HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20180917
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 17, 2018
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #129 - Contract for loader mount snowblower
b) Resolution #133, Series of 2018 - Aspen Housing Partners Construction Loan
Term Sheets
c) Minutes - August 27 & 28, September 4 & 6, 2018
VII. Notice of Call-Up
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #25, Series of 2018 - Expanding Investment Options to Include CHFA
Debt
IX. Sign Code Amendments
a) Resolution #127, Series 2018 - Sandwich Board Sign Policy Resolution
b) Ordinance #24, Series of 2018 - Sandwich Board Sign Code Amendment
X. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #108, Series of 2018 - Historic Preservation Benefits Policy Resolution
b) Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 - 333 Park/931 Gibson - Relocation
XI. Action Items
XII. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting September 24, 2018
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
· Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
P1
· Tone and Tenor Matter
· Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THRU: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE: September 17th, 2018
RE: Resolution # 129 Series of 2018 Loader Mount Snow Blower Replacement
purchase contract 2018-50833
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks Council approval of contract 2018-50833 for the
replacement of a Kodiak loader-mount snow blower.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The 2018 Fleet Management Plan contains the funds for
the replacement of our existing snow blower and was approved as part of the 2018 Budget.
BACKGROUND: The current snow blowers used by the Street Department is Kodiak model
LMSC3644. They are built specifically to load dump trucks in our snow removal process. The
blowers are the back bone of the operation enabling us to pick up and remove the snow on the
highway and in the downtown core.
DISCUSSION: The contract for the new Kodiak America blower is based on a sole source
selection. We currently have two Kodiak snow blowers in use and one is scheduled to be
replaced this year. Staff has been pleased with the operation and reliability of the Kodiak and
prefers to keep the same model in the fleet for ease of operations, compatibility, parts and
maintenance.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Street Department has $215,000 in the 2018 budget
for replacement of the blower. The new Kodiak snow blower is $260,178 minus $69,000 trade-
in allowance from Kodiak on the older blower. The total contract price after trade-in is
$191,178.00
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The new blower has a Scania 400 HP tier IV final diesel
engine that complies with 2018 off road emissions and is equipped with a diesel exhaust fluid
after treatment system and a diesel particulate filter that complies with the Tier IV diesel
emissions making more environmentally friendly than the current model.
Sustainability initiative? Yes
Outcome area affected: Air Quality
P3
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
Key metrics affected: Reduction in particulate matter and ozone pollution from vehicle
emissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends council approve contract for 2018-50833 for
the replacement of a Kodiak snow blower for the City of Aspen Streets Department.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution # 129 of 2018
On the consent calendar of Monday September 17th, 2018
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P4
VI.a
RESOLUTION # 129
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND KODIAK AMERICA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for 1
loader mount snow blower, between the City of Aspen and Kodiak America, a true
and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for 1 loader mount snow blower, between the City of Aspen and Kodiak America,
a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein and does hereby
authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 17th day of September 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, September 17th, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P5
VI.a
P6
VI.a
P7
VI.a
P8
VI.a
P9
VI.a
P10
VI.a
P11
VI.a
P12
VI.a
P13
VI.a
P14
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: September 10, 2018
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
RE: Resolution 133 of 2018
Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) Construction Loan Term Sheets
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approval of the attached construction
loan term sheets per Council direction from the August 14, 2018 work session.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the August 14, 2018 work session, Council provided
direction to staff to submit the proposed construction loan term sheets with a resolution on the
Council’s consent agenda.
DISCUSSION: The Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) project will create a total of 45 affordable
rental units on three City-owned parcels. Combined, the three sites will have an average APCHA
income category of about 1.9. On April 13, 2018, staff notified Council that 4% + State Low
Income Housing Tax Credits were awarded by the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA)
as requested.
At the August 14, 2018 work session, staff proposed that by performing the construction
lending on the project, the City of Aspen can save the project approximately $400,000 in
construction loan interest and loan origination fees.
During the August 14, 2018 work session, staff presented a range of potential City contribution
to the project as $15.2 million to $16.1 million. The attached construction loan term sheets are
based on the high end of this range.
As was discussed at the August 14, 2018 work session, to perform this construction lending,
Council will need to approve supplemental budget authority in an amount of approximately $9
million more than the already-approved $17 million budget.
After 24 months, the non-permanent portion of the total construction loan (about $9.9 million)
will be repaid to the City with 2% to 2.5% interest, leaving outstanding only the City’s
permanent contribution of $16.1 million (or less).
It is important to note that the attached term sheets by themselves are not binding of any action
on the part of the City of Aspen. The attached term sheets and the accompanying resolution
simply serve as public documents which will allow the staff to offer the construction loans to
AHP, and which will help facilitate AHP’s ability to secure the remaining debt financing
required to complete the project.
P15
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
Building permits are anticipated for all three sites by mid-October, and once those are in hand, a
financial closing will be needed to assemble funds for construction. Throughout the remainder of
the project, staff and the AHP team will continue to work toward decreasing the City’s
contribution to the project.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The 150 Housing Development Fund currently has the
additional fund balance needed to perform the construction lending. Per the August 14 work
session, the revised subsidy per FTE for the three AHP sites combined is about $280,000 per
FTE. Whereas an extrapolated Fee-In-Lieu amount for an average APCHA income category 1.9
is approximately $325,000 per FTE.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council follow through on the August 14
direction and approve the attached resolution and construction loan term sheets.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 133 of 2018
2. Exhibit A: Construction Loan Term Sheet – 488 Castle Creek
3. Exhibit B: Construction Loan Term Sheet – 802 West Main Street
4. Exhibit C: Construction Loan Term Sheet – 517 Park Circle
P16
VI.b
1
RESOLUTION#133
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CONCERNING
THE ASPEN HOUSING PARTNERS PROJECT AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF
NON-BINDING CONSTRUCTION LOAN TERM SHEETS AND TO SET FORTH THE CITY
OF ASPEN’S INTENT AS CONSTRUCTION LENDER
WHEREAS the provision of affordable housing is important to allow people who work in
the City of Aspen (the “City”) and Pitkin County to live near where they work and to be part of
the community; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Housing Partners project (the “Project”) is a 45-unit affordable
rental project consisting of (24) units to be developed at 488 Castle Creek Road, (10) units to be
developed at 802 West Main Street and (11) units to be developed at 517 Park Circle; and
WHEREAS, the three borrowing entities shall be 488 Castle Creek LLC, 802 Main
Street LLC and 517 Park Circle LLC, each of which is a single asset Colorado limited liability
company; and
WHEREAS, the co-managing members of the three borrowing entities shall be Colony
Development-CO., LLC and SCG Development Partners, LLC, which were selected as the
City’s developer through a competitive request for proposals process; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to offer tax-exempt construction-only loans and leasehold
permanent subordinate second mortgage loans for a total of (45) units of multifamily rental
apartments located at 488 Castle Creek Road, 802 West Main Street and 517 Park Circle; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the tax-exempt construction-only loans and leasehold
permanent subordinate second mortgage loans, attached hereto are proposed non-binding terms
and conditions for offering the described loans; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to memorialize its intent to offer the described loans by
approving the term sheets attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN:
1. The Council hereby determines that the provision of affordable housing such as the
Project and, in connection therewith, the memorialization of the City’s intent to offer
the loans as described herein by approving the term sheets attached hereto serves an
important public purpose; and
2. The Council does hereby approve the offer of the lo ans described in this
Resolution and the attached proposed loan term sheets and with the intent of
P17
VI.b
2
funding the loans through the City of Aspen 150 Hou sing Development
Fund; and
3. Approval of this Resolution shall immediately memorialize the intent of the City to offer
the tax-exempt construction-only loans and leasehold permanent subordinate second
mortgage loans as described in this Resolution and the attached proposed loan term
sheets.
4. No provision of this Resolution and the attached proposed loan term sheets shall be
construed or interpreted to obligate the City to enter any agreement or make any
payment without further approval by Council of comprehensive loan agreements
which shall govern the loans.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the 17th day of September, 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held on September 17, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P18
VI.b
1 | P a g e
August 22, 2018
Mr. Jason Bradshaw
Colony Partners
242 Mountain Laurel Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Stephen Wilson
SCG Development Partners, LLC
8245 Boone Blvd, Suite 640
Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182
Dear Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Wilson:
Thank you for your interest in receiving a financing proposal from the City of Aspen,
Colorado (hereinafter "CoA”). The following is not a commitment to lend, but rather an
indication of CoA’s anticipated financing structure and is further contingent upon CoA’s
satisfactory review and approval of the project. Upon agreeing to the following terms
and subject to a full underwriting and approval, a commitment letter may be issued
describing all terms and conditions.
PROPOSED TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Borrower: 488 Castle Creek, LLC, a single asset Colorado limited liability
(“Borrower”).
Purpose: (i) To provide a tax-exempt construction-only loan to the Colorado
Housing and Finance Agency (the “Governmental Lender”) for the
development of (24) units of multifamily rental apartments at 488 Castle
Creek Road (“Property”). The proceeds of the Loan to Governmental
Lender shall fund a construction-only loan (“Tax-exempt Loan”) by
Governmental Lender to the Borrower for the Property described below.
If required by Governmental Lender, a fiscal agent (“Fiscal Agent”) will be
appointed and will be responsible for following the terms of the Tax-
exempt Loan documents and administering funds held under the
Construction Funding Agreement.
The Tax-exempt Loan will have a Construction Phase only- an initial
phase during which funds will be advanced to Governmental
Lender and loaned to Borrower (directly or through a Fiscal Agent,
at Governmental Lender’s discretion) on a “drawing down” basis.
Payments on the Tax-exempt Loan during the Construction Phase
will be interest only. Upon stabilization of the property, the loan
will be repaid.
Exhibit A - 488 CASTLE CREEK - Construction Loan Term Sheet P19
VI.b
2 | P a g e
(ii). Upon repayment in full of the Tax-exempt Loan, to provide a
permanent subordinate 2nd leasehold mortgage loan for (24) units of
multifamily rental apartments located at the Property.
Members: The members of the Borrower are:
(i) 488 Castle Creek GP, LLC, (0.01%)
Colony Development-CO., LLC and SCG Development Partners, LLC
as co-managing members.
(ii) 488 Castle Creek Investors, LLC (99.98%)
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) Investor/Syndicator,
the upper tier investor(s) and the terms and conditions of the
operating agreement must be acceptable to the City of Aspen in
all respects including the timing and conditions of funding capital
contributions.
(iii) APCHA (0.01%)
Special member
Ground Lease: The Property will be constructed on land owned by CoA pursuant to a 40-
year ground lease (with an option for the Borrower to extend the term by
an additional 10 years). The ground lease rent will be an annual payment
of $10.00. All improvements will be owned by the Borrower. The
Borrower will be responsible for all operating and ownership costs
throughout the term of the ground lease.
Lender: City of Aspen (CoA), funds from 150 Housing Development Fund.
Loan Amount: The loan amounts shall not exceed Thirteen-Million Three-Hundred and
Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Dollars and no/00s ($13,306,120.00)
and be funded in accordance with an agreed to construction flow of
funds with the estimated 1st mortgage construction loan maximum of
$7,356,750 (TBD by CHFA standard and requirement to meet the “50%
test” as required by tax exempt bond rules) with interest of (2% to 2.5%
cash pay TBD) and the permanent 2nd mortgage maximum of $5,949,370
with interest of (2 to 2.5% accrued TDB).
Loan Term: The construction loan shall mature in 24 months. The permanent 2nd
leasehold mortgage loan shall mature in 15 years (based 25-year
Exhibit A - 488 CASTLE CREEK - Construction Loan Term Sheet P20
VI.b
3 | P a g e
amortization schedule) or be co-terminus with the 1st leasehold
permanent mortgage loan.
Permanent Loan: CoA will require prior to closing an acceptable commitment for a
permanent loan takeout (“takeout”) of Part B of the construction loan
under terms and conditions acceptable to the CoA. The amount of the
permanent loan must not be less than $1,200,000.
Development
Budget: A review of the Development Budget outlining the proforma sources and
uses of funds is required by CoA prior to closing this loan.
Disbursement
Condition: Based on approved monthly draw requests including City of Aspen
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (“QA/QC”) site inspections.
Construction Draw
Monitoring (CDM): A construction draw monitor and processor will attend, review and
approve the monthly construction draw requisition. The costs of the CDM
will be paid for by the Borrower.
Appraisal: A real estate appraisal will be provided by the Borrower in form and
content acceptable to CoA.
Repayment: During the construction term of the loan, the loan will be on an interest
only basis with interest payments funded from the interest reserve
included in the construction budget. During the permanent term of the
loan, the interest and principal will be paid from 75% of cash flow after
payment of any deferred development fee.
Interest: The interest rate of the Part A loan shall be based on an annual fixed rate
of 0.25% and will accrue during the construction period. The interest rate
of the Part B loan shall be based on an annual fixed rate of 2% to 2.5%
(TBD) and will be calculated and paid monthly.
Fees: NA
Collateral: Construction Period:
This loan will be secured by a title insured first Leasehold Mortgage
against the Property and an assignment of Rents Leases and Profits as
Exhibit A - 488 CASTLE CREEK - Construction Loan Term Sheet P21
VI.b
4 | P a g e
well as a general assignment of all construction related contracts, permits
and documentation.
Permanent Period:
This loan will be secured by a title insured second Leasehold Mortgage
against the Property and an assignment of Rents Leases and Profits.
Guarantor(s): Joint and Several guarantees from Jason Bradshaw and SCG Development
Partners, LLC. through construction completion.
Banking
Relationships: CoA will require the Borrower to establish a deposit account for the
project with the bank acceptable to the CoA.
Loan Agreement: The construction loan will be subject to a comprehensive loan
agreement, which shall govern certain aspects of the loan, the
construction of the projects, and the Borrower and Guarantor’s financial
condition. These may include, but not be limited to, financial statement
reporting and limitations on additional borrowings and liens on the
property being financed. The permanent loan will be subject to a
comprehensive loan agreement, which shall govern certain aspects of the
loan, and the Borrower and Guarantor’s financial condition. These may
include, but not be limited to, financial statement reporting and
limitations on additional borrowings and liens on the property being
financed
REGULATORY
AGREEMENT: A Regulatory Agreement with a term of fifty (50) years from the date the
Certificate of Occupancy or Placed in Service Date is issued to the
Development, which specifies among other requirements, eligible
occupancy standards, maximum affordable rents and minimum operating
and preplacement reserves, which may be subordinated to other lenders
with Agency approval.
OCCUPANCY
RESTRICTIONS: All units shall be occupied by households earning no more than incomes
dictated by the lesser of 60% AMI as determined by CHFA / HUD and
APHCA Category 1 and / or 2 incomes (unit depending). Such restrictions
shall be included in a deed restriction record against the property.
RENT
RESTRICTIONS: Rents for the units will be the lesser of 60% AMI rents as determined by
CHFA / HUD and APHCA Category 1 and / or 2 (unit depending). Such
Exhibit A - 488 CASTLE CREEK - Construction Loan Term Sheet P22
VI.b
5 | P a g e
restrictions shall be included in a deed restriction record against the
property.
Other: Any approval, commitment, or closing of any loan will be subject to all of
the following (i) Aspen City Council approval and (ii) underwriting and/or
documentation requirements of CoA and its counsel. Those requirements
may include but may not be limited to appraisals; surveys and
environmental assessments; approval of the General Contractor,
construction contracts, plans and specifications by CoA or independent
project inspectors; and/or legal opinions and title insurance. All costs and
expenses incurred to close a loan and perfect any security interest shall
be the responsibility of Borrower.
44045724.v1
Exhibit A - 488 CASTLE CREEK - Construction Loan Term Sheet P23
VI.b
1 | P a g e
August 22, 2018
Mr. Jason Bradshaw
Colony Partners
242 Mountain Laurel Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Stephen Wilson
SCG Development Partners, LLC
8245 Boone Blvd, Suite 640
Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182
Dear Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Wilson:
Thank you for your interest in receiving a financing proposal from the City of Aspen, Colorado
(hereinafter "CoA”). The following is not a commitment to lend, but rather an indication of CoA’s
anticipated financing structure and is further contingent upon CoA’s satisfactory review and
approval of the project. Upon agreeing to the following terms and subject to a full underwriting
and approval, a commitment letter may be issued describing all terms and conditions.
