Wisnosky, director of design
Bill said the main issues are the store front with the potential kick plate and
whether the store front is forward or back. Raising the parapet which would
reduce the impact of the residential unit on top. We looked at Amy's idea of
having a three-story but looked at the history and all of the buildings at that
era were set up with store fronts of varying height and parapets ofvarying
heights.
The initial intent was to preserve what is historical here and accentuate it.
We tried to keep visibility to both historic walls. That is one of the reasons
we were stepping the front back to expose the walls. We also stepped it
back due to the political pressure of having the indoor/outdoor look. We can
bring the store front forward if that is what we want to do for historic
preservation. We can still have the indoor/outdoor look with opening
windows.
We are only 30 feet wide so we stacked the stairs. The cornice line was
added and the residential unit is very subdued.
Andy said there was concern about the fourth floor and how it impacted the
character of the street. The fourth floor is set back twice as far as is
required. We are only required to be 15 feet back and we are 30 feet back.
The design is a modern insertion between the historic walls.
Bill said Amy has proposed a rain screen so that we can see through it but
keep the rain out of the stair corridor. We proposed that the entrance
appeared in the older era style and open but we can restudy it. Bill pointed
out that the building no longer exists but the stair remained.
Clarifications:
"H~
7
_. _ .~ .___ ,.._ _1_
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
Jason asked why the staircase isn't entered from the street. Bill said instead
of having two stairs, one going down and one going up we are stacking
them, One goes up to the second level and we also didn't want to loose floor
area. We are trying to have two exits and not have a third stair. We are
using the stair to embrace the historic wall.
Andy said coming from the side is a better solution when it snows etc.
Alison asked about moving the store front forward. Andy said he elected to
pull it back to provide for openness and make the wall more significant.
Alison pointed out that the building to the east is four stories.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Sarah pointed out that our massing doesn't really deal with four stories. The
massing and context of the building has been dealt with very well. Her
concern is the street elevation. Historically, if the store front came to the
front of the street it would conform to our guidelines. The dialogue with the
._ brick walls is interesting but historically all you really saw were the ends.
....0 Exposing it is interesting but we need to look again where the positions of
the windows area. Where the third and fourth story steps back is very
interesting.
Alison also agreed that the third and fourth story is in better scale with the
rest of the street. The 3D model is great. It helps you perceive how the
building looks from the street. She is tom on the store fronts. There is
mixed history for the past 30 years where buildings are stepped back But to
go with the guidelines, moving it forward and having windows that open the
way that they do at Ute City Bank would give you more rentable square feet
and maybe useful all year. The entire project is an improvement.
Derek said massing and scale work with our guidelines. This is an
empathetic solution to what is going on with its surroundings. One area of
concern from a functionality point is the use of the outdoor space and how
that works with a side access door.
Jason said the massing changes are a great improvement. With regards to
the Cooper Street Pier what made it work was the sliding panel door because
it is such a narrow space. We talked about moving the panels to the street
8
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
fa~ade at the last meeting. For me it is a bigger issue with the new wall
scheme and why can't it be seem from the inside and reconfigured.
Jeffrey said we struggle with the property line at street level. Exposing the
party walls is a nice gesture but we would prefer to keep it as much as we
can as a public amenity. He can understand how you engage into the
public/private space. The improvement of the cornice lines with their
horizontality is helpful. The rain screen might cause too much attention to
the historic walls. The reduction in height is in conformance with our
guidelines.
Mitch said we tried to pay homage to the evolution of the building with the
two side walls from the original building. The front is paying homage to
what has been there the last 30 years.
Sarah said this building has always been a solid building so why are we
eroding it with a store front step back. It is very clear that the buildings were
at street level. Even the ones across the street have the historic pattern.
Bill said we were working with a political out cry and we do not know what
is going to be in that space and we can restudy the storefront and if it is the
consensus of our guidelines to keep that straight we will.
MOTION: Derek move to approve Resolution #15 for 508 E. Cooper with
the condition that the fenestration of the fa{:ade element of the first level be
restudied; second by Jeffrey.
Derek pointed out whether you access from the front or side the mass and
scale remain the same.
Jason said he doesn't want it set in stone that the louver will be closed off
and the hallway left open. The doors could also change.
Amy clarified that the motion includes - major development, conceptual,
commercial design review and demolition.
Derek said the motion also includes the access of the stair. They are all
interconnected.
Jason said we talked about movable panels which change the scope of the
, design and there is the question of the difference in theory of entering where
9
--
Exhibit B
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JUNE 14. 2006
the louvers are and having the whole fa~ade go through a corridor. Jason
'-.' said he would rather have the two issues figured out before we approve
demolition.
Roll call vote: Jason, no; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, no; Jeffrey, no.
Motion dies 3-2.
MOTION: Derek moved to continue 508 E. Cooper, conceptual and public
hearing until July 12, 2006; second by Jason.
Roll call vote: Jason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes.
Motion carried. 5-0.
FOX ClWSSING PARK MINOR DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEAltING
stated that the revised plans are much simpler and the trail has bee
away from the historic building. They only thing brought up' the
plant rials. There is a very limited plant palate, some lilac b es that
are native t the period and staff feels we should stick to what as existing.
Possibly lowe edges should be used instead of deciduous ees.
Stan Clausen & asso . tes.