PROPOSED TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Borrower: 802 Main Street, LLC, a Colorado limited liability (“Borrower”).
Purpose: To provide a leasehold construction loan that converts into a leasehold
permanent subordinate 2nd mortgage loan for (10) units of multifamily
rental apartments located at 802 Main Street, Aspen, Colorado
(“Property”).
Members: The members of the Borrower are:
(i) 802 Main Street GP, LLC, (0.01%)
Colony Development Co., LLC and SCG Development Partners, LLC
as co-managing members.
(ii) Main Street Investors, LLC (99.98%)
Affiliates of Colony Development Co., LLC and Stratford Capital
Group, LLC as members.
(iii) APCHA (0.01%)
Special member
Exhibit B - 802 W MAIN ST - Construction Loan Term Sheet P24
VI.b
2 | P a g e
Ground Lease: The Property will be constructed on land owned by CoA pursuant to a 40-
year subordinate ground lease (with an option for the Borrower to
extend the term by an additional 10 years). The ground lease rent will be
an annual payment of $10.00. All improvements will be owned by the
Borrower. The Borrower will be responsible for all operating and
ownership costs throughout the term of the ground lease.
Lender: City of Aspen (CoA), funds from 150 Housing Development Fund.
Loan Amount: The loan amount shall not exceed Five-Million Six-Hundred and Ninety
Five Thousand Dollars and no/00s ($5,695,000.00) and be funded in two
separate components of Part A equal to $4,852,000 and Part B equal to
$843,000.
Part A – Part A will be a 1st leasehold mortgage funded during
construction. When construction is complete and the permanent 1st
leasehold mortgage loan is funded, Part A will “convert” to a 2nd
leasehold permanent mortgage loan.
Part B - Part B will be a 1st leasehold mortgage funded during
construction after the Part A loan is fully advanced. When construction is
complete and the permanent 1st leasehold mortgage loan is funded, it is
anticipated that Part A shall be fully repaid with interest of (2 to 2.5%
TDB).
Loan Term: The construction loan shall mature in 24 months. The permanent 2nd
leasehold mortgage loan shall mature in 15 years (based 25-year
amortization schedule) or be co-terminus with the 1st leasehold
permanent mortgage loan.
Permanent Loan: CoA will require prior to closing an acceptable commitment for a
permanent loan takeout (“takeout”) of Part B of the construction loan
under terms and conditions acceptable to the CoA. The amount of the
permanent loan must not be less than $900,000.
Development
Budget: A review of the Development Budget outlining the proforma sources and
uses of funds is required by CoA prior to closing this loan.
Exhibit B - 802 W MAIN ST - Construction Loan Term Sheet P25
VI.b
3 | P a g e
Disbursement
Condition: Based on approved monthly draw requests including City of Aspen
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (“QA/QC”) site inspections.
Construction Draw
Monitoring (CDM): A construction draw monitor and processor will attend, review and
approve the monthly construction draw requisition. The costs of the CDM
will be paid for by the Borrower.
Appraisal: A real estate appraisal will be provided by the Borrower in form and
content acceptable to CoA.
Repayment: During the construction term of the loan, the loan will be on an interest
only basis with interest payments funded from the interest reserve
included in the construction budget. During the permanent term of the
loan, the interest and principal will be paid from 75% of cash flow after
payment of any deferred development fee.
Interest: The interest rate of the Part A loan shall be based on an annual fixed rate
of 0.25% and will accrue during the construction period. The interest rate
of the Part B loan shall be based on an annual fixed rate of 2% to 2.5%
(TBD) and will be calculated and paid monthly.
Fees: NA
Collateral: Construction Period:
This loan will be secured by a title insured first Leasehold Mortgage
against the Property and an assignment of Rents Leases and Profits as
well as a general assignment of all construction related contracts, permits
and documentation.
Permanent Period:
This loan will be secured by a title insured second Leasehold Mortgage
against the Property and an assignment of Rents Leases and Profits.
Exhibit B - 802 W MAIN ST - Construction Loan Term Sheet P26
VI.b
4 | P a g e
Guarantor(s): Joint and Several guarantees from Jason Bradshaw and SCG Development
Partners, LLC. through construction completion.
Banking
Relationships: CoA will require the Borrower to establish a deposit account for the
project with the bank acceptable to the CoA.
Loan Agreement: This loan will be subject to a comprehensive loan agreement, which shall
govern certain aspects of the loan, the construction of the projects, the
Borrower and Guarantor’s financial condition. These may include, but not
be limited to, financial statement reporting and limitations on additional
borrowings and liens on the property being financed.
REGULATORY
AGREEMENT: A Regulatory Agreement with a term of fifty (50) years from the date the
Certificate of Occupancy or Placed in Service Date is issued to the
Development, which specifies among other requirements, eligible
occupancy standards, maximum affordable rents and minimum operating
and preplacement reserves, which may be subordinated to other lenders
with Agency approval.
OCCUPANCY
RESTRICTIONS: All units shall be occupied by households earning no more than incomes
dictated by the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority for Categories 2, 3 and 4.
Such restrictions shall be included in a deed restriction record against the
property.
RENT
RESTRICTIONS: All rents for the units regarding income targeted households (see
Occupancy Restrictions) shall be those established by the Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
Other: Any approval, commitment, or closing of any loan will be subject to all of
the following (i) Aspen City Council approval and (ii) underwriting and/or
documentation requirements of CoA and its counsel. Those requirements
may include but may not be limited to appraisals; surveys and
environmental assessments; approval of the General Contractor,
construction contracts, plans and specifications by CoA or independent
project inspectors; and/or legal opinions and title insurance. All costs and
expenses incurred to close a loan and perfect any security interest shall
be the responsibility of Borrower.
Exhibit B - 802 W MAIN ST - Construction Loan Term Sheet P27
VI.b
1 | P a g e
August 22, 2018
Mr. Jason Bradshaw
Colony Partners
242 Mountain Laurel Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Stephen Wilson
SCG Development Partners, LLC
8245 Boone Blvd, Suite 640
Tysons Corner, Virginia 22182
Dear Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Wilson:
Thank you for your interest in receiving a financing proposal from the City of Aspen, Colorado
(hereinafter "CoA”). The following is not a commitment to lend, but rather an indication of CoA’s
anticipated financing structure and is further contingent upon CoA’s satisfactory review and
approval of the project. Upon agreeing to the following terms and subject to a full underwriting
and approval, a commitment letter may be issued describing all terms and conditions.
PROPOSED TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Borrower: 517 Park Circle, LLC, a Colorado limited liability (“Borrower”).
Purpose: To provide a leasehold construction loan that converts into a leasehold
permanent subordinate 2nd mortgage loan for (11) units of multifamily
rental apartments located at 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado
(“Property”).
Members: The members of the Borrower are:
(i) 517 Park Circle GP, LLC, (0.01%)
Colony Development-CO., LLC and SCG Development Partners, LLC
as co-managing members.
(ii) 517 Park Circle Investors, LLC (99.98%)
Affiliates of Colony Development-CO., LLC and Stratford Capital
Group, LLC as members.
(iii) APCHA (0.01%)
Special member
Exhibit C - 517 PARK CIRCLE - Construction Loan Term Sheet P28
VI.b
2 | P a g e
Ground Lease: The Property will be constructed on land owned by CoA pursuant to a 40-
year subordinate ground lease (with an option for the Borrower to
extend the term by an additional 10 years). The ground lease rent will be
an annual payment of $10.00. All improvements will be owned by the
Borrower. The Borrower will be responsible for all operating and
ownership costs throughout the term of the ground lease.
Lender: City of Aspen (CoA), funds from 150 Housing Development Fund.
Loan Amount: The loan amount shall not exceed Six-Million Six-Hundred and Ten
Thousand Four Hundred Dollars and no/00s ($6,610,400.00) and be
funded in two separate components of Part A equal to $5,387,700 and
Part B equal to $1,222,700.
Part A – Part A will be a 1st leasehold mortgage funded during
construction. When construction is complete and the permanent 1st
leasehold mortgage loan is funded, Part A will “convert” to a 2nd
leasehold permanent mortgage loan.
Part B - Part B will be a 1st leasehold mortgage funded during
construction after the Part A loan is fully advanced. When construction is
complete and the permanent 1st leasehold mortgage loan is funded, it is
anticipated that Part A shall be fully repaid with interest of (2 to 2.5%
TDB).
Loan Term: The construction loan shall mature in 24 months. The permanent 2nd
leasehold mortgage loan shall mature in 15 years (based 25-year
amortization schedule) or be co-terminus with the 1st leasehold
permanent mortgage loan.
Permanent Loan: CoA will require prior to closing an acceptable commitment for a
permanent loan takeout (“takeout”) of Part B of the construction loan
under terms and conditions acceptable to the CoA. The amount of the
permanent loan must not be less than $1,400,000.
Development
Budget: A review of the Development Budget outlining the proforma sources and
uses of funds is required by CoA prior to closing this loan.
Exhibit C - 517 PARK CIRCLE - Construction Loan Term Sheet P29
VI.b
3 | P a g e
Disbursement
Condition: Based on approved monthly draw requests including City of Aspen
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (“QA/QC”) site inspections.
Construction Draw
Monitoring (CDM): A construction draw monitor and processor will attend, review and
approve the monthly construction draw requisition. The costs of the CDM
will be paid for by the Borrower.
Appraisal: A real estate appraisal will be provided by the Borrower in form and
content acceptable to CoA.
Repayment: During the construction term of the loan, the loan will be on an interest
only basis with interest payments funded from the interest reserve
included in the construction budget. During the permanent term of the
loan, the interest and principal will be paid from 75% of cash flow after
payment of any deferred development fee.
Interest: The interest rate of the Part A loan shall be based on an annual fixed rate
of 0.25% and will accrue during the construction period. The interest rate
of the Part B loan shall be based on an annual fixed rate of 2% to 2.5%
(TBD) and will be calculated and paid monthly.
Fees: NA
Collateral: Construction Period:
This loan will be secured by a title insured first Leasehold Mortgage
against the Property and an assignment of Rents Leases and Profits as
well as a general assignment of all construction related contracts, permits
and documentation.
Permanent Period:
This loan will be secured by a title insured second Leasehold Mortgage
against the Property and an assignment of Rents Leases and Profits.
Exhibit C - 517 PARK CIRCLE - Construction Loan Term Sheet P30
VI.b
4 | P a g e
Guarantor(s): Joint and Several guarantees from Jason Bradshaw and SCG Development
Partners, LLC. through construction completion.
Banking
Relationships: CoA will require the Borrower to establish a deposit account for the
project with the bank acceptable to the CoA.
Loan Agreement: This loan will be subject to a comprehensive loan agreement, which shall
govern certain aspects of the loan, the construction of the projects, the
Borrower and Guarantor’s financial condition. These may include, but not
be limited to, financial statement reporting and limitations on additional
borrowings and liens on the property being financed.
REGULATORY
AGREEMENT: A Regulatory Agreement with a term of fifty (50) years from the date the
Certificate of Occupancy or Placed in Service Date is issued to the
Development, which specifies among other requirements, eligible
occupancy standards, maximum affordable rents and minimum operating
and preplacement reserves, which may be subordinated to other lenders
with Agency approval.
OCCUPANCY
RESTRICTIONS: All units shall be occupied by households earning no more than incomes
dictated by the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority for Categories 2, 3 and 4.
Such restrictions shall be included in a deed restriction record against the
property.
RENT
RESTRICTIONS: All rents for the units regarding income targeted households (see
Occupancy Restrictions) shall be those established by the Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
Other: Any approval, commitment, or closing of any loan will be subject to all of
the following (i) Aspen City Council approval and (ii) underwriting and/or
documentation requirements of CoA and its counsel. Those requirements
may include but may not be limited to appraisals; surveys and
environmental assessments; approval of the General Contractor,
construction contracts, plans and specifications by CoA or independent
project inspectors; and/or legal opinions and title insurance. All costs and
expenses incurred to close a loan and perfect any security interest shall
be the responsibility of Borrower.
Exhibit C - 517 PARK CIRCLE - Construction Loan Term Sheet P31
VI.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #116, Series of 2018 – Electrical Standards Upgrade ........................................................ 5
Resolution #125, Series of 2018 – Contract with HDR Engineering, Inc for SHIFT Data Support and
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Resolution #123, Series of 2018 – CORE REMP Request ................................................................... 5
Resolution #124, Series of 2018 – Shift Contract with Miles App ....................................................... 5
Resolution #114, Series of 2018 – Third Party Engineering Development Review Services .............. 5
Resolution #126, Series of 2018 – 7th and Main St Concrete Paving and Waterline Improvements .... 5
Board Appointment ............................................................................................................................... 5
Resolution #103, Series of 2018 – 7th Galena and Main Street Bus Stop and Pedestrian
Improvements Project ................................................................................................................................... 5
Minutes – August 13, 2018 ................................................................................................................... 5
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2018 – 500 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split, TDRs,
Special Review and Variations ..................................................................................................................... 5
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 - 333 Park / 931 Gibson – Relocation ............................................ 9
RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2018 – 305 S Mill St. – Grey Lady Restaurant – Temporary Use ...... 12
EXECUTIVE SESSION ............................................................................................................................. 13
RESOLUTION #130, SERIES OF 2018 – Amend Extend Contract for 517 E Hopkins 204 S Galena .... 14
ORDINANCE #19 & # 20, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 10.5 of the Charter
regarding enterprise fund bonding .............................................................................................................. 15
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 11.4 of the Charter regarding
franchises. ................................................................................................................................................... 16
P32
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Hauenstein,
Mullins, Myrin and Frisch present.
Mayor Skadron said for everyone here tonight for the action item, conversation around the possible
purchase of the Daily News building, we have a lengthy agenda tonight. We are going to move it to
tomorrow at 4:00 pm.
Jim True, city attorney, said at the end of the executive session, council will continue this meeting to 4pm
tomorrow.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Lee Mulcahy said they are looking for a hearing. Over 2000 people signed his petition asking for
a public hearing. He said the exact situation happened with Peter Gilman in May 2016 where he
missed his notice of violation hearing. He didn’t request a hearing in time but was allowed to
anyways.
2. Sandy Mulcahy said council represents the ruling authority in Aspen and is why they have
continued to plead to have a hearing to them. She said APCHA did not follow their own rules
when it came to deadlines. She said if council does nothing with APCHAs planned course of
eviction and something happens to Lee or herself, their blood is on council’s hands.
3. Tom Coggins said his email is tom@hmtaxi.com. He would like council to stop calling the
current mobility project a lab or that they are doing experiments. Call it a marketing exercise or a
promotion. Mayor Skadron said it won’t happen. There is a whole industry build around
mobility labs, we didn’t make it up. Mr. Coggins said he is in support of Lee Mulcahy, what is
being done might be legal, but it is not just.
4. Peter Greeney said on the data collecting for the mobility lab it is roughly 65 dollars per citizen,
what are we using it for. What is success defined as. How are we going to use the data we get.
He struggles with the goal of increasing options and not changing patterns. For in town mobility,
if the goal is to increase the number of available parking spaces in town I think there are other
ways to do that including with car to go. Why are we not partnering with the county on new
airport terminal and using the airport as a hub.
5. Toni Kronberg said she agrees we need to change transportation coming in from the airport.
Suggested the aerial connection.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Frisch said he has been championing the APCHA governance look at. This has nothing to
do with the people who work at the office or who are on the board. To Peter, I think we do have some
goals. We are trying to test with a few things and see what sticks. I do have some concerns, but the goal
is to try. I want to apologize to the staff where it came to the ride aspect last Monday. I underappreciated
the plan. I look forward to more discussion.
Councilman Myrin said he would like to know more on the Peter Gilman example and if it is similar to
this case. Mr. True said he doesn’t know the facts and emailed Tom Smith. Councilman Myrin said it
would be hard to do a mobility experiment with a gondola from buttermilk. The piece of the lab I am
leaning away from is the parking spaces in town. I strongly support anything to reduce the congestion at
the entrance. Thanks to Trish and Staff for the rapid flasher at Mill and Bleeker. We all lived through a
lab of peak capacity at the 4th of July. We experienced Aspen at when it is full. It is maybe enough. The
question is do we keep increasing the peak. I think it is over the top.
Councilman Hauenstein spoke of the celebration of the live of John McCain. He was a voice of integrity,
honesty and grace that is increasingly lost. He stood on his principles and did not dishonor those who
thought differently. I believe the emphasis on the mobility lab project is to find ways to decrease the
density of vehicles in town and decrease commute time. Lee always mentions the number of signatures.
P33
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
3
The petition I saw was for a peaceful resolution and I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t sign that. I also
want a peaceful resolution.
Councilwoman Mullins said to Tom, I take issue with all three things you mentioned and maybe we can
discuss those sometime. I’ve been gone for a few days and glad to be back in town.
Mayor Skadron said tomorrow night there is an open house about the stage 2 water shortage at the old
power house from 5 to 6 pm. We also lost Jack Hatfield, former county commissioner. My heart goes
out to his friends and family.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Trish Aragon and Hailey Guglielmo, engineering, spoke about the Castle Creek Bridge update.
September 4th the detour commences. We got a lot accomplished this spring but there is still a lot to do.
The work will begin the 4th and stay in effect until October 31st. We also added the Hickory House corner
to the work. It is all weather dependent
BOARD REPORTS
Councilman Hauenstein said Sister Cities had two resignations, president and secretary. They would
appreciate if we could have a way to have the clerk’s office to do minutes for them.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso#123 CORE
Councilman Myrin said the ultimate success of core is its demise. There is more money coming in. What
can we do to turn this around. Mona Newton, CORE, said I hope never to see the demise even if the
REMP is gone. One of the issues is to talk about the amount of money we use annually, 30%. There is
always the policy options the city and county can consider including increasing the amount people pay.
There are opportunities and challenges. We work on reducing energy every day. Councilman Myrin said
it seems like a flaw when there is an increasing amount coming in meaning there is an increasing amount
of energy being used. Ms. Newton said there are two options, a policy option to reduce the money being
collected by REMP. Marty Treadway, CORE, said REMP is at the mercy of the construction cycles in
Aspen. We have pretty robust climate action goals as well.
Councilwoman Mullins said you try to give out only 30% in grants per year. Ms. Newton said that has
been a goal. Councilwoman Mullins said that might be worth discussing as climate change is becoming
more impactful. It would be good to take a look at the history of the fund. It would be good to look at
bigger more impactful projects.
Councilman Frisch said there will always be a need for CORE. The REMP is a sin tax at the end of the
day. We want as little money as possible. We will continue to find money for projects. The challenge is
to take that money and use it as wisely as possible. We have talked about looking at really big projects.
The 70% we are saving is a lot larger than it was 10 years ago. We will report back after the September
board meeting.
Reso # 103 Galena and Main bus stop
Ms. Aragon said the bus stop is dilapidated, there is not proper drainage and it is treacherous in the
winter.
Councilman Myrin agreed that it needs improvement. Will there be money going to REMP for the heat.
Stephen Kanipe, building department, replied we have essential public facilities that are exempt for the
REMP payment. It is a policy decision. There are certain exemptions and this is one of them.
Councilman Myrin asked is it city electric. Jordan Grey-Dekraai, engineering, replied yes.
P34
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
4
Mayor Skadron said he is glad to see this as it is long overdue. How long will the lane be closed. Ms.
Grey-Dekraai replied 5 to 6 weeks.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is concerned about the materials and the tree grates. She wants it
consistent with other improvements in the city.
Councilman Frisch said we had a sticker shock discussion and you confirmed there was nothing special
there. We just need to get use to this. Ms. Aragon replied yes, it is the concrete, drainage and heat work.
Barry Crook, assistant city manager, said when you approve this resolution you are signaling approving
of a supplemental to make up the funding difference.
Reso #125 – Shift data
Karen Harrington, quality department, said the project has a data team that worked on three different
RFPs. This piece is the for the first two. This relates to data support and collection services. It is to help
understand if the lab was successful, what was the impact on the community, safety, what was the impact
on the economy, data support funds, project management, evaluation plan, how is success defined, data
collection plan, analysis and integration and a project report.
Councilman Hauenstein said we spent over 2 million dollars on data collection since I’ve been on council.
I would like a work session to discuss the possibility of bringing some of these tasks in house. It’s the
sticker shock that gets me. From now on till the end of time data will be paramount. Another question
and concern I have is we are paying for an app to incentivize people to take transportation alternatives. If
we are paying for the app we should get the data without having to pay extra. I ask you to be frugal and
to save money where you can.
Ms. Harrington said there is certain kind of data where we are better off hiring other people to collect it.
One of the things we tried to do with the RFPs is make it clear that we are keeping the data. The way the
contract will be structured is in a way that we can modify it if we need to.
Councilman Frisch said I want to be careful. Knowing where we are right now with the ride aspect
undecided completely. I’m concerned about committing to any package without knowing what data we
want completely. Ms. Harrington said if we have one provider drop out it may not impact us. We are not
going to go tomorrow and have a data collection plan. If we shift one thing it will not cause us a problem.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the method of collection. Ms. Harrington said they committed to
collecting data in nine different locations. They have strong partnerships with a variety of different data
collection companies. Nothing will take us over budget, but we might shift how we collect the
information.
Mayor Skadron said there are two components, data collection and data support. You are confident that
sole sourcing the data component will deliver our goals. Ms. Harrington replied for these two pieces we
think so. We like the flexibility.
Reso #124 – miles app
Ashley Perl, environmental health, said this is a contract with the Miles app to put all the incentives in
one place. It is a contract to only test the app for the remainder of the year.
Councilman Hauenstein asked is this the norm that you never buy an app you just license it. Candice
Olson, consultant, replied it would be a huge investment for us to develop something. Apps evolve
quickly. Councilman Hauenstein said we are perhaps committing to licensing in perpetuity if we continue
in the future. Ms. Olson replied perhaps.
Councilwoman Mullins asked will Miles give its data to HDR. Ms. Olson said they do not give
individual data but granular. Councilwoman Mullins asked what other cities are participating. Ms. Olson
said they are in the process of launching nationally. Councilwoman Mullins asked if we can’t get to the
minimum of 750 people to sign up what happens. Ms. Olson said we would want at least a few thousand
P35
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
5
signed up before we start SHIFT. Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the ongoing cost. Ms. Olson
replied next year would be $300,000.
Councilman Hauenstein said to talk about the idea of Miles from Sacramento being able to be spent here.
Ms. Perl said they could accumulate Miles here, but they couldn’t spend Miles here they accumulated
there. Councilman Hauenstein said he wants the incentives to always support local businesses over
national ones.
Councilman Frisch said when we started this discussion a long time ago there was sticks and carrots. We
focused on a pure carrot driven lab. How much local business we want to help is driven by us.
· Resolution #116, Series of 2018 – Electrical Standards Upgrade
· Resolution #125, Series of 2018 – Contract with HDR Engineering, Inc for SHIFT Data Support
and Data Collection
· Resolution #123, Series of 2018 – CORE REMP Request
· Resolution #124, Series of 2018 – Shift Contract with Miles App
· Resolution #114, Series of 2018 – Third Party Engineering Development Review Services
· Resolution #126, Series of 2018 – 7th and Main St Concrete Paving and Waterline Improvements
· Board Appointment
· Resolution #103, Series of 2018 – 7th Galena and Main Street Bus Stop and Pedestrian
Improvements Project
· Minutes – August 13, 2018
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2018 – 500 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split, TDRs,
Special Review and Variations
Amy Simon, community development, stated the Mesa Store was built in 1890. This is the only two story
wooden commercial structure left in Aspen. It is framed in a way where the wall studs are one board.
This building style fell out of favor when there was no longer a supply of 30 foot trees to create the studs.
This method also created a pocket that allowed fire to travel floor to floor. The Mesa Store was built as a
grocery store with two smaller buildings. In 1920 it looks like the two smaller buildings were gone. The
approved condition was initially proposed to add on as an office building with an addition on the west
side and a residential unit. After they received approval they began to rethink the plan and scale back.
Currently it is under remodel of just the interior. As part of scaling back, they identified two preservation
benefits, historic lot split and TDRs. HPC first goal would be no addition, followed by a detached
addition. What is before you is detached or no addition. The Mesa Store occupies most of a 3,000 square
foot corner lot. Beside it is a new lot. It appears this lot has been vacant for 100 years. The plan is to
sever the development rights and sell them as TDRs. New residences are discouraged on Main Street.
What is allowed is 1,920 square feet. They can sell up to 7 TDRs in increments of 250 square feet. HPCs
preference is to remove all development from the lot. Review criteria for a lot split include correct zone
district, right size lots and does it follow the townsite lots. These are all true. The applicant is requesting
special review. Today allows 1 to 1 floor area. They could have 6,000 square feet today. Staff finds
special review criteria are met to sit on a 3,000 square foot lot. Commercial design review pedestrian
amenity. Each lot should have 750 square feet of open space on the lot. On the corner lot that is not
possible. The new lot will have more than that. The applicant is asking to have it waived for the corner
lot. Council can do that if there is an exemplary remodel. They are restoring the original porch, windows
and chimneys. All these things HPC discussed with the applicant. They are doing them voluntary. Set
backs – the historic building is already at the property line on the south and east. A variance is requested
for the south and east event though it exists. A set back on the west is requested to accommodate the
exterior stair. Parking – the code allows several different ways to accommodate mobility. 2 spaces will
be behind the Mesa Store. 1 can be through an easement and 1 through enhanced mobility on the site.
P36
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
6
They are left with a balance of .26 that needs to be provided. Landmarks can request for cash in lieu or a
waiver. We discussed at 1st reading that there would be limitations on the building envelope. The
building dept feels they can accommodate it with typical setbacks.
Councilman Frisch said residential is not allowed on the same lot as commercial. Jessica Garrow,
community development replied affordable housing is allowed.
John Rowland and Sarah Broughton
Sarah Broughton, owner, said they started Rowland and Broughton 15 years ago. We have been
passionate about this building since day one. We are enhancing a right of way amenity on a block that is
already too dense. The lot split follows the historic pattern of lots that are 3,000 square foot. It has been
100 years since there has been a building on the other property. Housing directly next to Mesa is super
dense. We are offsetting a lot of our transportation through bikes, flexible work hours and we cycle. She
showed an image of the garden space. There is a pattern of these pocket parks throughout town. We
were also allowed to capture parking along the alley with the park. The TDR program was set up to
defray the costs of the historic program. Density will be decreased.
Councilman Myrin said there is potential for affordable housing on the lot next store. Ms. Simon said if
council approves the subdivision and creation of TDRs they do not have to sell them all. It is up to you if
they should remove everything. Councilman Myrin asked do we have something called open space. Ms.
Simon replied it is not open space or a park. It is a public amenity. They will have at least a 750 square
foot public amenity requirement. Councilman Myrin said there was a question about the extra square foot
of 450 on one lot. Do we have the option of not issuing TDRs to represent that to address the total. Ms.
Simon said Jim can advise on the conditions. They are allowed 6,000. When they split the lot, they lose
ground. You are not really giving them a bonus. Councilman Myrin asked is there a way to recognize
that. Mr. True said I think you have the discretion to address the TDRs you are creating here as a
condition of this approval. Ms. Garrow said I would add to that, that it is council discretion. The max is
7. Ms. Simon said if you don’t allow the full 7 you are not taking it away from them you are leaving it on
the site. Councilman Myrin said the concern is if you created 2 less the 450 still sits, it’s just not severed.
Ms. Garrow said the other important point is by doing this the TDRs are based off of the single family
floor area.
Councilman Frisch asked is the 20% deducted if someone shows up with an affordable housing plan. Ms.
Simon said if they did the lot split the affordable housing allowance would be 3,000 or 1 to 1. With this
proposal they are reducing the potential.
Councilman Myrin asked the we cycle on 4th street, will it stay. Ms. Garrow replied I don’t know the
long term plan.
Councilwoman Mullins asked is it just commercial or affordable housing on the adjacent lot. Ms. Simon
replied or free market. It is allowed on Main Street, just not on the same lot.
Councilman Hauenstein said the lot split would create a non conforming building. It requires a variance
on setbacks. Does it trigger Ref 1. Mr. True replied I do not believe the square foot issue would trigger it
because the underlying zone allows the square foot through the special review process. Ref 1 kicks in if
there is a variation of the underlying zoning. Setback is not addressed in Ref 1. The parking is addressed
and that may be a bit more problematic. At least the request to waive the cash in lieu. Ms. Simon said the
applicant is following exactly what is in the code. Mr. True said we have had debates internally if that
waiver would trigger Ref 1. Ms. Broughton said we are not asking for that waiver. Mr. True said he
would recommend given that statement we would not implicate Ref 1 for that amount of money.
Councilman Frisch said we need to be very careful about using open space. It is an undeveloped parcel. I
believe they will turn it into a beautiful garden.
Councilman Hauenstein said 750 square feet public amenity from the eastern lot is a concern of mine.
Ms. Simon said the alternatives are they could provide it off site. They could do right of way
improvements or pay cash in lieu. Councilman Hauenstein said it could move on to the western lot. Ms.
Simon said you could, but it would take up half of the lot. Councilman Hauenstein asked if it would it
effect the TDRs. Ms. Simon replied it would not.
P37
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
7
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Toni Kronberg said she applauds the applicants for not cramming another structure next to this
one. The empty lot is not deserving of a little building. She supports the lot split.
2. John Ward said he wrote a letter of support. This is an expensive undertaking. The TDR
program was intended to offset some of these costs.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Hauenstein asked what council thinks about the 750 public amenity. Councilman Myrin said
it would be something existing on the western lot. Councilwoman Mullins said I think the public amenity
is that they are restoring the building. In terms of the public amenity, just looking at the historic lot it
would be a shame to carve out 750 square feet. The lot split is appropriate. Lots fronting Main Street
were 3,000 square feet. The special review which covers the additional 451 square feet. The building
was built prior to the zoning codes. What I have a harder time approving is all 7 TDRs. Historically the
density was on Main Street. The open parks were in the residential neighborhoods and the larger houses.
It seems to be inappropriate to have a gap here. I could support some TDRs. It does offset costs for the
program, but it also should not be sterilizing lots down Main Street. I would like to see some
development in the west lot. It would be a mistake to set up a situation where there will always be a gap
down Main Street.
Councilman Myrin said there is not a lot of space. The only residences that can be there are affordable.
By not splitting it we keep the affordable housing requirement or commercial. Ms. Garrow said all the
work during the moratorium council made a conscious decision to allow free market residential along
Main Street as long as it is not part of commercial development. Councilwoman Mullins said if you do a
lot split you restrict the FAR.
Councilman Frisch said the discussion is there is 1,750 square feet at play, 7 TDRs being asked for times
250 and one thought is it should all be kept on Main Street and another thought that it would be a nice
garden and should go elsewhere. Ann is talking about balancing it. One concern is how small is allowed
to be developed, even if affordable housing, is not worth it to build it there. Ms. Simon said to remember
we are talking about floor area. 900 square feet of floor area could be doubled with a basement.
Councilman Frisch said if the entire 7 TDRs are removed how much FAR is remaining. Ms. Simon
replied 170 square feet. Councilman Frisch said then you are looking at 400 square feet left with a
basement. If it stays, there are only 2,000 square feet anyway for a free market, which is what Bert is
talking about. Then there is 20% more if it is affordable housing. Ms. Garrow said they could do around
3,000 square feet. If council allows the creation of TDRs as soon as those TDRs are severed that starts to
reduce the allowed floor area, regardless of what that future use is. Councilman Frisch said they talked
about the flexibility if they are granted 7, and they don’t use any, can they come back and say I want to
extinguish these TDRs and I want to put the FAR back on the site we took them from. Ms. Simon said
until the day they come in and start asking for TDR certificates they’ve done nothing. Once they sever
one, they’ve locked into place. Councilman Frisch said they have the option of up to 7 TDRs, if they
don’t go claim them, all the development rights stay on, but as soon as you go in and take one you can’t
shop it around for a year and then decide after the fact you would rather go back and extinguish it. Ms.