Stan said the new desi as incorporated the bio- tention storage which is
a very successful solution storm water m ement on the site. We
worked with the same type of ant palate i . ially that was approved by City
Council. There is a clear view to e hi ric resources. There is a
considerable amount of grade differ e. An ornamental seed mix will be
used and two locations for signa at th try to the public areas of the
park. We request that a monit be assigne to work with us on the signage.
We also incorporated bac s benches and w Id like HPC's guidance on
the design. With respec 0 guideline 1.13 if the ard feels the row of
Aspen trees is too rn we can make substitutions.
Brain Flynn, P s Dept. said the park now has a very acti and passive use
to it. The c erry and maple trees proposed add color to the sc
Chai erson Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were
p ic comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was close
10
"-, --1-
Exhibit C
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
1111111111111111111111I11 ~~;1~::! ~ 118'
JRNICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00
D 0.00
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL).
DEMOLITION AND COMMERlCAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 508 EAST COOPER STREET. A PORTION OF LOTS L M, AND N,
BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
RESOLUTION NO. 17. SERIES OF 2006
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-24-007.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Joshua Saslove, represented by Poss Architecture + Planning and Haas
Land Planning, has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and Commercial
Design Review for the property located at 508 E. Hopkins Avenue, a portion of Lots L, M and N,
Block 95, 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. 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 owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen, or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and
Additionallv. for anDroval 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
-1-
~~~i~it gooper Ave. Subdivision Review III/Ulnll/IIl 111111111 1111 ~~;~~~:!: I: 18'
JANICE K vas CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO
b.
R 16.00 D 0.00
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
Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation
needs of the area; and
c.
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 26.412 of
the Municipal Code, that the project conforms with the following criteria:
1. 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 applicalion, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
"City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
of5toO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby recommends approval for Major Development (Conceptual), Demolition, and
Commercial Design Review for the property located at 508 East Cooper Street, a portion of Lots
L, M & N, Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, as proposed with the following
conditions;
1. 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
Exhibit C
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
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 content:
HISTORIC PRESERV AnON COMMISSION
~-
K~~~C;;k
jl.,gJ,IIJ,'~'_ ~~~~:,' ,.
,
Exhibit C
508 E, Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 12. 2006
said he would like to see ifthere is a way to have the historic buil s
incorpora ith the other structures.
Derek said his concern is
the master plan.
museum and what is
MOTION: Derek moved t ntinue Willoughby 'Lift 1 Park/Skier
Chalet Steakhouse ic hearing until August 9, 2006; s d by Jason.
Roll call va . ason, yes; Derek, yes; Alison, yes; Sarah, yes; e
Mo' carried 5-0.
508 E, COOPER - CONCEPTUAL - MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND DEMOLITION - PUBLIC
HEARING
Bill Poss and Associates
Mitch Haas - Planning consultant
Bill relayed that at the last meeting direction was to restudy the store front
and the entrance to the upper levels of the building. The plan has a recessed
entry in the center of the store front with a kick plate and glass store front
underneath. We have enclosed and made a private resjdential entry on the
side.
Sara said basically the applicant addressed all the comments and staff
recommends approval. The store front was brought forward.
Bill said it is a great building and the store front actually adds to the design.
Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing.
Derek thanked the applicant for all the effort they put into the process and
the project is fantastic and the applicant was very responsive to our
concems.
Jason and Sarah agreed that the project meets the guidelines.
Alison said the store front matches exactly what the guidelines say.
10
Exhibit C
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN mSTORlC 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.
398 Eo nOPKlNS CONCEFTUAL DEMOLITION FEDESTRIAN
AMENTY SPACE AND YIEW PLANE REVIEW PUBLIC
HEARING
xhibit I - Genre building - fire wall.
Amy plained that staff feels there has been a lot of progress on the roject.
At the la hearing there were a few things asked to be restudied: educe
plate heigh and pulling in the width of the upper floor to min' 'ze the
intrusion of tli Hotel Jerome view plane. Restudy breakin e building
into two 30 foot odules. Allow enough space between e new
construction and th enre building for maintenance to ensure that the
historic siding would n t have to be removed. The plicant has clearly
done a few of these thing reduced the plate hei s and they have also
created the shadow line that as requested. S is still concerned that a
couple things are not resolved. 0 additio breathing room has been given
to the Genre building and architec rally' is not appropriate to butt up
against that building. Genre is an his . c landmark and this building is not.
Staff also feels that the side walls e t been resolved. They have been
pulled in on the lower but not th II dept of the building. The Planning
Office feels strongly that the 'ew plane is i rtant and HPC should take
that concept of negligible i pact very seriously.
Charles Cunniffe, arc Itect stated that HPC verbalize at if we reduce the
plate height by a r. t then the view plane would be a no . ssue at the last
meeting. We h e cut off some square feet and cut down t late heights to
accomplish t t. We are now down to a 3.3 in the view plane. e view
plane is a Iding view plane. Charles pointed out that when the ttages on
Main S eet come before HPC they will want to add two stories.
second issue is the breaking up the front fa~ade and we have
ccomplished that.