Simon replied right, once you sell one you have made some commitments.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is still unclear on the 750 square feet for public amenity, transferring that
to the western lot. You say that doesn’t affect the TDRs. Ms. Garrow said it effects how development in
the future could be placed on the lot. It doesn’t change the total allowed floor area with or without the
TDRs. It is half of the lot, around 1,500 square feet where no development could occur. Or it could go
through the review process to allow roof top amenity space. It ultimately impacts what the future
P38
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
8
development that is there from a site planning perspective but not from a size perspective. Councilman
Hauenstein said the 750 from the eastern lot is transferred to the western lot, the TDRs can still remain in
place, but it limits what future development could be. Ms. Garrow said what is located on the site.
Councilman Hauenstein said that takes up half the lot.
Mayor Skadron said he is ready to move this forward.
Councilman Frisch moved to approve Ordinance #18, Series of 2018 with the clarification of the parking
mitigation waiver being stricken and clean up of the easement section; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. He stated he would like to move for an amendment for the 750 square foot public amenity
from the eastern lot be moved to the western lot. Mayor Skadron asked what is the impact of that. Ms.
Simon said it means that 1,500 square feet of that lot needs to be devoted to a qualified public amenity.
Just the setback requirements alone are a good bit of that. Councilman Hauenstein said it doesn’t affect
the TDRs so it doesn’t affect the ability for you to sell off those TDRs. I’m attempting not to waive the
750 foot amenity from the eastern lot. Ms. Simon said the amenity cannot be provided at all on the east
lot. The lot split was not part of the development when HPC reviewed this. They need to address the
requirement by putting it on the west lot, cash in lieu or having council acknowledge an exemplary
restoration and waive it. Councilwoman Mullins said the amenity ought to be offset by the restoration of
the building. I do not want to sterilize the lot next door. I could pass the resolution with creating 4 TDRs
but not 7.
Councilman Frisch said he could argue there is a financial detriment by moving 700 square feet of public
amenity there. You are losing flexibility without a doubt.
Councilman Myrin said he would support putting Ward’s amendment in the ordinance. He’s not sure if
he will support the ordinance because I support affordable housing over free market on that property.
Councilman Frisch said he is very confident they will turn in an exemplary historic remodel. Ms. Simon
said HPC did not give them any benefits for the interior remodel. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates
the breathing room discussion. I am kind of where Ann was at hoping there would be something there at
some point. If it is a garden there forever the community will be just fine. I look at the public amenity
space more from the citizen walking by then someone holding a land use book. I think when people walk
by the west lot they will see breathing room. If the lot split were to happen I don’t think it will ever be
they crammed so much on that lot.
Councilwoman Mullins said I don’t understand the point though. You still have the set backs. I think
putting this public amenity on this site just complicates future development. If we approve a portion of
the TDRs you get the finances to continue the project and allow for affordable housing or free market to
be built there.
Ms. Garrow said if council approves TDRs, it is the applicants option to sever them. They can create 1
and sever it they don’t have to do the rest.
Councilman Hauenstein withdrew his amendment pending a discussion on the TDRs.
Mayor Skadron said the issue is not about public amenity space. It is something about development.
Mayor Skadron asked Councilman Myrin what his goal with the property is. He replied if you want to
match what the letters requested, which was that it not be developed, you can do two things. You can
remove the TDRs. He said he would like to see a smaller version of the Fornell. Mayor Skadron said
Ann’s goal is leaving the possibility of some development on the west side of the property. She replied as
well as facilitating the restoration of this building. Mayor Skadron said Ward is suggesting transfer of
public amenity space to do exactly the opposite to ensure that no affordable housing gets built, or any
kind of development gets built but perhaps the whole space stays empty. Councilman Hauenstein said
what I’m exploring is what 26 people wrote letters about is that they don’t want development there. What
Ann as I understand it is you want some development on the West side of the building and Bert would
support that if it was used for affordable housing. He replied he would but would rather not see four
P39
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
9
TDRs go away. To do any TDRs would require a lot split and that would permit free market and for that
reason I won’t support this. Councilwoman Mullins said in response to that we started because it is a
restoration of a building. It is sounding like that becomes more and more challenging if there are no
TDRs available to sell. We do want to focus on they are restoring the building and doing a beautiful job.
We want to make sure that can happen.
Councilman Frisch said if a certain amount of TRDs are severed the development will probably be gone.
I think you are going to be selling all of them or maybe one or two. My dream would be they get all 7
TDRs and go remodel the building and an affordable housing project pencils out for them. I think the
question is if more than a few TDRs leave the space it becomes almost undevelopable. I want to make
sure the restoration happens. I think we come down to how many TDRs.
Mayor Skadron said we have four different directions. I think this is the perfect example of TDRs as an
appropriate preservation tool. I think this project is exemplary. I think that satisfies the requirement of
the public amenity space. It would be my preference that the applicant sells all the TDRs at some point
and while I can’t use the applicants character or commitment to the character or love of building or love
of place as a criteria to satisfy what’s before me, I can find that criteria for historic lot split for the TDRs
for special review and commercial design review are satisfied and I’m willing to support this as presented
and move forward and that is the appropriate direction to go.
Councilman Frisch said I appreciate that. The downside in Ann’s mind and a little of mine is we could
see that lot be left with 250 square feet and nothing more. Mayor Skadron replied yes.
Councilwoman Mullins said she will support this as I can’t get support for my partial TDR suggestion. I
don’t want to risk losing the lot split and probably then losing the restoration of the building. What I’ll do
is hope that not all the TDRs get sold and at some point you can develop a small affordable housing
structure to fill in the gap on Main Street. The main focus is to get the restoration completed.
Mayor Skadron said say not all the TDRs get sold is the transfer of the 750 a protection against unwanted
development that the 26 letter writers don’t want. Ms. Simon replied I don’t think so. It may get
accommodated in the set backs anyways. It might create a squished building that wouldn’t fit. It is
probably best just left alone. The owner will make the best decision for the lot.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 - 333 Park / 931 Gibson – Relocation
Sarah Yoon, community development, told the council this application is for the relocation of the historic
resource, demolition of all non-historic additions, rescinding of designation if relocation to the new sit is
approved and designation after receiving of the historic resources to the new site. The historic buildings
were originally located on a 3,000 square foot lot on Main Street. The applicant proposes to focus on
restoration of the resource including a full exterior restoration, relocating and restoring the original
Sandborn configuration, reorienting the front façade back to street facing and increasing the visibility of
the historic residence. They have also been working with parks and engineering on the logistics of the
relocation. HPC recommends in favor of relocation. Questions from 1st reading.
More information about allowable development on both lots. Lot 333 is currently over allowable and
they are not proposing any more development. Allowable is based on new lot areas. 1 TDR will also be
allowed to be landed. 931 is 15,000 square feet and in R15A. Allowable for a single family is 4,000
square feet. If the lot is designated it will allow two detached dwelling units but the floor area will
remain. If designated, all proposed designs will be subject to the HP design guidelines.
Question in regard to relocation examples. Prior to HPC many structures were relocated. 134 ½ Hopkins
was relocated from Spring Street but it did not have landmark status. A more recent case is the 2016
relocation of the Zupancis cabins to the Marolt property.
P40
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
10
Site context for the receiving site. The Sandborn maps are used for accuracy. Gibson is not noted on
these maps, so the Aspen Willits maps were used.
HPC and staff recommends approval for the relocation.
Sara Adams, representing the application, said the application is for relocation and designation and a one
car garage behind the landmark. We wanted to show intent to move the landmark to Gibson but are not
prepared to show the new building for Gibson. HPC preferred we come to your first, withdraw the
conceptual application then come back with a conceptual application for both homes at Gibson and go
through the regular process. HPC voted 7 to 0 in favor of relocation, demolition and designation. We
will return to them and be subject to whatever code is in place when we submit our application. She
showed a photo of Main Street in the 1890’s. The home was originally constructed in 1889 by the Jacobs
family. Mabel and John Beckerman purchased the property in 1892. In 1961 the land was purchased and
Mable placed an ad in the paper to sell the building. She showed a photo with the one story home and
two story addition. A lot of the historic building is intact. The home is perched above the river. She
showed images with non historic additions of what would be removed. She showed an image with the
restrictions on 333 Park and how they tried to fit the home on the property. We had to find an acceptable
relocation method that would increase the character and integrity of the building. The integrity score
increases by 25 points when the building is moved to Park.
Priorities for the project include a fully restored building, original configuration with the secondary
historic building attached at the rear, brining street presence and remove the stream margin non
conformities at 333 Park. Brian found 931 Gibson. It is a 15,500 square foot relatively flat lot. The
relationship to grade would be restored. The entire lot is proposed to be designated. There is no proposal
for a historic lot split. There is no change to the allowable floor area. We are proposing two detached
single family homes with single family floor area.
Councilman Hauenstein asked are all the garages two car garages for 333. Ms. Adams replied yes. The
requirement is a two car garage. Councilman Hauenstein asked if a single car garage is used on the 333
parcel is there a scenario where it fits in. Ms. Adams replied no, the service space would still be off the
property.
Councilwoman Mullins said this lot, you could do a lot split but there is no room for a second building.
Ms. Yoon said yes. Councilwoman Mullins said the other lot is 15,000 square foot, receives a
designation so you can put the two structures there. How can you get the two structures there if it is not a
lot split. Ms. Garrow replied it is allowed by the underlying zoning.
Councilman Myrin said page 291 show the property on a 3,000 square foot lot. How many examples
from HPC when no variances are granted. Ms. Garrow said each site is different. Typically, something is
requested, setback or change in parking, a floor area bonus. Councilman Myrin said so that could happen
here going back to HPC. Are there other examples where it wasn’t historic then became historic. Ms.
Garrow said those were the two examples we outlined in the memo with relocation. There are a handful
of Aspenmodern that we didn’t analyze. It is rare.
Councilman Frisch said on one hand we are all concerned about moving not just homes around but if HP
was around in the 60’s no one would have allowed the home to be dropped there and faced that way. I’m
not sure if this goes through other people won’t be looking for other places to do it. It becomes a density
issue. The plan is to move the building to 931 then there is an undesignated undeveloped piece of
property. Ms. Yoon replied correct.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Sandy Maple said his parents live next door to the Gibson lot. The lot was designated in 1995 so
we should be done. There is no reason to change that except perhaps to remove the non-historic
P41
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
11
parts of it. The 931 Gibson lot is a large lot in a low density area. To allow two buildings there
increases the density. It is a rectangular lot that requires no variances. The easiest thing to do
would be deny the request. If council allows them to do this at least ensure the lot cannot be split.
2. Daryl Cramer on behalf of Jeffrey and Janet Beck said obvious with only two instances in the last
50 years this is an extraordinary event. One thing that sticks out is the density bonus from this
move. We have concerns about massing, ingress/egress and lot splits.
3. Sally Golden said 333 Park is a hidden landmark that faces the wrong direction. She feels that
the proposal to move to Gibson is the best preservation approach.
4. Bill Stirling said the HP program needs a lot of tools. Very little was in place in the 80s. This in
no way opens Pandora’s box and the few examples given by staff is indicative of that. He
strongly feels that council should recommend relocation and designation.
5. Daryl suggest the ordinance be subject to conditions and only one structure not two. If not that
then not split.
6. Adam Rothberg, 931 Gibson, what I was going to build was dramatically bigger than what they
are proposing. My only issue is that I didn’t think of it. Part of the requirement is a sidewalk. It
makes so much sense. It is not without a huge expense to move all that. This is a unique
situation and a good idea.
7. Jeffrey Beck, neighbor, when I bought my home I assumed next to me I would have one home.
At the very least this lot should be deed restricted.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Ms. Garrow said in terms of floor area and density, if approved, the floor area and density will be the
same as allowed today. Without designation it has to be attached in a duplex. The floor area and density
remain the same.
Ms. Yoon said historic designation adds a layer of design review that is not currently at Gibson. It allows
the neighborhood to comment and request feedback and participate in the review.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is an interesting idea. One thing I keep going back to is I’m very
concerned with the integrity of the HP program. We’ve got a lot of different tools to restore our
resources. You don’t want to manipulate those tools that it becomes a detriment to the program. The
reason for rescinding a designation is the property no longer meets the criteria. I’m not convinced what
you are presenting is strong enough to chip away at our HP program. The idea it is not seen from the
road, it is. The idea of putting all sorts of conditions on the development of the lot is what I objected to
on the previous application. My biggest concern is this somewhat effects the integrity of the program.
Ms. Garrow said only upon the relocation does the designation occur.
Councilman Frisch said is the land underneath the sight worth anything to the program. How much value
should we put on it. Because this has already been moved once that’s where staff is suggesting there is
some flexibility.
Councilman Myrin said if it stays where it is it seems in scale with the space. TDRs could go to the
Gibson lot and be built without council review. Rather than moving the house I would move
development rights.
Mr. True said that is not the application that is in front of you here.
Councilman Myrin said I’m not supportive of relocating. I don’t think it adds to the historic character of
the parcel by relocating.
Councilwoman Mullins said this program is under attack because it is viewed as a money making deal.
This looks a lot like those other deals. Brian Hendrys, owner, said it is not about making money but
P42
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
12
trying to move my family to this town. What if we remove the driveway and garage from the historic
home.
Councilman Frisch said he is open to having the historic structure moved. I believe HPC was right in
what they were trying to do. I want to see one owner, one house one garage.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is open to moving the structure to 931 but I don’t want to do that without
more definition about what is going to happen to 931. I want to see a sidewalk and one building structure
and assurances to us that it is not just another HPC money making deal. I’m not prepared to make a final
decision tonight. I’m open to moving the resource.
Councilwoman Mullins said one of the things we need to understand if we approve moving the house
with one garage and one driveway is maybe it stays there with you as an owner, but would it stay that way
forever.
Mayor Skadron said I think relocation is the best preservation opportunity for the resource. The current
location isn’t the original location. 931 could be argued to be a better landing site. I appreciate that HPC
supported this. I think it is the best solution for the resource. Relocating allows the historic relationship
to be more appropriate. I’m persuaded it will not result in more density or impact to the neighbors.
Councilman Frisch said what I want to see is a single ownership and one house.
Mr. True said it sounds like a continuance is appropriate. We can work to get a process for some of the
protections council is looking for.
Mayor Skadron said he could move this forward tonight because he finds that the relocation review
criteria, the demolition review criteria and the rescinding designation and historic designation criteria are
satisfied. What I’m not hearing from my fellow councilmembers are objections to those criteria.
Councilman Myrin said against the criteria 26.415.090 page 237 number 2, I don’t think it contributes to
the overall character of the historic parcel to move this and I think it will have an adverse impact on the
property.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 to September 17, 2018; seconded
by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2018 – 305 S Mill St. – Grey Lady Restaurant – Temporary Use
Ben Anderson, community development, stated over the last five years there have been requests for a
temporary structure. It is a clear plastic covering and walls made of grey canvas. The request is for 120
days including a request for a Saturday market. To clarify one thing in the memo, there was a
requirement from last year where the structure was to come down at end of April. The roof came down
and the walls remained. At some point during the summer the roof went back up. For a period of time
the conditions were met. Our concern is around the commercial design guidelines.
Ryan Chadwick, owner, said I have a clear plastic top and the sides rolled up. If it’s not on there perfect I
can’t take it down. With the top on I don’t have to use heat. I applied for a removable permit for the top
and it was approved a few years ago. Last year I had sail boat sails on the roof, this year we put the clear
top on. He showed a video from the market last year. I’m not supposed to be here now because my lease
was to end but the landlord keeps extending it.
Siam Castillo, market manager, said we did 25 markets with 25 vendors. The restaurant was there for us
whatever we needed. I ‘ve had a bunch of new people ask me about it for this year.
P43
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
13
Mayor Skadron asked do the additional seats generate additional business. Mr. Chadwick said it depends,
during the busy weeks it does. We would have live music in there. It’s nice to have the lights on in there.
Councilwoman Mullins said she did go to the market more than a few times. Some days it was slow
some days it was quite good. It was a real benefit to the mall. Ms. Garrow said there may have been
some confusion on the resolution. We did a site visit and the roof was gone. If council is inclined to
approve this I would suggest language that it is crystal clear that the roof needs to be gone. There is an
old approval for a retractable canopy that supersedes this. I would rather have a clear covering.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to have the winter market there again. I don’t like to have
this misunderstanding about what is there. I would like to see all the stuff gone until December.
Councilman Myrin said the memo mentioned $6,769 in mitigation. Mr. Anderson said that was based on
the days we think it has been up. There was growth management paid for. That figure was an estimate
on the roof covering. Staff recommendation was not to include it. Councilman Myrin said my feeling is
this is what we need. Without restaurants and without housing this town will not work. I support this.
Councilman Hauenstein said with the conditions it comes down on the 20th of April. Ms. Garrow said
we would ask you set a date that the roof needs to come off now then after the season.
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of staff recommendation as well as getting the Saturday market
to end up at a different place in town.
Mayor Skadron said one of the benefits of this including the market was the improved corner esthetic.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Myrin moved to approve Resolution #122, Series of 2018 with amendment to Section 1 that
the covering and walls are removed within 7 days and all come down within 7 days of April 20, 2019;
seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Frisch. Motion carried.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. True recommend council go in to executive session and continue the remainder of the agenda for
tomorrow. Staff recommends pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 (4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease,
transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the
local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e)Determining
positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and
instructing negotiators related to Goshorn & Goldenberg v City of Aspen 2017CV12 and 20107CV
and the Contract for purchase of E. Hopkins and 204 S Galena spaces.
At 11:35 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 12:30 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive
session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Hauenstein
moved to continue the regular meeting to August 28, 2018 at 4:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
All in favor, motion carried.
August 28, 2018
At 4:10 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the continued regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin,
Frisch, Mullins and Hauenstein present.
P44
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
14
Mr. True recommend council go in to executive session. Staff recommends council go in to executive
session pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 (4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real,
personal, or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the
purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e) Determining positions relative to
matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and instructing
negotiators related to Goshorn & Goldenberg v City of Aspen 2017CV12 and 20107CV and the Contract
for purchase of E. Hopkins and 204 S Galena spaces and another litigation issue.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in
favor, motion carried.
At 4:35 p.m. Councilman Hauenstein moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #130, SERIES OF 2018 – Amend Extend Contract for 517 E Hopkins 204 S Galena
Mayor Skadron said Mark Hunt has agreed to extend his contract until December if the matter goes on the
ballot. He can terminate the contract if we don’t put it on the ballot. It would be an either or between his
option and Ordinance 4. Putting this on the ballot is conditioned on the litigants, Toni Kronberg, Steve
Goldenberg and Marcia Goshorn dropping the lawsuit.
Mayor Skadron opened public comment.
1. Pam Alexander said it is never too late to make the best decision. She asked if we can have more
than two things on the ballot. She said it might be time to re-evaluate.
2. Andrew Sandler said this is an amazing opportunity that the private sector is collaborating with
the public sector. The building on the park looks like a wall blocking some of the views and is
uncalled for. I understand the desire to remodel and the opportunity to have everyone in the core
make sense.
3. Peter Fornell asked what are the political ramifications for the community if the voters don’t want
either one. Where do we go if the message is delivered in a negative way twice.
4. Phyllis Bronson said historically most citizens don’t pay attention until things are up against the
wall. This has been a long process and the time is now to start making decisions. My perception
was obscured by the lawsuits. I support 517 and 204. I want to keep city hall historic. For me
the perception was the project at the Daily News building was linked to the lawsuit and it never
was. The potential for connectivity of the old railroad bed is extraordinary with the civic master
plan. She would also like to see Connor park part of the plan and revitalized.
5. Jim Farey said he does not see a public building being the highest and best use of the Rio Grande
property.
6. Andrew Sandler said the private sector is the driving engine behind the economy. A job at the
city is not a career opportunity for most people. You shouldn’t look at it as a life time career for
them.
7. Toni Kronberg said this is one of the best decisions by council to give the voters a choice. I’m
good with the choice. We have to accept whatever the choice is.
Mr. True said if council wishes to place two options on the ballot, we need to have that language
approved no later than September 7th. The first step is to approve the amended contract with Mr. Hunt.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins said to clarify we are talking about a contract tonight, not the ballot issue.
Councilman Hauenstein said tonight we have to decide if we are going to extend the contract. We have
accepted that we need to have city offices for our staff. Both offices are viable. If we go to a ballot
whatever is decided will be much better than what staff has been working with. To me, it centers around
the vision of north of Main to the river. What does the community want that space to be. Going forward
P45
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
15
there will be numbers and discussions. I hope we honor the truth and the facts. The city has received an
appraisal for the property across the street and we will have discussions about those numbers. The
community can decide on how much vitality and where they want it. I support putting this on the ballot
with the condition that the lawsuits are dropped regardless of the outcome of the election.
Councilman Frisch said while I’m happy to make the decision at the council table I’m happy to go to the
voters. Thanks to Scott and Jack for all the work.
Councilman Myrin said thank you to all the people who signed the petition even if your name wasn’t
acknowledged by the city. Thanks to Marcia and Steve and others who made the right to vote. Without
the community we wouldn’t be where we are tonight and the government would be running without the
community.
Councilwoman Mullins said the decision tonight is to extend the contract with Mark Hunt and perhaps
put it on the November ballot. There are a lot of steps before it is on the ballot. There are conditions that
are non negotiable before it goes on the ballot.
Councilman Myrin said if you have conditions that are non negotiable I think you should share them with
the community tonight.
Mr. True said the key condition to move forward with the ballot is to come up with the proper language
that the city determines and the litigation that resulted from the failure to obtain the proper number of
signatures is dismissed. I cannot suggest you go forward with a ballot issue unless no matter what the
result was that the litigation is dismissed with prejudice. That is the fundamental condition of placing
anything on the ballot. There are terms that would need to be discussed involving the ultimate settlement
of that case but that is the fundamental condition. We will work with the litigants and their attorney with
resolving this. We have a deadline of September 7.
I have a resolution to approve the agreement to approve an amend and extend contract. The resolution
just approves the amend extend agreement. It extends the deadline for due diligence until December 3rd.
It does take the county a little bit of time to certify the election. It does contain a condition in the event
we do not put the matter on the ballot by September 7 or allows for the approval of the Hunt project that
Mr. Hunt can terminate the contract. Following this we will work on the other terms and the ballot
language. My goal would be to present that by next Tuesday.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #130, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein; yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #19 & # 20, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 10.5 of the Charter
regarding enterprise fund bonding
Mr. True said there are two alternate ordinances for charter amendments. They address the issue brought
forward in the work session and first reading regarding an inconsistency with the charter and TABOR.
TABOR allows enterprises to issue bonds without going to an election. We are stuck because the charter
also says enterprise bonds have to go to an election. We are cross ways with TABOR and trying to clean
it up. There are alternatives here because at the work session Councilman Myrin suggested we have a
limit to it. One has a limit that an enterprise can only issue a bond without an election if it is 10 million
dollars or less. We are proposing that it would be good if our charter was consistent with TABOR.
Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks we should adopt the one without any conditions.
Councilman Frisch said some of us might want a limit some of us might not. It should be indexed in
some way if we have a limit.
P46
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018
16
Mayor Skadron open the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mr. True said theoretically you could put both on the ballot and the one with the most yes votes wins.
Councilman Frisch said it’s not worth it to me.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, no; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Ordinance #20, Series of 2018 not voted on since Ordinance 19 adopted.
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 11.4 of the Charter regarding
franchises.
Mr. True said this will remove franchise agreements from being adopted by the electorate. They have
always passed. They are very complicated issues with a significant amount of legalese. It’s not that the
voters can’t sift through it. There are some franchise agreements if elections are even allowed. Most
communities do not place them in front of the electorate. I don’t see it generating a lot of discussion in
the election. It is consistent with other communities in the valley.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 5:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P47
VI.c
Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 4, 2018
1
At 4:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin,
Hauenstein, Mullins and Frisch present.
Jim True, city attorney, said Resolution #133 approves a settlement agreement in the two cases involving
city offices at the Rio Grande property pursuant to Ordinance 4. There are two separate cases. We have
worked with the attorney for the litigants and the settlement agreement is attached to Resolution #133.
The agreement sets forth the agreement on the ballot issue in Resolution #132. The final language is
included in the settlement agreement. It also requires that the litigation be stayed until the completion of
the election and the end of the due diligence period to purchase the property at 517 and 204. If the stay is
lifted the parties will be in the same position then, as they are today. During the stay there will be an
election. The settlement agreement sets for the alternatives as a result of the election. If option A,
purchase of 517 and 204 receives the most votes, then ultimately the council will vacate Ordinance 4 and
the litigation will be terminated. There is a provision that recognizes there may be circumstances beyond
city control where the contract may be terminated prior to December 3, 2018 where the litigation stay
may be lifted and we are in the same place we are now. If option B, Rio Grande receives more votes,
then the litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice and there will be no further litigation regarding
Ordinance 4. We have negotiated these terms in good faith. The agreement has been signed. If you
adopt Resolution #133 then it will set these matters in motion. The settlement agreement will be entered.
Resolution #132 sets the ballot language and sets the matter on the ballot.
We believe this settlement agreement is appropriate at this time which could resolve the litigation once
and for all. If not, it stays it for a period of time and we would be in the same place in December as we
are now.
Ms. Kronberg has raised a question about the ballot language I thought we resolved. I would not support
any kind of modification without Goldenberg and Goshorn here.
Toni Kronberg said the best option out of this is we are going to have new city offices and the voters will
decide where they are. Both Option A and Option B are identical. The difference is A says it is under
contract but does not say the resolution number. Option B says Ordinance 4.
Mr. True said this was brought up early in the discussion. I suggested the reason we didn’t want to put
111 because it was amended by 130. To get a full grasp you would have to refer to both and I think there
was a third. I suggested to the attorney it would just be more words in the question. I understand her
point but at some point, you refer to the original contract and the amendment.
Mayor Skadron said it seems like it complicates an already complicated issue.
Councilman Hauenstein said we are on the third contract with Hunt.
Mayor Skadron closed public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins said she needs more details. We started with two lawsuits. If we put this on the
ballot, if Ordinance 4 wins the lawsuits are dropped after the election. Mr. True said the stipulations are
not dropped until after the results are certified. Soon after the election, if Ordinance 4 gets the most votes
then the stipulation of dismissal will be filled for both cases. This agreement provides a waiver of any
rights for these three litigants to state any claim against the city to delay it or otherwise state a claim
against the city. We believe we’ve got a very through and broad prevention from that kind of scenario if
4 gets the most votes. Councilwoman Mullins said if the Daily News building wins it is not as clear cut.
Mr. True said this is why the litigation is just stayed. It does involve some continued negotiation with
Hunt. There are circumstances with those discussions and moving forward with that contract where the
contract could fall apart. What we felt was not appropriate was to agree to something that could blow up
outside the control of council and then not have any option. We suggested to stay the litigation then if it
did blow up prior to December 3 then the stay is lifted then none of this happened. Councilwoman
P48
VI.c
Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 4, 2018
2
Mullins said if Option A wins and something happens we have no control over it’s as if nothing happens.
If we go ahead what are the chances someone litigates over 517. Mr. True said something like that could
happen. It’s hard to fashion what the basis of litigation on the Hunt contract would be. It is clearly just
and administration function. The chances of that and risk seem to be slim. I think some of that would
have to come up now and between December 3. HPC did grant a preliminary approval for an essential
public facility. It will come to council eventually and there is a theory that it could lead to litigation. I
can’t guarantee something won’t happen that is bad.
Councilman Hauenstein said if it happens after December 3 the lawsuits go away. Mr. True said but
we’ve vacated Ordinance 4. It doesn’t mean we can’t go back and do another approval on that property.
We are trying to make sure we get this as strong as possible by December 3 and move forward. It’s
almost no difference if Hunt wins and we stay with the contract and a new council gets elected and wants
to start all over.
Councilman Hauenstein said if Ordinance 4 is rescinded is the land use void as well. Mr. True replied
yes.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #133, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Mr. True said Resolution #132 adopts the ballot language that will be submitted to the county clerk. It
has the same language that is in the settlement agreement.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #132, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor
Skadron; yes. Motion carried.
At 4:50 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P49
VI.c
Special Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 2018
1
At 4:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the Special Meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Myrin
and Frisch present.
Mayor Skadron said this is a special meeting to amend Resolution #132 from Street to Avenue.
Mr. True said we are here to address the language in the ballot issue in Resolution #132. There is a lot of
case law about the description of avenue and street being irrelevant unless there is the possibility of
confusion. Since we don’t have a Hopkins Street I don’t think that is the case. What I have proposed is
an amendment to resolution #132 to change Street to Avenue.
Councilman Hauenstein arrived.
We also have the same change in the settlement agreement. There is an additional change in the
settlement agreement that was initialed by the litigants that changes the parenthetical element on Option
A to request that the “F” in former not be capitalized. We wanted to keep it relatively simple to make
sure we were describing it properly.
Mayor Skadron said changing Street to Avenue and changing the capital “F” to lower case.
Councilman Myrin asked would it be easier to change the name of the street. We all seem to think it is
Hopkins street. Mr. True said all the signs say Avenue.
Mr. True suggested council move to approve the amendment to the settlement agreement correcting the
scrivener’s error in paragraph 2 changing Street to Avenue and “F” to “f”.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt the changes outlined by Mr. True; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 2:08 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P50
VI.c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director
THRU: Sara Ott, Asst. City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
RE:
Ordinance #25, Series of 2018 - Expanding Investment Options to Include
CHFA Debt
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approve revisions to the City’s
financial policies to allow investment in Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) bonds.
CHFA is a recognized political subdivision of the State of Colorado and approval of this
investment option would align with existing allowances to purchase revenue bonds of a similar
type.
BACKGROUND: Current City policies (Resolution 31, Series 2004) references State Statute
24-75-601.1, for allowable investment options. Included in that list of options are revenue bonds
issued by any state, District of Columbia, U.S. Territory, or any of their subdivisions. The
caveat, however, is that these securities also are required to have a qualifying rating (at or above
“A” or its equivalent) from at least two national rating agencies and must be for durations not to
exceed 5 years. While CHFA is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, it does not
receive ratings on its bond offerings. However, under this same section of the Colorado statute,
subsection (3) states that nothing in this section is intended to limit the power of any home rule
city to invest public funds in any security or other investment permitted under the charter or
ordinance of such home rule city.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Because the City has control of the risk in these investments and
because it is advantageous for the City to retain these interest earnings rather than pay an outside
lender for such services, staff recommends the Council amend its financial policies to include
CHFA debt as an allowable investment vehicle.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2018, to allow CHFA issued
debt as an investment option for the City of Aspen.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P51
VIII.a
ORDINANCE NO. 25
Series of 2018
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE BY THE CITY OF REVENUE BONDS
ISSUED BY THE COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY.
WHEREAS the provision of affordable housing is important to allow people who work in
the City of Aspen (the “City”) and Pitkin County to live near where they work and to be part of
the community; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. §29-4-723 provides that public entities like the City may invest in
bonds issued by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (“CHAFA”) if such bonds satisfy
the investment requirements of part 6 of article 75 of Title 24, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. §24-75-601.1(3) provides that a home rule city may invest any public
funds in any security or investment permitted under ordinance of the city; and
WHEREAS, in order to obtain financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation and equipping
of affordable housing projects benefitting people who live and work in the City and Pitkin
County, the Council wishes to authorize the investment of City funds in bonds issued by
CHAFA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN:
Section 1:
The Council hereby authorizes investment of City funds in bonds issued by CHAFA if the
Council adopts a resolution approving such investment.
Section 2:
All ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of
the inconsistency.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
P52
VIII.a
2
INTRODUCED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING by the City Council of the
City of Aspen on the 17th day of September 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
ADOPTED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of September 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P53
VIII.a
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Resolution #127, 2018: Sandwich Board Sign
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
_________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution 127, Series 201
sandwich board sign regulations in the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The objective
amendment is to balance compliance
decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015)
goals regarding the use of sandwich board signs
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will
the Land Use Code is accordance with the policies contained in this
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEEDURES
The purpose of this public hearing is for Council to provide direction
Land Use Code as it relates to the use of sandwich board signs. To initiate a Land Use Code amendment,
Council must first approve a Policy Resolution providing guidance to staff as to the nature of the
proposed code amendment. In this case, the proposed Resolution
present Council with an ordinance to amend the sign regulations to allow for the use of sandwich boards
in certain zone districts and by certain users.