11
Exhibit D
508 E. Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - March 20. 2007
ied there was a staircase from the east side of the structure; there was very r
natura . t; it was one large room with a couple of secondary walls.
asked if the 00,000.00 was based on a category 3; she asked wher e number
came from. Chri ndon responded that in the housing guide . there were
housing square footage uirements for mitigating co cial space. Hall said
there was a provision in the c for the buyout of it in a single family home.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to app'r Resolution #007-07 for a Substantial
Amendment to Growth Manageme approva 111 West Hyman Avenue with a
modification to Section 2 str' . g the requirement 0 ditional mitigation fee
based upon the 195 s e feet difference. Steve Skadron onded. Roll call:
Guthrie. yes; Ers er, no; Skadron. yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, y
4-1.
TlNUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/817):
COOPER STREET PIER REDEVELOPMENT
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on Cooper Street Pier
Redevelopment. Jessica Garrow stated the applicant was Joshua Saslove
represented by Mitch Haas and Poss Architecture. Garrow noted P&Z was
charged with Growth Management for new commercial space in a Mixed Use
building; Growth management for free market units in a Mixed Use building;
Growth Management Review for affordable housing and Special Review to vary
the trash, utility and recycle area. P&Z will make a recommendation to City
Council on Subdivision.
Garrow said the applicant will also go through multi-family replacement with an
administrative review. The property was located in the commercial core, a historic
district, and was reviewed by HPC for conceptual design review and commercial
design standards. The lot was 2,842 square feet and currently houses a Mixed Use
building including I free market unit and 4,373 square feet of net leaseable area.
The redevelopment proposal was for a mixed use building with 3,827 square feet
of net leaseable area and I free market residential unit at 2,008 square feet; the
application was submitted prior to Ordinance 12-06 so it does not have to abide by
the 2,000 square foot limit on multi-family units in the Commercial Core Zone
District. The height of the building was proposed at 34 feet along Cooper Avenue
and 44 feet at the top floor; the total FAR was 2.5 to I with commercial FAR of
1.5 to I and free-market at I to I.
Garrow said the existing building generates 15.05 FTEs and the proposed
redevelopment will generate 13.13 FTEs resulting in a reduction in the FTEs
generated by the development therefore there was no affordable housing mitigation
8
~~._,._.,,~w._.._._,_w.__..",_.__
Exhibit D
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Aspen Plannine & Zonine Commission Meetine Minutes - March 20. 2007
required and staff finds the redevelopment meets the criteria for conunercial space
in a mixed use building.
Garrow said there was Growth Management for a free market unit in a mixed use
building. The existing development includes a single one-bedroom free market
unit in a mixed use building at 1,966 square feet of net livable space; the proposal
includes a single free market unit with 2,008 square feet of net livable. The
redevelopment generates a total of 42 square feet of net livable space and the
mitigation requirements in the growth management review require the applicant to
mitigate 30% of the new square footage provided; that requirement would be 12.6
square feet. The applicant proposed and the Housing Board reconunended that this
requirement be satisfied with a cash-in-lieu payment, which is just under $4,000.00
and will go into housing fund to buy down other units.
Garrow said the next Growth Management review was for affordable housing,
which was satisfied with a cash-in-lieu payment and staff felt this met the review
criteria.
Garrow said there was a Special Review to vary the trash, utility and recycling
area; due to site specific constraints the applicant requested special review to vary
the dimensions ofthis area. The code required a trash/utility/recycle area that
measures 15 feet in width (along the alley), 10 foot in depth and 10 foot clearance;
this lot has only 2.34 linear feet in the alley. The applicant acquired an adjacent
parking space so the total alley frontage was 9.5 feet for the trash/utility/recycle
area; the depth was 17.5 feet; the total of the trash/utility/recycle area 166.25
square feet, which exceeded the required. Staff reconunended approval.
Garrow said that Subdivision met all ofthe criteria and the site was appropriate for
development and the proposal was consistent with the character of the area and
uses in the area and met the goals of the Aspen Area Conununity Plan. The
proposal placed new development inside the urban growth boundary, promotes
transportation goals by providing development in close proximity to transit routes
and does not require Growth Management Allotments.
Garrow said the Multi-family replacement was an administrative review; the
applicant will pay almost $311,000.00 allocated to the housing fund; the total the
applicant will pay is $314,975.43. Staff recommends approval of the project.
Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, stated the existing property was quite small
and constrained at 2800 + square feet with a flagpole shape extending to the alley.
Haas said the basement was a restaurant and the ground floor was the Cooper
Street Pier with a mezzanine level and above that was a residential rental unit that
9
Exhibit D
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Aspen Plannin2 & Zonin2 Commission Meetin2 Minutes - March 20. 2007
has been there for some time. Haas said the proposal was essentially a clean
redevelopment and the property has been through HPC even though the property
was not designated historic but just within the Commercial Core. Haas said that
they did engage in a historic preservation effort that was not required. The
proposal was a basement level and I st level of commercial use with an open area
that would look down to the 1 st floor and the east side was circulation and
common areas (stairways). There was a reduction in the net leasable commercial
square footage so there were no affordable housing or parking mitigation
requirements; the existing property has no parking whatsoever. Haas said in the
basement level there would be a passage through the basement easterly wall to the
parking garage next door to be able to use 2 parking spaces. They have acquired
one of the parking spaces in the back to use as a trash service area but could not
meet the 15 foot requirement for the alley frontage; the requirement for trash
service/utility area was 15 feet by 10 feet or 150 square feet; they are providing
166 square feet. Haas said that they were providing 2 parking spaces next door.