Should Council decide at this hearing to maintain the current regulations not permitting sandwich board
signs, Council may decide not to approve Resolution 127. If Council approves Resolution 127 directing
staff to provide options for the use of sandwich board signs, s
first reading immediately following this hearing
September 24th, at which time Council may
expiration date of current sandwich board permits.
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council
Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
127, 2018: Sandwich Board Sign Policy Resolution
, 2018
_________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
, Series 2018 describes Council policy direction for code amendments to the
sign regulations in the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The objective of the proposed code
balance compliance with the requirements of the United States Supreme Court
decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015) with regulations achieving Council’s and the public’s
goals regarding the use of sandwich board signs.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will provide an ordinance for Council’s consideration to amend
th the policies contained in this resolution.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEEDURES:
is for Council to provide direction to staff as to whether to amend the
Land Use Code as it relates to the use of sandwich board signs. To initiate a Land Use Code amendment,
Council must first approve a Policy Resolution providing guidance to staff as to the nature of the
case, the proposed Resolution 127, Series 2018, would direct staff to
present Council with an ordinance to amend the sign regulations to allow for the use of sandwich boards
in certain zone districts and by certain users.
decide at this hearing to maintain the current regulations not permitting sandwich board
signs, Council may decide not to approve Resolution 127. If Council approves Resolution 127 directing
staff to provide options for the use of sandwich board signs, staff will present Ordinance 24, 2017 for
immediately following this hearing. Second Reading would be held the following week on
, at which time Council may choose to act on Ordinance 24 to avoid the September 28
te of current sandwich board permits.
Policy Resolution
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
describes Council policy direction for code amendments to the
of the proposed code
rements of the United States Supreme Court
with regulations achieving Council’s and the public’s
for Council’s consideration to amend
to staff as to whether to amend the
Land Use Code as it relates to the use of sandwich board signs. To initiate a Land Use Code amendment,
Council must first approve a Policy Resolution providing guidance to staff as to the nature of the
127, Series 2018, would direct staff to
present Council with an ordinance to amend the sign regulations to allow for the use of sandwich boards
decide at this hearing to maintain the current regulations not permitting sandwich board
signs, Council may decide not to approve Resolution 127. If Council approves Resolution 127 directing
taff will present Ordinance 24, 2017 for
. Second Reading would be held the following week on
on Ordinance 24 to avoid the September 28th
P54
IX.a
September 17, 2018 Sign Code Amendment Policy Resolution
2
BACKGOUND:
Based on previous Council direction and the regulations contained in Ordinance 22, 2017, staff is
scheduled to begin enforcement of the sandwich board sign regulations on September 28, 2018. Prior
to that date, staff has conducted outreach with the business community and general public, including
door-to-door outreach to downtown businesses, a survey on Aspen Community Voice, press releases
and coverage in local media. As the outreach is ongoing, the results of this latest round of outreach will
be included in the presentation to Council on Monday September 17th.
The decision by Council to remove sandwich board signs as an allowed sign type stems from public
outreach and Council deliberation in 2017 regarding the legal strictures of Reed and the need to
preserve community aesthetics and the effectiveness of commercial signage in the downtown core.
Staff used 2017 public outreach data and the consulting services of Mark White, a national leader in the
development of Reed-compliant sign codes, to guide the development of Ordinance 22, 2017. At the
August 28, 2017 hearing, Council directed staff to eliminate sandwich board signs as a permitted sign
type. (The minutes from that Council meeting and the 8/14/17 First Reading hearing are attached as
Exhibit C.) Council approved that ordinance 4-1 and directed staff to delay enforcement of the new
regulations until one year from the ordinance effective date, September 28, 2018.
Beginning in June 2018, staff began reaching out to the business community to remind them of the
pending change in sign regulation enforcement. The current conversation about the sandwich board
sign regulations is a direct outcome of staff’s early outreach efforts. At a work session on August 21,
2018, Council directed staff to develop code language options to allow for the use of sandwich board
signs. Council’s discussion and direction focused on the relationship between Council’s local and second
tier business policy goals, sandwich board signs, and commercial core aesthetics. The attached Policy
Resolution is written to authorize staff to propose code amendments which allow for the renewed use
of sandwich board signs.
OVERVIEW:
Resolution 127, 2018 outlines the policy direction provided by Council at the August 21, 2018 work
session. The code amendment objectives in Section 1 outline the overall objectives of the amendment
process. The most important of these is compliance with the requirements of Reed, which is the basis
for each amendment option presented to Council. The options are outlined below and in more specific
detail in Exhibit B.
Option One would allow one sandwich board per second tier commercial unit. The proposed language
ties the ability to display a sandwich board sign to second tier space. Specifically, the regulations make
permits available to businesses located in units meeting the definition of second tier space. The
regulations are intended to prevent over-saturation of sandwich board signs by limiting permits to those
buildings which contain a restaurant or retail use. Therefore, downtown buildings which are purely
office, service, or residential in nature would not be eligible for sandwich board sign permits.
It is important to note that, due to the strictures of Reed, the City may not limit permits to certain
business types. As a result, many real estate and offices uses will display sandwich board signs. The
P55
IX.a
September 17, 2018 Sign Code Amendment Policy Resolution
3
regulations are focused on the location of the business (second tier spaces) and the nature of the
building in which it is located (restaurant or retail uses must be present). This approach would require
applicants to demonstrate that they are in a second-tier unit (basement, upper floor, alley, or mid-block
walkway)
Option Two would allow one sandwich board sign per building. The proposed regulations tie sandwich
board permits to buildings in which a restaurant or retail use is located. This option allows for one
sandwich board to be shared among tenants of qualified buildings, with no requirement for second tier
space occupancy. The proposed code language includes standards by which the area of the sign is to be
shared among tenants of the building.
The code language is designed to place the responsibility on the building or business owners for
designing and apportioning the sandwich board sign and submitting for permit. It also excludes the City
from any liability for the management of the sign by the tenant applicants. This system is preferable to
one where the City is engaged in the ownership, design, or management of the sandwich board sign.
The shared, one per building approach allows for corner buildings fronting two streets or larger buildings
with eight or more units to display two signs.
A third option available to Council would be to extend the timeframe for enforcement of the current
sandwich board sign regulations by one year to September 28, 2019. This option would give businesses
the opportunity to work with City staff and property owners to develop directory signs and other
additional signage to meet their needs once the 2019 sandwich board sign permit sunset goes into
effect.
It is noteworthy that any option which amends to code to permit sandwich board signs may not achieve
all the objectives and direction from Council in Resolution 127. As staff has noted in previous
discussions, without the ability to control what business type can use a sandwich board sign or assess
compliance with the regulations based on the content of the sign, there is the potential for the use of
these signs as off-site “billboards” for other businesses. Similarly, it is probable that business types
which could not previously use sandwich board signs will be permitted to do so under the revised
regulations. Thus, the choice for Council centers on tradeoffs between the appropriateness of a
potential expansion of the number of signs in downtown and whether the benefits of that additional
signage are felt by the second tier and locally serving businesses Council seeks to protect.
A fourth option available to Council (not included in Exhibit B) is to maintain the regulations adopted last
August and allow the current permits to expire on September 28th. This option will ensure that Council
does not permit a proliferation of sandwich board signs, that the City’s sign regulations are Reed
compliant, and that businesses are treated fairly with respect to the signage available to them. This
option does not require a code amendment or additional action by Council.
Staff is prepared to respond to Council direction at First Reading with a final draft ordinance including
Council’s preferred regulatory option. That draft ordinance will be presented to Council for Second
Reading and a vote on next Monday September 24th in advance of the September 28th enforcement
deadline.
P56
IX.a
September 17, 2018 Sign Code Amendment Policy Resolution
4
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Beginning in July 2018, staff walked door to door in the commercial core. Their task was informing
business of the regulatory change and offering one-on-one consultations for business owners on options
available to them to meet their signage needs within the current sign code. To date, no businesses have
taken advantage of those consultations. Staff has also appeared this summer on the Grassroots T.V.
broadcast City Matters to discuss the issues and remind the public of the 2017 code amendment
process. This is in addition to the robust, four-month outreach process conducted in spring and summer
2017. The extensive outreach conducted over the last 16 months is in recognition of the perceived
importance of the issue to the business community and exceeds the outreach requirements in the Land
Use Code.
The findings of the most recent community survey and door-to-door efforts will be included in the staff
presentation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
Council is asked to select one of the four options proposed for incorporation in the Policy Resolution.
“I move to approve Resolution No. 127, Series 2018, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
amendments to the sign regulations in the Land Use Code, incorporating option ______ in Section 2.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Resolution 127 Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Sandwich Board Sign Code Language Options
Exhibit C: Council Meeting Minutes – 8/14/17 & 8/28/17
P57
IX.a
Sandwich Board Sign Code Amendment
Resolution No. 127, Series 2018
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 127
(SERIES OF 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING CODE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S SIGN REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE
TO SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), a Policy Resolution is required
to initiate the process of amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the United State Supreme Court found in the case of Reed v. Town
of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015) (Reed) that commercial and non-commercial signage are forms of
speech protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
and,
WHEREAS, the Reed ruling requires that governmental sign regulations be
content neutral, and that the regulation of commercial and non-commercial signage be
limited to the quantity, physical and locational characteristics of signs in the community;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with community members, business owners,
stakeholders, and City Council regarding the amendments to the sign code; and,
WHEREAS, there is community interest in allowing the use of sandwich board
signs, presently not permitted under the sign regulations, by certain business types and in
certain locations; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on September 17, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution No. 127, Series of
2018, requesting an amendment for the standards related to sandwich board signs; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The goals and objectives of this code amendment is to:
P58
IX.a
Sandwich Board Sign Code Amendment
Resolution No. 127, Series 2018
Page 2 of 3
1. Comply with the requirements of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015); and,
2. Ensure the appropriate balance of signage and community aesthetics; and,
3. Maintain public health, safety, and welfare by limiting sign clutter, distractions from
roadways and obstructions from signage; and,
4. Provide opportunities for appropriate signage in commercial zone districts; and,
5. Limit the proliferation of signs in commercial zone districts; and,
6. Ensure that sign regulations meet the informational, advertising, wayfinding and
speech needs of residents, businesses and visitors.
Section 2: Sign Code Amendment Direction from Council
City Council provided the following general direction in work sessions related to these code
amendments:
1. Ensure sandwich board sign regulations comply with the requirement of Reed v
Town of Gilbert, Ariz.
2. Explore options to provide for the limited use of sandwich board signs in appropriate
commercial zone districts while preventing the proliferation of such signs.
3. To the extent possible, use sandwich board signs to support Council’s second tier
space policies.
4. Create an equitable system for permitting sandwich board sign for certain business
types.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 17th day of September, 2018.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
P59
IX.a
Sandwich Board Sign Code Amendment
Resolution No. 127, Series 2018
Page 3 of 3
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P60
IX.a
Sandwich Board Sign Code Staff Findings– September 17, 2018
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two
– Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in amending the Land Use Code (LUC) to permit certain sign types
in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court Case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. The
proposed amendments ensure that the sign code balances community aesthetics with the commercial,
directional, and informational benefits of signage. The proposed amendments also ensure that the City’s sign
regulations remain in compliance with federal legal requirements.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or
objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
It is the objective of Council and City staff to ensure that the legality of the sign regulations in the Land Use
Code is maintained. Furthermore, it is the goal of Council to ensure that the public is provided with access to
commercial, civic, and wayfinding information in a manner that enhances public health, safety and welfare
while preserving community aesthetics. These goals are supported by the following Aspen Area Community
Plan Policies:
· V.2 Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs.
· V.3 Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our architectural heritage in
terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights, in order to:
o Create certainty in land development.
o Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
o Protect our small town community character and historical heritage.
o Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
o Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs.
o Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion, and demand for
affordable housing.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character
of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed policies and code amendments support and enhance community character by balancing community
aesthetics with the value of commercial, civic, safety, and wayfinding signage in appropriate quantities and
locations. Further, the proposed policies and code amendments ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of
the City’s sign regulations by ensuring their compliance with the requirements of the Reed decision.
P61
IX.a
Exhibit B – Sandwich Board Sign Regulatory Options
1
Exhibit B: Sandwich Board Sign Language for Code Section 26.515.100 “Sandwich Boards”
OPTION ONE
One Per Second Tier Unit
One (1) sandwich board sign may be displayed per individually leasable commercial unit which
meets the definition of Second Tier Space, and which is located in a building containing and
restaurant or retail use.
A. For any business to display a sandwich board sign, the Community Development
Department must receive a completed application along with appropriate fees as
amended from time-to-time, and a signed letter of approval from the property owner
or property manager.
B. Sandwich board signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet per side, must be made
primarily of wood, metal or acrylic, and have a professional finish. Sandwich board
signs may not be illuminated in any way.
C. Multiple businesses may be advertised on one sign. An annual permit must be obtained,
and the permit number must be displayed on the sign.
D. Incorporated inserts must contain a fixed message or be chalkboard. Dry erase boards
are prohibited. Sandwich board signs shall not be used as merchandise display.
E. The sandwich board sign must be located within five (5) feet of the building façade from
which the permit holder unit is accessed or the building in which the permit holder is
located.
F. The sandwich board sign must be located on or adjacent to the parcel on which the
permit holding business is located.
G. A six (6) foot travel width must be maintained on sidewalks and pedestrian malls. This
does not allow for signs aligned on edge with one another, creating a solid line of
sandwich board signs. They may not be left out overnight. These signs may be
maintained year-around.
OPTION TWO
One Per Building
One sandwich board sign may be displayed per commercial building in which a restaurant or
retail use is located. For buildings fronting two streets or for buildings containing more than
eight (8) individually leased retail or restaurant uses, one (1) additional sandwich board sign
may be permitted.
A. For any business to display a sandwich board sign, the Community Development
Department must receive a completed application along with appropriate fees as
amended from time-to-time, and a signed letter of approval from the property owner
or property manager.
B. Applications for sandwich board permits must include all tenants of the building
displaying content on the sandwich board sign. All applicants for a sandwich board sign
must sign the permit application and include the contact information of all the
businesses to be included on the sandwich board sign.
P62
IX.a
Exhibit B – Sandwich Board Sign Regulatory Options
2
C. Multiple businesses may be advertised on one sign. An annual permit must be obtained,
and the permit must be displayed on the sign.
D. Sandwich boards sign shall be shared among tenants of a building according to the
following standards:
1. Only permit holding tenants may display messages on the sandwich board sign.
2. The total area of the sandwich board sign shall be shared equally among permit
holding tenants.
3. Completed sandwich board permit applications must include the proposed
design for the entire sandwich board sign at the time of submission.
E. Sandwich board signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet per side, must be made
primarily of wood, metal or acrylic, and have a professional finish. Sandwich board
signs may not be illuminated in any way.
F. Incorporated inserts must contain a fixed message or be chalkboard. Dry erase boards
are prohibited. Sandwich board signs shall not be used as merchandise display.
G. The sandwich board sign must be located within five (5) feet of the building in which the
permit holder(s) is located.
H. The sandwich board sign must be located on or adjacent to the parcel containing the
permit holding business(es).
I. A six (6) foot travel width must be maintained on sidewalks and pedestrian malls. This
does not allow for signs aligned on edge with one another, creating a solid line of
sandwich board signs. They may not be left out overnight. These signs may be
maintained year-around.
OPTION THREE
One Year Permit Extension
Extent the sunset date for existing sandwich board sign permits and enforcement by one year
to September 28, 2019. This option does not necessitate additional Council discussion prior to
the 2019 sunset date. This option simply delays the enforcement of the existing regulations for
one year.
P63
IX.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017
5
said she thinks the architecture needs to be reviewed. It is somewhat overbearing to the historic resource.
She would like to see more discussion about that. She would like more discussion about depressing the
ground floor. She would like more discussion about using cedar. She supports the 1,500 square foot
maximum.
Councilman Hauenstein asked have they extended the vesting. Ms. Phelan said it was approved in 2006.
The recession hit and there were requests for extension of vesting for multiple projects in town. An
extension was granted. During the court process the vesting was extended again. Councilman
Hauenstein asked for more information on the employee mitigation and the loss of the one parking space.
Councilman Frisch asked for more explanation in the pillow counts. He said it isn’t really changing
much. The proposed layout works better than building much of the same units. The cap size is a worthy
discussion. As long as it feels like it is a lodge and it is going to be a lodge is easier to focus on than a
lodge in name only. He appreciates they are trying to take advantage of some of the small lodge
incentives. It is a great project to utilize them.
Mayor Skadron said he is interested in the relationship between programming and market expectation. It
addresses the increased room size you are asking for. I would require a deed restriction to prevent
conversion to condos but we can’t do that. He would like to discuss at the public hearing conditions of
approval that speak to conversion in the future as well as expectations of transportation and parking. He
asked about the escrow agreement of $250,000. Is that for the city’s protection. Mr. Bendon replied yes.
Mayor Skadron asked for discussion on the benefits of the small lodge preservation program and more
discussion on the contract purchaser agreement. At what point are you committed and moving forward.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #21, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 21
SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
TO A GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR CHANGES
TO A MIXED USE PROJECT CONTAINING LODGE, FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN
AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes;
Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed-Compliant Sign Code Update
Jessica Garrow, community development, stated this update is mandated by the Supreme Court to make
us Reed Compliant. There are two significant issues that staff needs more direction on including
construction and sandwich board signs.
Philip Supino, community development, said we are in month five of the Reed Compliant process.
Second reading is scheduled for August 28. The goals are to comply with the court requirements, balance
of community esthetics, maintain public health, commercial and non commercial opportunities, limit
proliferation of excessive signage and meet informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs.
Yard signs - The proposal contains one temporary sign, one holiday time, one real-estate and up to three
election signs.
Television displays – 180 square inches or larger must meet 15 foot set back requirement.
P64
IX.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017
6
Added lighting standards for back lit signs.
Window wraps and displays – allow up to 50 percent coverage. 25 percent may be text and logos. Full
covered wraps are no longer permitted.
No change to overall sign allotments.
Banners would be made City property prior to being displayed.
Construction site signs would be a uniform sign including City permitting info, contact info, project
partners and visuals. Up to six safety, state and federally compliant signs would also be permitted.
Construction site screening is not in the current draft. Example of the hotel Jerome. Staff asked for more
direction from Council. What is art and what is signage. We can eliminate text and logos.
Councilman Myrin said he likes what the Jerome has done. We can’t regulate the content. What is the
downside if it is a content we don’t like. They are not up for a long time. If it was going to be there
forever I would be concerned. I guess it is a risk I’m willing to take acknowledging we may get art we
don’t like.
Jim True, city attorney, said there are cases that suggest you can’t make the distinction between art and
signage.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is a risk to allow these to go up. We stick with the construction signs and
leave it to that. She supports not to allow art work on the screening.
Councilman Frisch said on one hand he is a supporter of the visual arts but it is a can of worms of epic
proportions while it would be fun to do. We could take the aspen tree and this is what you get. A
standardization is best. What is shown should be low heart burn to many and away from the brown paper
bag. As much as I love to see variety and creativity I can see people making their art right now and it will
not be pretty. I think we take a pretty picture and put it up there. Mr. True said I think you can clearly do
that. Standardizing something like you are suggesting, I think we can handle and would be allowed.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is tending more towards Adam. Would it be possible to have a few
approved options if you want to display art. Mr. True said there is nothing wrong with having options.
My initial reaction is there is nothing wrong with it. Legally I think we are covered.
Mayor Skadron said he can live with the options.
Sandwich boards
Tied to second tier space and specific zone districts. One per tenant in the CC, C1, NC and MU.
Staff mapped the locations of approved permits currently. If allowed for all businesses it could be almost
1,200 signs. In CC and C1 807 possible business could have one. In NC and SCI it could be 99. Second
tier spaces on the malls are 54. Currently there is a 20 percent participation rate for businesses that can
have a sandwich board. Staff feels there are different types of businesses in second tier spaces that may
take advantage than those in prime spaces.
Councilwoman Mullins said we have no control on the content. Mr. Supino replied that is correct.
Councilwoman Mullins said during election season they could all become political signs. Mr. Supino
said that is also correct. Ms. Garrow said we did a good deal of outreach on this. The business
community wants everyone to be treated the same. Either everyone gets it or no one gets it.
Councilman Frisch said having 800 or 1,200 is not beneficial. We are trying to figure out how not to ban
them. I think the business owners are short sighted in wanting everyone treated the same. If we do need
to do something the second tier space is of interest to me. Mr. Supino said on the malls it is 54 second
tier spaces. We don’t have a good count everywhere else. If the participation rate were to stay the same
it would be 11. If it were to double that would feel like a lot more signs. Councilman Frisch said we do
need to be concerned about people thinking they could make revenue from renting their sign.
Councilman Myrin asked can we do one per building or 30 feet of street frontage. That would maintain
the feel of the quantity. The content would be up to the tenants of the building. Mr. True said we have
P65
IX.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017
7
thought about one sign per building. I suppose you could fashion something around frontage along the
right of way.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if currently can we control the content. Ms. Garrow said it is tied to the
business. Councilwoman Mullins said I thought there was no way we could restrict it the way Bert and
Adam are suggesting. Mr. True said there is a little distinction between what they are suggesting and
saying there are 30 signs here’s who gets them. Councilwoman Mullins said that is better than 800 signs.
The bigger concern is we can’t control the content.
Mayor Skadron said he would experiment with none for now. It creates a level playing field and slowly
roll out a new program. Councilwoman Mullins agrees.
Councilman Hauenstein asked if it is possible to limit the total number. He likes the second tier as a way
to level the playing field and help find the business. Is there a way to limit the number of permits.
Councilman Frisch said if we are not under the gun and the wheels of government turn slowly. I’m happy
to focus on other stuff. Why don’t we focus on other stuff and let this brew a little. There are a lot of
other things we have to work on. Mr. Supino said we can attempt to draft a few things for second reading
to have a more informed discussion.
Councilman Hauenstein said there are a lot of different sized signs out there can we uniform the size. Mr.
Supino said there is a maximum size.
Councilman Myrin asked if we could do it with a duration. Ms. Garrow replied it is a possibility.
Councilwoman Mullins said for the construction wraps would it require a graphic and what is the
additional cost to the contractor. Councilman Frisch said his preference is two or three choices if one is
the brown my choice is no. Ms. Garrow said at a minimum we would need to phase in the art.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would support brown as an option.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #22, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 22
SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO LAND
USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS AND PART 26.100.104 – DEFINITIONS.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch,
yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2017 – Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A, Minor Subdivision, Lot
Split; Minor Amendment to a Planned Development; and Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Ben Anderson, community development, told the Council the property is located on 1449 /1452 Crystal
Lake Rd. This is for a lot split and two additional reviews including a minor amendment to the PD. It is
an interesting shaped lot, double flag lot with a drive entrance. The main house is on lot 12 with a guest
house on 12A. The property is currently considered a single lot and has been since 1976 when the
subdivision was created. 1449 where the main house is located has a single family residence. 1452 with
the guest house has two dwelling units including the ADU. The lots were drawn and labeled separately.
The subdivision agreement has language where the lots are collectively designated and lot 12A is the
guesthouse for lot 12. In 1976 we did not have the language for a guesthouse.
P66
IX.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
7
is the special review process. Mr. Barker said it is an additional review for requests associated with
particular variations built into the Mixed Use zone. They are based on the context of the surrounding
zone. He gave the example of additional parking provided within the site or surrounding vicinity.
Councilman Hauenstein said for the parking reduction he generally does not like cash in lieu. He would
rather see alternate mobility. Mr. Barker said they are not paying cash, HPC just reduced the parking by
one.
Councilman Frisch said he knows the existing building and it is in need of any in Aspen. This has
basically been affordable housing just run by the free market. There is no doubt that if anyone wanted to
build a free market condo they would have a hefty bill. There is some value in wheeling and dealing a
bit. He is not sure he wants to get involved in calling this up based on the special review process.
Councilman Myrin said he does not have much to say on the box.
Mayor Skadron said he supports the HPC recommendation and is not desirous of a call up.
Councilwoman Mullins said yes we want affordable housing but it seems like through the special review
we would get a 1,500 square foot floor area increase and one foot higher and the elimination of one
parking space. It is a really big package of incentives. It is also in the Main Street historic district. She
would like to see it looked at again. Mayor Skadron said the mass and scale are in line with the
neighboring properties.
Councilman Frisch asked if the FAR has to do with the livability or did they capture more units. Mr.
Barker said there would be less units on site. Councilman Frisch said APCHA has minimum units.
Without the increase they wouldn’t meet them. Mr. Barker said there would be fewer units. The
replacement requirements make them provide 8 units in one form or another.
Ms. Garrow said this is under the old code. This is likely the last project you will see under these
parameters.
Councilman Frisch said he is fine with it as proposed.
Mayor Skadron said this will not be called up.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed Compliant Sign Code Updates
Phillip Supino, community development, stated this code amendment is a result of the Supreme Court
decision Reed versus the Town of Gilbert in 2015 requiring sign codes to be content neutral. If you have
to read the sign to determine if it complies with the code it is not content neutral. What can be regulated
includes size, material, portability, commercial vs residential, number, time restriction and things like
that. The policy goals include does it comply with the requirements of first amendment. Ensure
appropriate balance of community ascetics. Maintain public health and safety. Limit the proliferation of
excessive signs. Meet informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs.
Direction received from Council to date.
Unify construction site content. Develop concept and process for construction site screening art. Both of
these live in the Construction Management Plan and will be a subsequent discussion.
Provide options for sandwich board signs. Maintain the status quo or eliminate them. Mr. Supino
provided four options:
Eliminate sandwich boards which would result in zero.
One per 30 linear feet of building frontage: There could be a possibility of 533 or 107 at the 20 percent
participation rate.
One per building: There could be a possibility of 241 or 48 at the 20 percent participation rate.
One per second tier space tenant: There could be 1,197 or 240 at 20 percent participation rate.
P67
IX.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
8
Ms. Garrow said in analyzing this we took public feedback from businesses that they want to be treated
fairly. Based off of that we recommend the eliminate option. It makes most sense because we can always
ramp it back up. At this point, given what we have been trying to balance, we are at option one.
Councilman Frisch said his direction is we drop the direction of sandwich boards for further study. His
preference is to put it aside for the foreseeable future while we get more community input.
Councilman Myrin asked on the Main Street banners, what happens to them at the end of the year. Ms.
Garrow said they become property just for that time. We are maintaining the status quo.
Councilman Hauenstein said for number six I think we can be flexible on the brightness on the new signs.
He is good on most of these. For construction wraps use Maroon Bells or aspen trees. For all the other
for construction make them minimal. The argument that everyone should be treated the same is a valid
argument but people in the basement don’t have a window so they aren’t being treated equal. I want
people in second tier businesses to be able to survive. I don’t want to open that can of worms at this
point. I think sandwich boards have a valuable place in the community in getting people to businesses.
We could always go back to option one.
Councilwoman Mullins asked to have a sandwich board do people pay a fee. Ms. Garrow said they pay a
sign permit. Councilwoman Mullins said she is ok with everything. The brown bag thing, I’ll go along
with Council if they want the graphics. In terms of sandwich boards, I’ve never been crazy about them
because they clutter the pedestrian way. There are several reasons why to eliminate them completely.
Now they are used as a wayfinding tool. If they are rented out they are no longer a wayfinding tool.
There is a big risk in trying to monitor the content. There are real inequality. How do you divide up the
signs for a building with multiple tenants. They have lost their original function. She supports
eliminating them. We can always review it again depending on the backlash.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Mayor Skadron said there is some support for the second tier space and some to eliminate. The prudent
thing is to follow option one and eliminate them. The issue as Ann said is it is hard to manage. He is
concerned about proliferation of signage. We could have hundreds or thousands of signs. It is easier to
allow more should we find a way to let that happen appropriately. He supports option one. There is also
a suggestion to drop them from the entire discussion and pass the ordinance without them.
Mr. True said the sandwich boards that are out there now have approval. If you eliminate them they are
grandfathered and we would say they are good for one year from approval.
Councilman Myrin said page 419 says September 28, 2018. He will support where Ann and Steve are.
Mayor Skadron said that with great sensitivity with the issues it may cause to our small businesses.
Ms. Garrow said the pieces related to construction signs will be flushed out related to construction
management plan.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2017; Seconded by Councilman Myrin.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, no; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) Conference with attorneys regarding pending
litigation, Castle and Maroon Creek Diligence cases, C.R.s. 24-6-402 (e)(i) Determining positions relative
to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations, and C.R.S. 24-6-
P68
IX.a
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Ordinance #24
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
_________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
Ordinance 24, Series 2018 provides recommended code language to allow sandwich board signs under
certain conditions. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to comply with the requirements
of the United States Supreme Court decision in
certain buildings and commercial locations to display sandwich board signs
alternative code language permitting one sandwich board sign to be displayed per
on per building under certain conditions. Council may discuss both options and open the public hearing
for Ordinance 24 without taking specific action
September 24, 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approve Ordinance 24, Series 2018
BACKGOUND:
Council adopted Ordinance 22, 2017
Council meeting and the 8/14/17 First Reading hearing
amendments were in response to the
Ariz. (Reed) that municipal sign code regul
must be focused on the size, type, loca
displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the s
determine if it complies, then the regulation
At the time of adoption of Ordinance 22, 2018,
the status quo” to the extent possible.
addressing sandwich boards. Each option created challenges for meeting Council’
“maintain the status quo” relative to the old sign regulations.
staff to eliminate sandwich board signs as a permitted sign type
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council
Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
24, 2018: Reed-Compliant Sandwich Board Sign Regulations
, 2018
_________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Ordinance 24, Series 2018 provides recommended code language to allow sandwich board signs under
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to comply with the requirements
of the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015)
certain buildings and commercial locations to display sandwich board signs. Exhibit B includes
alternative code language permitting one sandwich board sign to be displayed per
ing under certain conditions. Council may discuss both options and open the public hearing
for Ordinance 24 without taking specific action on either code option until the Second Reading on
approve Ordinance 24, Series 2018 at First Reading.
Council adopted Ordinance 22, 2017 on August 28th by a vote of four to one. (The minutes from that
and the 8/14/17 First Reading hearing are attached as Exhibit C.
amendments were in response to the June 2015, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
that municipal sign code regulations must be “content neutral”. This means
must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity
displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the s
regulation is not content neutral.
Ordinance 22, 2018, Council’s over-arching policy objective was to “maintain
the status quo” to the extent possible. Ultimately, staff provided Council with four options for
addressing sandwich boards. Each option created challenges for meeting Council’
e to the old sign regulations. In Ordinance 22, 2017,
signs as a permitted sign type. Council approved that ordinance
Sandwich Board Sign Regulations
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Ordinance 24, Series 2018 provides recommended code language to allow sandwich board signs under
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to comply with the requirements
wn of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015), while permitting
. Exhibit B includes
alternative code language permitting one sandwich board sign to be displayed per second tier space or
ing under certain conditions. Council may discuss both options and open the public hearing
on either code option until the Second Reading on
by a vote of four to one. (The minutes from that
Exhibit C.) The code
Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
This means sign regulations
tion and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity
displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the sign to
arching policy objective was to “maintain
Ultimately, staff provided Council with four options for
addressing sandwich boards. Each option created challenges for meeting Council’s policy directive to
In Ordinance 22, 2017, Council directed
. Council approved that ordinance 4-1
P69
IX.b
Ordinance 24, 2018 - Sign Code Amendment, First Reading
2
and directed staff to delay enforcement of the new regulations until one year from the ordinance
effective date, September 28, 2018.
Beginning in June 2018, staff began reaching out to the business community to remind them of the
pending change in sign regulation enforcement. Those efforts were successful at informing the business
community. The current conversation about the sandwich board sign regulations is a direct outcome of
staff’s early efforts at outreach. Which brings Council and staff to this hearing, providing Council with
another opportunity to discuss the best course of action relative to sandwich board signs as September
28th approaches.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the outcome of the Policy Resolution discussion prior to this hearing, one of the regulatory
options outlined in Exhibit B will be added to Resolution 127 and be used in Section 1 of Ordinance 24 to
amend the Land Use Code. Exhibit B outlines three possible code amendments which Council may
consider to permit the limited use of sandwich board signs by downtown businesses. Each option is
Reed compliant and designed to achieve Council’s goals of supporting hard to find, second tier
businesses while not permitting every business in the commercial core to display a sandwich board sign.