Haas noted the total mitigation for affordable housing was 12.6 square feet of
affordable housing so they were providing cash-in-lieu. The multi-family
replacement requirement was an administrative review.
Haas stated that the city designated a view plane from this property and the city
requested street trees planted right in front of the view plane.
Andy Wisnoski, architect, stated that this was a constrained challenging site being
land locked on both sides; the building fronts one direction. The vertical
circulation plan was new to this proposal with two means of egress from the
building with an elevator in the center. Wisnoski provided the history of the
building beginning when it was originally built in the late 1800s and the building
burnt down or collapsed from decay during the 1 940s; he provided photos and
somewhere in the 1960s it was brought to the way the building sits today.
Wisnoski said that the two brick walls were all that was left ofthe original
building, which maintains an important piece of the history ofthis particular
building. Wisnoski explained the architecture and showed what the code allows in
height for this building; the proposed building fits into the neighboring building
heights along the street. Wisnoski said there was a penthouse on the top floor.
LJ Erspamer asked about the tree placement. Jessica Garrow responded that Parks
requested street trees added in specific locations. Garrow said the placement of the
tree does not hinder the view plane and will not have a negative impact on that
view plane; it was not a land use but a landscaping feature.
10
Exhibit D
508 E. Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review
Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 20. 2007
Steve Skadron said that he found himself conflicted by the HPC conceptual
approval and requested clarification on the HPC Resolution Criteria A that said the
structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel. Skadron felt that the
pedestrian amenity space contributed to the parcel and brought vitality to area.
Garrow said that the HPC went through a number of iterations at conceptual; the
design added operable windows along the street frontage and could potentially be a
restaurant again. Haas said there were 3 HPC hearings; the first form was similar
to the existing space but HPC did not approve that iteration. Wisnoski said the
current thinking within the commercial guidelines was that in this zone district the
building should front the street; the only setback was for the door very similar to
the original building. Jason Lasser explained historic building form. Ruth Kruger
inquired about the view plane designated for that amenity space. Haas said that he
did not want to belabor the street tree. Garrow noted that P&Z could recommend
the street tree be removed.
Skadron asked if condominiumization was to solely demark ownership. Garrow
replied that there would be different ownership within the building.
LJ Erspamer asked if the space was vented for a restaurant. Wisnoski replied at
the time it was not but it can be.
David Guthrie asked the highest point of the building and the buildings next to it.
Ruth Kruger asked why it was an administrative review for the multi-family
replacement. Jessica Garrow replied that was the way it was written in the code.
Kruger asked for the how and why that happened for the next meeting. Kruger
said that she hated to see the commercial space get so small. Haas said the
basement had commercial space and it was mitigated as net leaseable.
Kruger asked if the parking was purchased in the building next door. Andy Hecht
replied that there were parking spaces in the back of the building next door that
were purchased and 2 spaces in the basement. Kruger asked what the construction
management plan for this constrained site was. Haas responded that very detailed
construction management plans would be required before a building permit would
be issued.
Public Comments:
1. Toni Kronberg, public, said that the attractiveness of this spot was all of the
sunshine and did not want to see this go to a referendum. Kronberg said that
restaurants were an amenity and the trees were an impediment to the shopping
experience. Kronberg applauded the first design but not the current.
11
Exhibit D
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Asnen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetine: Minutes - March 20. 2007
Garrow commented that she would like to add that there were 7 parking spaces
provided by the redevelopment.
Skadron complimented the applicant on the aesthetic improvement of this building
and attempting to capture the structural components. Skadron said that he could
not support this because he did not feel that it met the fundamental goals set forth
in the Aspen Area Community Plan specifically it fails in creating social
interaction, it fails in promoting lifestyle diversity and it fails in encouraging a
diverse retail environment and makes it more restrictive. Skadron said that it does
not meet criteria A for Subdivision or for the growth management for free-market
residential units.
Guthrie mentioned the store fronts in other western historic towns with big street
windows had restaurants. Guthrie said the walls were the best part ofthat building.
Guthrie said that was a terrible place for another tree and suggested putting another
tree somewhere else.
Erspamer said the project that he liked has the front setback. Wisnoski said the
windows would open.
Kruger said that she had a problem because the view plane was created for a
pedestrian amenity and she could not see having the view plane without the
pedestrian amenity.
Garrow clarified the view plane by saying that they originate at one point and fan
out and up in elevation; the view plane does not originate on the Cooper Street
property but at a point on the right-of-way; same with the Courthouse, Wheeler
and Jerome. Garrow stated the view plane starts off of the Cooper Street property
and goes up.
.
Motion: Steve Skadron moved to continue the hearing on Cooper Street to May
}'I; seconded by David Guthrie. All infavor, APPROVED.
Adjourned at 7:05 pm.
\)aCk~
/Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
v
12
Exhibit 0
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES Mav 01. 2007
Ruth opened the regular Planning & Zoning meeting at 4:40 pm in the Sister Cities
Meeting Room. Commissioners Brian Speck, LJ Erspamer, Steve Skadron and
Ruth Kruger were present. John Rowland, David Guthrie and Dylan Johns were
excused. Staff in attendance: Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger inquired about the website not being updated; tonight's meeting was
not even posted. Kruger also stated that it would be good if the City Council
Grassroots telecast could be viewed online and that the Grassroots phone number
was incorrect; she commented that Snowmass had a playback option.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (03/20/07):
COOPER STREET PIER REDEVELOPMENT - 508 EAST COOPER
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for Cooper Street Pier
redevelopment: subdivision, special review, multi-family replacement and growth
management review.
Jessica Garrow provided a brief overview being that Planning & Zoning was
charged with 3 Growth Management Reviews: one for new commercial in a mixed
use building; one for free-market units in a mixed use building and one for
affordable housing. There was a Special Review to vary the trash, utility and
recycle area and recommend to Council the Subdivision request. Garrow said the
property was located in the Commercial Core, which is a historic district; the
design of the building was not under the purview of Planning & Zoning but rather
the Historic Preservation Commission.
Garrow said the lot was 2,842 square feet with a mixed use building and the
proposal was to replace this with another mixed use building, which would include
one free-market residential unit. This application was submitted prior to
Ordinance 12 so it therefore did not have to abide by the 2,000 square foot limit on
multifamily units; the free-market unit was only 8 square feet above the 2,000
square foot limit. Staff recommended approval and the proposal met every code
requirement.
Garrow said that the owner of this property has entered into an agreement with the
adjacent property owner to use some of the alley spaces to increase the size of the
trash, utility and recycle area and the redevelopment would have 2 parking spaces.
2
'....0..._-
Exhibit D
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
ASPEN PLANNING & WNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES Mav 01. 2007
Garrow said the Parks Depamnent requested a tree be placed in front of the store
windows and P&Z requested the tree not be placed in the view plane; the reference
for this tree will be removed from the resolution. Section 12 of the resolution was
specifically for existing street trees or trees on adjacent properties that may be
impacted by the construction on this site.
Garrow said in Section I there was a typo, which should be 37 feet instead of 100
feet. The multifamily replacement was included to the code during the infill
amendment and this was included as an administrative review. In the future this
will be a planning & zoning review.
Steve Skadron asked if there were any significant changes to this project. Garrow
responded the only changes were the elimination of the street tree and addition of
parking.
Mitch Haas said there were no issues with the staff recommendations and want to
work towards solutions for issues. Haas noted the constrained site was boxed in on
three sides and the requests for special review were out of necessity. Haas said the
HPC approval does not allow the building street front to be moved back. Haas said
the free-market unit went up by about 40 square feet. The affordable housing
mitigation was 12.6 square feet of mitigation, which it seemed only logical to
propose cash-in-lieu given the site constraints.
Andrew Hecht said that if the recessed front was important from the original plan
then Council could tell HPC to amend their decision.
LJ Erspamer said that Andrew brought up a good point and they were all
concerned about that store front and it was the process.
Ruth Kruger said it was a shame when the HPC and P&Z have differences. Kruger
said that she liked the project but would continue to be mystified at how there can
be a view plane from a private property, which was a code matter.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #6, series 2007, approving
with conditions, the three (3) Growth Management Reviews and Special Review
under the purview of the Planning Commission and recommending City Council
approve with conditions the subdivision of 508 East Cooper with the amendments
of Section 1 the minimum lot width was 37 feet, Section 12 providing clarifying
language of the street trees and Section 5 the approval date of May 1. Seconded
by LJ Erspamer. Roll call: Skadron, no; Speck, yes; Erspamer, yes; Kruger. yes.
APPROVED 3-1.
3
Exhibit 0
508 E. Cooper Ave, Subdivision Review
ASPEN PLANNING & WNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES Mav 01. 2007
Discussion of vote: Skadron said that there was merit to this project; the free-
market unit could have gone bigger and appreciates that it was not; the
preservation of the historic internal element was commendable; improving the
overall aesthetic of the building will go along way for the community. Skadron
said the reasons that he voted no were stated in the minutes of March 20th.
The minutes would be approved at the next meeting.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
4
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
RESOLUTION NO.6
(SERIES OF 2007)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEWS, SPECIAL REVIEW, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION AND
COMDOMINIUMIZA TION FOR 508 E. COOPER AVENUE, LOTS L, M, N,
BLOCK 95, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737-182-24-007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Joshua Saslove, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC, requesting approval of
three (3) Growth Management Reviews, Subdivision Review, and Special Review to
construct a mixed-use building consisting of 4,263 square feet of commercial space, and
one free-market residential unit; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Commercial Design Review Approval 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 duly noticed public hearing on March 6, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to April 3, 2007; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission made a motion to reconsider the continuance date, and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Connnission continued the public hearing to March 20, 2007; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 20, 2007, the Planning
and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to May 1,2007; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 1, 2007, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.006, Series of 2007, bya three to one (3-1)
vote, approving three Growth Management Reviews for the development of a mixed-use
building that includes commercial space, and free market housing, Special Review, and
recommending that City Council approve with conditions the proposed subdivision and
condominiumization to construct a mixed-use building consisting of one (1) free-market
residential unit and 4,263 square feet of commercial space located on the property at 508
E. Cooper Ave, Lots L, M, N, Block 95, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
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:
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; and, Special Review to vary the
dimensional requirements for the utility/trash/recycling area, all in order to construct a
mixed-use building consisting of one (1) free-market residential unit and 4,263 square
feet of commercial space located on the property at 508 E. Cooper Ave, Lots L, M, N,
Block 95, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The use mix Illd dimensional requirements
shall comply with the CC zone district, as described in the staff memorandum and
included in the chart below. Specific square footage requirements may be amended
provided compliance with the CC zone district is maintained.
Minimum Lot
Size
Minimum Lot
Width
Minimum Lot
Area/Dwellin
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
2,842 sq. ft.
No requirement
37 Feet
No requirement
N/A
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
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
Minimum
Distance
between
Building: 34 Feet along Cooper
Ave
44 Feet for top floor (setback
from ro ert line)
N/A
Maximum
Height
Page 2 016
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Coo er Ave. Subdivision Review
Buildings on
Lot
Pedestrian
Amenity S
Cash-in-Lieu fee of $50 per 1000
s uare feet = $14,210for this lot
Pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Pedestrian
Ameni
Section 2: Plat and A2reement
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 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: Buildin2 Permit Application
The building permit application shall include the following:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance, P&Z Resolution, and HPC 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. 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 CMP
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.
e. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet adopted building code
requirements.
f. An approved Landscape Plan.
Section 4: Dimensional Requirements
The building as presented in the plans contained within the application dated September
2006, 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: Trash/Utilitv Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof and meet the Certificate of Appropriateness
regulations pertaining to size and security.
Page 3 of 6
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
The trash/utility area shall have an alley frontage of nine and a half (9.5) linear feet with a
ten (10) foot vertical clearance, and seventeen and a half (17.5) feet in depth, as identified
in the plans approved through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission
on May 1,2007.
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 Housin!!
The affordable housing mitigation requirement shall be satisfied with a payment of cash-in-
lieu for 12.6 square feet of affordable housing at the Category 4 level. The cash-in-lieu
shall be paid at the time of building permit and shall be earmarked for APCHA's use to
"buy down" existing deed-restricted units or proposed deed-restricted units to lower
categories.
Section 8: Off Street Parkin!!
The Applicant shall provide two (2) off street parking spaces on the adjacent property to
the east to be used as parking for 508 East Cooper.
Section 9: Water Deoartment 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 10: 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
establishments; 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
Page 4 016
-""'----~'~-~. ..-~_._~--
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
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 (if any) must be designed to prohibit and
discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system.
Any 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 11: 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 12: Landscapinl!:
The following conditions shall apply to any affected street trees or trees located on
adjacent property affected by construction.
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 tree protection zones.
b. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits, tree removal will be approved
by the Parks Department. Mitigation for removals shall be satisfied through planting
of street trees adjacent to the site or through payment of cash in lieu.
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.
Section 13: Park Development Impact Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant
shall pay a park development impact fee prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall
be calculated according to the fee schedule in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Fee
Schedule, in place at the time of building permit
Section 14: 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 ten percent of the lot
area prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following
calculation:
Lot area = 2,842 square feet
10% of Lot Area = 284.2 square feet
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit E, P&Z Resolution
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Pavment = $50 x 284.2 square feet
Pedestrian Amenity Cash-in-Lieu = $14,210.00
Section 15: 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.
Sectionl6:
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 1st
day of May, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Ruth Kruger, Chair
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
G:\cityIJessica\Cases\Cooper Street PierIP&Z\StaffPZ Reso5,l.07.doc
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer
Date: December 13, 2006
Re: 508 Cooper Street, Cooper Street Pier Redevelopment
The Development Review Committee (DRC) has been asked to review the proposed
Cooper Street Pier redevelopment at the December 13, 2006 meeting. The DRC has
compiled the following comments:
Attendees; Jessica Garrow, City Planner; Aaron Reed, Engineering; Phil Overeynder,
Public Works; Todd Grange, City Zoning; Denis Murray, City Building; Ed VanWalraven,
AFPD; Stephen Ellsperman, Public Works; Trish Aragon, Engineering; Adam Trzcinski,
Engineering; Chris Forman, City Parks; Brian Flynn, City Parks; Mitch Haas, Haas Land
Planning
Building Department - Denis Murray;
. Efficient Commercial Building requirements effective at the time will be
enforced at the time of building permit. If they are in place, the Applicant will
need to meet these standards.
. Cannot have an opening on a property line. The basement level as designed
does not meet building codes.
. Not certain the exit from the first floor to the alley meets requirements regarding
required protection. Please confirm conformance with requirements prior to
building permit.
. A Construction Management Plan meeting the requirements of the City will be
required at pre-submittal.
Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven;
. Sprinklers for life safety are required.
. The line will need to be sized large enough so fire pumps are not required.
. Please confirm the location of the dumpster from the building. There could be
problems with it's location - could mitigate with sprinklers in a covered
trash/utility/recycle area
. Alarm systems need to be included in the project.
Engineering Department - Tricia Aragon, Adam Trzcinski;
. A Comprehensive CMP is required. Coordinate cranes, etc.
. Will need to address the Cooper Avenue sidewalk usage in the high season.
. Will need to examine how Storm Water is conveyed, and work with the
Engineering Department accordingly to determine what will be required.
. Dry Wells may not be the appropriate solution on this site. Please work with the
Engineering Department on a proposal.
. The curb should remain in it's existing condition. There is a 2% slope from the
building to the sidewalk that should be retained
Page 1 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
Construction Management - Aaron Reed;
. A very specific CMP is required for this project. Creative staging will be
necessary. Staging is not permitted in the alley. A copy of the CMP requirements
is available in the City Com. Dev. office
. There are standards regarding time periods construction may occur. Please
reference Title 21 of the Municipal Code.
Parks - Brian Flynn;
. Applicant is required to make improvements to the City ROW through the
installation of a new street tree, evenly spaced between the two existing trees
located in front of the neighboring properties.
o If the sidewalk is kept in tact and does not require replacement then the
applicant will have to work with the Parks Department to saw cut a new
tree well.
o If the sidewalk is replaced in any manner the applicant will be required to
install a structural tree trench within the tree planting
zone. Trench materials, size and location will require approval of the
Parks Department.
. Applicant is required to install new irrigation to the new tree planting and if
possible to the two existing trees depending on the extent of any new tree
trench.
Community Development Engineer - No Attendance;
Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Tom Bracewell;
. Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food
processing establishments. Retrofitting will not be permitted.
. Will need a good storm water management plan that details where the trench
drain will go and all details associated with its placement. Retrofits to existing
site will be required in order to meet all current standards.
. Separate drains are required.
. The current surface drain is a problem. Please examine and make into a pump
system on both sides of the alley.
. Provide all detailed utility plans to the department.
. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office at time of construction.
. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated
daily average and peak flows from the project.
. A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the
applicant.
. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio
drains), including entranced to underground parking garages.
. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garaged and
vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the
O/S interceptor.
. On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must
accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations
and specifications.
. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Page 2 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
. Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by
the district.
. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and
must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by
the applicant prior to building permit.
. When new service lines are required for existing development, the old service
lines (5) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements.
. Below grade development may require installation of an ejector pumping system.
. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements
may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements
or right of ways to the lot line of each development.
. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard
landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated 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).
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 (Separate Recommendation provided)
Parking - No Attendance
Asset Management - No Attendance
Zoning - Todd Grange;
. External lighting will need to be addressed
. Provide a detailed explanation of the fees required and paid, as well as cash-in-
lieu payments, at the time of building permit
Environmental Health - Jannette Murison;
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.
Page 3 of 9
Exhibit F, ORC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
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 bv reguiring the use of all
available practical methods and technigues to control. prevent and reduce air pollution
throughout the citv..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek
to "lessen conaestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as
to "provide clean air bv protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates. this development will
result in a net decrease in traffic then the current use of two restaurants and one residential
unit. Thus the size of this development will NOT have a pernicious (negative) effect
on the air quality.
REMINDERS FOR OTHER 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.
The applicant has not provided adequate space for utility/trash/recycling services.
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 utility/trash service area is
recommended for recycling facilities. This may require the use of two parking spaces,
such that the containers can be easily accessed by both the users and the trash and
recycling haulers.
* 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').
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 of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru
Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays.
Page 4 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
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 and/or 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. If there 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 (1) hour
period of time.
FIREPlACEIWOODSTOVE 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 woodstoves (or 1 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 of haul 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 be it is in compliance 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. Also, final approval from
this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a
Colorado Food Service License.
Page 5 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
POOLS AND SPAS
All design, installation and maintenance must comply with :Swimming Pool and Mineral
Bath Regulations, Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, adopted
August 15,1993." A copy can be obtained from our office.
Public Works I Water I Electric - Steve Hunter;
. No Comments made
Page 6 of 9
Exhibit F, ORC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jessica Garrow, Community Development
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE:
January 4, 2007
RE: 508 EAST COOPER A VENUE REDEVELOPMENT (aka
COOPER ST. PIER)
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-24-007
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval for the redevelopment of the property located
at 508 East Cooper Avenue.
BACKGROUND: The property is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. The
redevelopment is to include a mix of commercial and residential uses. The existing
structure, the Cooper Street Pier, has been approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation
Committee to be demolished. The redeveloped building is to include the following:
. Basement Level: 1,405 square feet of net leasable area (NLA), storage space, a
bathroom, an elevator, and circulation corridors and stairs.
. Ground Floor: 1,328 square feet of NLA with storefront windows, storage space, a
bathroom, an elevator, and circulation corridors and stairs.
. Second Floor: 1,094 square feet of NLA, storage space, a bathroom, an elevator,
and circulation corridors and stairs. An area along the west wall will remain open to
the level below.
. Third and Fourth Levels: One free-market residence with 2,008 square feet of net
livable area split between two levels - level three to contain 1,147 square feet and
the top level to include 861 net livable square feet.
In total, the project is to include three levels of commercial space and residential space. The
two-bedroom unit replaces an existing one-bedroom residence.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING & MITIGATION REOUIREMENTS:
Free-Market Residential 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 existing structure contains 1,966 square
feet of above-grade net livable free-market residential space. The proposed redevelopment
is to include 2,008 square feet of above-grade net livable free-market residential space.
The total additional free-market residential net livable space is 42 square feet. Therefore,
12.6 square feet of above-grade net livable employee housing is required (42 X 30% =
12.6). Section 8 of the Guidelines states that 400 square feet of employee housing is
Page 7 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
equivalent to housing for one FTE. The end requirement attributable to the free-market
component would be 12.6 + 400 = .0315. The applicant is requesting to pay the cash-in-
lieu fee of$3,915.67 (Category 4 $124,037 X 0.0315 = $3,915.67).
Commercial Space Mitigation Requirement: Under Section 26.470.050(A), 60% of the
employees generated by the additional commercial space needs to be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu. The CC Zone District generates 4.1 FTE's
per 1,000 square feet of net leasable floor area (NLA) on the first level and 3.075 FTE's per
1,000 square feet of NLA on the upper floor. The existing development contains 1,558
square feet on the first floor and 2,815 square feet on the basement and upper floor.
Therefore, the existing first floor NLA generates 6.39 FTE's ([1,558 s.f. + 1,000] x 4.1),
and the existing upper floor and basement generates 8.66 FTE's ([2,815 s.f. + 1,000] x
3.075). In total, the existing structure generates 15.05 FTE's.
The redevelopment includes 1,328 square feet of commercial space on the first floor
generating 5.45 FTE ([1,328 s.f. + 1,000] x 4.1) and 7.68 FTE on the basement and upper
floor ([2,499 s.f. + 1,000] x 3.075). Therefore, the total redevelopment generates a total of
13.13 FTE's (5.45 + 7.68).
The existing structure generates 15.05 FTE's and the redevelopment generates 13.13;
therefore, since there is a reduction, there is no housing mitigation requirement attributable
to the commercial component.
Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program Requirement: The existing residential unit is
within a mixed-use building; therefore the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program
section comes into play. This section states that "the owner shall be required to construct
replacement housing consisting of no less than 50% of the number of units, 50% of the
number of bedrooms, and 50% of the square footage of net residential area demolished."
The existing residential area to be demolished is a one one-bedroom unit of 1,966 net
livable square feet. The MFHRP would require one-half of a unit, one-half of a bedroom
and 983 square feet of replacement housing. The Code allows for a fractional requirement
to be satisfied through cash-in-lieu. This calculates to be $305,795.22 ((983 + 400 sq. ft.
per FTE = 2.46; 2.46 X $124,307 [Category 4 requirement]) = $305,795.22).
Total HousingfMitigation Required: The Free-Market Residential component requires a
payment of $3,915.67 and the MFRP component requires a cash payment of $305,795.22;
therefore, total cash-in-lieu payment required is $309,710.89.
However, under the MFRP, a 950 square foot Category 4 unit could be constructed on site
that would fully satisfy the mitigation and housing replacement requirements.
Although the Code provides an applicant with the right to satisfy fractional housing
replacement requirements via cash-in-lieu, the Housing Guidelines prefer on-site housing.
A 983 square foot Category 4 unit could be constructed on site that would satisfy the
mitigation requirement under the Multi-Family Replacement Program. Staff met with the
Mitch Haas, the applicant's Planner. The lot size is 2,842 square feet and is a very
Page 8 of 9
Exhibit F, DRC and Housing Comments
508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision Review
constrained lot with buildings abutting on three sides. Part of the structure also has historic
value and will remain. The potential for a unit would be on the second level and contain no
windows. Under the Multi-Family Replacement program, the housing required is for half
of a unit, half of a bedroom and 983 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the approval at their Regular
Meeting held January 3, 2007 and due to the fractionality of the housing requirement, the
applicant is not required to provide an employee-housing unit. The Board recommends
approval of the project with the mitigation being satisfied via the cash-in-lieu payment of
$309,710.89 with the following condition; the cash-in-lieu fee shall be earmarked to "buy
down" existing deed-restricted units or proposed deed-restricted units to lower categories.
Page 9 of 9
Exhibit G, 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision
Land Use Code Section 26.435.050, Mountain View Plane Review
C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a
mountain view lane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination
that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum
allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title, development shall proceed
according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a planned unit development, so as to
provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and
height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot
width, yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the
Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed
as a planned unit development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines
that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located
in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will
further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that redevelopment of the
adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed
development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and re-redevelopment to
reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
exempt the development from the requirements of this section.
Exhibit H, 508 E. Cooper Ave. Subdivision
Land Use Code Section 26.104.100, Definitions
Subdivision. The process, act, or result of dividing land into two or more lots, parcels, or
other units of land or separate legal interests, for the purpose of transfer of ownership,
leasehold interest, building, or development, or for the creation or alteration of streets or
right-of-ways. Subdivision shall also include the realignment, alteration or elimination of any
lot line or property boundary established by and/or reflected on a plat or deed recorded in the
office of the Clerk and County Recorder for Pitkin County, and land to be used for
condominiums. aoartments. or any other multiole dwelling units, or for time sharing dwelling
units. Unless the division of land as specified below is undertaken for the purpose of evading
this Title, "subdivision" does not apply to any division of land:
(a) Which is created by judicial proceeding or order of a court of competent jurisdiction
in this state, or by operation of law, provided that the city is given notice of and an
opportunity to participate in the judicial proceeding prior to the entry of any such
court order;
(b) Which is reflected or created by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security
instrument;
(c) Which is created or reflected in a security or unit of interest in any investment trust
regulated under the laws of Colorado, or any other interest in an investment entity;
(d) Which creates cemetery lots;
(e) Which creates an interest in oil, gas, minerals or water which is severed from the
surface ownership or real property; or
(f) Which is created by the acquisition of an interest in land by reason of marriage or
blood relationship, joint-tenancy, or tenants-in-common. Any such interest is for the
purposes of this Title a single interest.