The Policy Resolution memo further outlines the intent and possible consequences of each of the three
regulatory options. A fourth option, not included in Exhibit B, is to take no action to amend the sign
regulations and allow the existing sandwich board permits to expire on September 28th.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Beginning in July 2018, staff walked door to door in the commercial core. Their task was informing
business of the regulatory change and offering one-on-one consultations for business owners on options
available to them to meet their signage needs within the current sign code. Staff has also appeared this
summer on the Grassroots T.V. broadcast City Matters to discuss the issues and remind the public of the
2017 code amendment process. This is in addition to an AspenCommunityVoice.com survey and
coverage in local media in recent weeks, and the robust, four-month outreach process conducted in
spring and summer 2017. The extensive outreach conducted over the last 16 months is in recognition of
the perceived importance of the issue to the business community and exceeds the outreach
requirements in the Land Use Code.
The findings of the most recent community survey and door-to-door efforts, which have not yet
concluded at the time of this writing, will be included in the staff presentation for the First Reading of
Ordinance 24, 2018.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance 24, Series 2018, at First Reading.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Sandwich Board Code Language Options
Exhibit C: Council Meeting Minutes – 8/14/17 & 8/28/17
P70
IX.b
9/17/18 First Reading, Ordinance 24, Series 2018
Sandwich Board Sign Code Update
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE No. 24
Series of 2018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE
AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to craft code amendments to amend the City’s sign regulations; and,
WHEREAS, signs are a form of speech protected under the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, and a 2015 United States Supreme Court decision (Reed v.
Town of Gilbert) requires local governments to review and revise their sign regulations to ensure
that those regulations emphasize the dimensional, design and location of signs rather than their
content; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on August 28, 2017, the City Council approved Ordinance 22, Series 2017, by a four to one (4-1)
vote amending the land use code; and,
WHEREAS, the City regulates signs to:
· Protect the rights of all persons to freedom of expression; and,
· Protect the unique aesthetics and visual heritage of the City; and,
· Maintain public health, safety, and welfare by preventing sign clutter,
distractions from roadways and obstructions from signage; and,
· Provide opportunities for commercial and non-commercial signs in commercial
and residential zone districts; and,
· Limit the proliferation of excessive signs in commercial and residential zone
districts; and,
· Ensure that sign regulations are adequate to accommodate the informational,
advertising, wayfinding and speech needs of residents, businesses and visitors.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and consultants White &
Smith, LLC conducted research into national best practices regarding sign code compliance
with First Amendment principles to aid in the drafting of Ordinance 22, Series 2018; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with community members and stakeholders, the
Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council
regarding the amendments to the sign code; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council met in work sessions on August 21, 2018 and
provided direction on potential amendments to the City’s sign regulations related to sandwich
board signs; and
P71
IX.b
9/17/18 First Reading, Ordinance 24, Series 2018
Sandwich Board Sign Code Update
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code to comply with First Amendment principles and
allow for the limited use of sandwich board signs will ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability
of the sign regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on September 17, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 127, Series 2018, by a five to zero
(5-0) vote to direct staff to amend the land use code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction,
and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health safety and welfare; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. Chapter 26.510.110 shall be amended as follows:
26.510.110 Sandwich board signs
A. Insert second-tier space sign code language here…
Section 3: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not
limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption
of the Ordinance.
Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 6: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 7:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the ____ day of _____, 2018, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
P72
IX.b
9/17/18 First Reading, Ordinance 24, Series 2018
Sandwich Board Sign Code Update
Page 3 of 3
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the _____ day of _____, 2018.
Attest:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____th day of _____, 2018.
Attest:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P73
IX.b
Sandwich Board Sign Code Staff Findings– September 17, 2018
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two
– Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in amending the Land Use Code (LUC) to permit certain sign types
in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court Case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. The
proposed amendments ensure that the sign code balances community aesthetics with the commercial,
directional, and informational benefits of signage. The proposed amendments also ensure that the City’s sign
regulations remain in compliance with federal legal requirements.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or
objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
It is the objective of Council and City staff to ensure that the legality of the sign regulations in the Land Use
Code is maintained. Furthermore, it is the goal of Council to ensure that the public is provided with access to
commercial, civic, and wayfinding information in a manner that enhances public health, safety and welfare
while preserving community aesthetics. These goals are supported by the following Aspen Area Community
Plan Policies:
· V.2 Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs.
· V.3 Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our architectural heritage in
terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights, in order to:
o Create certainty in land development.
o Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
o Protect our small town community character and historical heritage.
o Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
o Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs.
o Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion, and demand for
affordable housing.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character
of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed policies and code amendments support and enhance community character by balancing community
aesthetics with the value of commercial, civic, safety, and wayfinding signage in appropriate quantities and
locations. Further, the proposed policies and code amendments ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of
the City’s sign regulations by ensuring their compliance with the requirements of the Reed decision.
P74
IX.b
Exhibit B – Sandwich Board Sign Regulatory Options
1
Exhibit B: Sandwich Board Sign Language for Code Section 26.515.100 “Sandwich Boards”
OPTION ONE
One Per Second Tier Unit
One (1) sandwich board sign may be displayed per individually leasable commercial unit which
meets the definition of Second Tier Space, and which is located in a building containing and
restaurant or retail use.
A. For any business to display a sandwich board sign, the Community Development
Department must receive a completed application along with appropriate fees as
amended from time-to-time, and a signed letter of approval from the property owner
or property manager.
B. Sandwich board signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet per side, must be made
primarily of wood, metal or acrylic, and have a professional finish. Sandwich board
signs may not be illuminated in any way.
C. Multiple businesses may be advertised on one sign. An annual permit must be obtained,
and the permit number must be displayed on the sign.
D. Incorporated inserts must contain a fixed message or be chalkboard. Dry erase boards
are prohibited. Sandwich board signs shall not be used as merchandise display.
E. The sandwich board sign must be located within five (5) feet of the building façade from
which the permit holder unit is accessed or the building in which the permit holder is
located.
F. The sandwich board sign must be located on or adjacent to the parcel on which the
permit holding business is located.
G. A six (6) foot travel width must be maintained on sidewalks and pedestrian malls. This
does not allow for signs aligned on edge with one another, creating a solid line of
sandwich board signs. They may not be left out overnight. These signs may be
maintained year-around.
OPTION TWO
One Per Building
One sandwich board sign may be displayed per commercial building in which a restaurant or
retail use is located. For buildings fronting two streets or for buildings containing more than
eight (8) individually leased retail or restaurant uses, one (1) additional sandwich board sign
may be permitted.
A. For any business to display a sandwich board sign, the Community Development
Department must receive a completed application along with appropriate fees as
amended from time-to-time, and a signed letter of approval from the property owner
or property manager.
B. Applications for sandwich board permits must include all tenants of the building
displaying content on the sandwich board sign. All applicants for a sandwich board sign
must sign the permit application and include the contact information of all the
businesses to be included on the sandwich board sign.
P75
IX.b
Exhibit B – Sandwich Board Sign Regulatory Options
2
C. Multiple businesses may be advertised on one sign. An annual permit must be obtained,
and the permit must be displayed on the sign.
D. Sandwich boards sign shall be shared among tenants of a building according to the
following standards:
1. Only permit holding tenants may display messages on the sandwich board sign.
2. The total area of the sandwich board sign shall be shared equally among permit
holding tenants.
3. Completed sandwich board permit applications must include the proposed
design for the entire sandwich board sign at the time of submission.
E. Sandwich board signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet per side, must be made
primarily of wood, metal or acrylic, and have a professional finish. Sandwich board
signs may not be illuminated in any way.
F. Incorporated inserts must contain a fixed message or be chalkboard. Dry erase boards
are prohibited. Sandwich board signs shall not be used as merchandise display.
G. The sandwich board sign must be located within five (5) feet of the building in which the
permit holder(s) is located.
H. The sandwich board sign must be located on or adjacent to the parcel containing the
permit holding business(es).
I. A six (6) foot travel width must be maintained on sidewalks and pedestrian malls. This
does not allow for signs aligned on edge with one another, creating a solid line of
sandwich board signs. They may not be left out overnight. These signs may be
maintained year-around.
OPTION THREE
One Year Permit Extension
Extent the sunset date for existing sandwich board sign permits and enforcement by one year
to September 28, 2019. This option does not necessitate additional Council discussion prior to
the 2019 sunset date. This option simply delays the enforcement of the existing regulations for
one year.
P76
IX.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017
5
said she thinks the architecture needs to be reviewed. It is somewhat overbearing to the historic resource.
She would like to see more discussion about that. She would like more discussion about depressing the
ground floor. She would like more discussion about using cedar. She supports the 1,500 square foot
maximum.
Councilman Hauenstein asked have they extended the vesting. Ms. Phelan said it was approved in 2006.
The recession hit and there were requests for extension of vesting for multiple projects in town. An
extension was granted. During the court process the vesting was extended again. Councilman
Hauenstein asked for more information on the employee mitigation and the loss of the one parking space.
Councilman Frisch asked for more explanation in the pillow counts. He said it isn’t really changing
much. The proposed layout works better than building much of the same units. The cap size is a worthy
discussion. As long as it feels like it is a lodge and it is going to be a lodge is easier to focus on than a
lodge in name only. He appreciates they are trying to take advantage of some of the small lodge
incentives. It is a great project to utilize them.
Mayor Skadron said he is interested in the relationship between programming and market expectation. It
addresses the increased room size you are asking for. I would require a deed restriction to prevent
conversion to condos but we can’t do that. He would like to discuss at the public hearing conditions of
approval that speak to conversion in the future as well as expectations of transportation and parking. He
asked about the escrow agreement of $250,000. Is that for the city’s protection. Mr. Bendon replied yes.
Mayor Skadron asked for discussion on the benefits of the small lodge preservation program and more
discussion on the contract purchaser agreement. At what point are you committed and moving forward.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #21, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 21
SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
TO A GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR CHANGES
TO A MIXED USE PROJECT CONTAINING LODGE, FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN
AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes;
Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed-Compliant Sign Code Update
Jessica Garrow, community development, stated this update is mandated by the Supreme Court to make
us Reed Compliant. There are two significant issues that staff needs more direction on including
construction and sandwich board signs.
Philip Supino, community development, said we are in month five of the Reed Compliant process.
Second reading is scheduled for August 28. The goals are to comply with the court requirements, balance
of community esthetics, maintain public health, commercial and non commercial opportunities, limit
proliferation of excessive signage and meet informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs.
Yard signs - The proposal contains one temporary sign, one holiday time, one real-estate and up to three
election signs.
Television displays – 180 square inches or larger must meet 15 foot set back requirement.
P77
IX.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017
6
Added lighting standards for back lit signs.
Window wraps and displays – allow up to 50 percent coverage. 25 percent may be text and logos. Full
covered wraps are no longer permitted.
No change to overall sign allotments.
Banners would be made City property prior to being displayed.
Construction site signs would be a uniform sign including City permitting info, contact info, project
partners and visuals. Up to six safety, state and federally compliant signs would also be permitted.
Construction site screening is not in the current draft. Example of the hotel Jerome. Staff asked for more
direction from Council. What is art and what is signage. We can eliminate text and logos.
Councilman Myrin said he likes what the Jerome has done. We can’t regulate the content. What is the
downside if it is a content we don’t like. They are not up for a long time. If it was going to be there
forever I would be concerned. I guess it is a risk I’m willing to take acknowledging we may get art we
don’t like.
Jim True, city attorney, said there are cases that suggest you can’t make the distinction between art and
signage.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is a risk to allow these to go up. We stick with the construction signs and
leave it to that. She supports not to allow art work on the screening.
Councilman Frisch said on one hand he is a supporter of the visual arts but it is a can of worms of epic
proportions while it would be fun to do. We could take the aspen tree and this is what you get. A
standardization is best. What is shown should be low heart burn to many and away from the brown paper
bag. As much as I love to see variety and creativity I can see people making their art right now and it will
not be pretty. I think we take a pretty picture and put it up there. Mr. True said I think you can clearly do
that. Standardizing something like you are suggesting, I think we can handle and would be allowed.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is tending more towards Adam. Would it be possible to have a few
approved options if you want to display art. Mr. True said there is nothing wrong with having options.
My initial reaction is there is nothing wrong with it. Legally I think we are covered.
Mayor Skadron said he can live with the options.
Sandwich boards
Tied to second tier space and specific zone districts. One per tenant in the CC, C1, NC and MU.
Staff mapped the locations of approved permits currently. If allowed for all businesses it could be almost
1,200 signs. In CC and C1 807 possible business could have one. In NC and SCI it could be 99. Second
tier spaces on the malls are 54. Currently there is a 20 percent participation rate for businesses that can
have a sandwich board. Staff feels there are different types of businesses in second tier spaces that may
take advantage than those in prime spaces.
Councilwoman Mullins said we have no control on the content. Mr. Supino replied that is correct.
Councilwoman Mullins said during election season they could all become political signs. Mr. Supino
said that is also correct. Ms. Garrow said we did a good deal of outreach on this. The business
community wants everyone to be treated the same. Either everyone gets it or no one gets it.
Councilman Frisch said having 800 or 1,200 is not beneficial. We are trying to figure out how not to ban
them. I think the business owners are short sighted in wanting everyone treated the same. If we do need
to do something the second tier space is of interest to me. Mr. Supino said on the malls it is 54 second
tier spaces. We don’t have a good count everywhere else. If the participation rate were to stay the same
it would be 11. If it were to double that would feel like a lot more signs. Councilman Frisch said we do
need to be concerned about people thinking they could make revenue from renting their sign.
Councilman Myrin asked can we do one per building or 30 feet of street frontage. That would maintain
the feel of the quantity. The content would be up to the tenants of the building. Mr. True said we have
P78
IX.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 14, 2017
7
thought about one sign per building. I suppose you could fashion something around frontage along the
right of way.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if currently can we control the content. Ms. Garrow said it is tied to the
business. Councilwoman Mullins said I thought there was no way we could restrict it the way Bert and
Adam are suggesting. Mr. True said there is a little distinction between what they are suggesting and
saying there are 30 signs here’s who gets them. Councilwoman Mullins said that is better than 800 signs.
The bigger concern is we can’t control the content.
Mayor Skadron said he would experiment with none for now. It creates a level playing field and slowly
roll out a new program. Councilwoman Mullins agrees.
Councilman Hauenstein asked if it is possible to limit the total number. He likes the second tier as a way
to level the playing field and help find the business. Is there a way to limit the number of permits.
Councilman Frisch said if we are not under the gun and the wheels of government turn slowly. I’m happy
to focus on other stuff. Why don’t we focus on other stuff and let this brew a little. There are a lot of
other things we have to work on. Mr. Supino said we can attempt to draft a few things for second reading
to have a more informed discussion.
Councilman Hauenstein said there are a lot of different sized signs out there can we uniform the size. Mr.
Supino said there is a maximum size.
Councilman Myrin asked if we could do it with a duration. Ms. Garrow replied it is a possibility.
Councilwoman Mullins said for the construction wraps would it require a graphic and what is the
additional cost to the contractor. Councilman Frisch said his preference is two or three choices if one is
the brown my choice is no. Ms. Garrow said at a minimum we would need to phase in the art.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would support brown as an option.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #22, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 22
SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO LAND
USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS AND PART 26.100.104 – DEFINITIONS.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch,
yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2017 – Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A, Minor Subdivision, Lot
Split; Minor Amendment to a Planned Development; and Removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Ben Anderson, community development, told the Council the property is located on 1449 /1452 Crystal
Lake Rd. This is for a lot split and two additional reviews including a minor amendment to the PD. It is
an interesting shaped lot, double flag lot with a drive entrance. The main house is on lot 12 with a guest
house on 12A. The property is currently considered a single lot and has been since 1976 when the
subdivision was created. 1449 where the main house is located has a single family residence. 1452 with
the guest house has two dwelling units including the ADU. The lots were drawn and labeled separately.
The subdivision agreement has language where the lots are collectively designated and lot 12A is the
guesthouse for lot 12. In 1976 we did not have the language for a guesthouse.
P79
IX.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
7
is the special review process. Mr. Barker said it is an additional review for requests associated with
particular variations built into the Mixed Use zone. They are based on the context of the surrounding
zone. He gave the example of additional parking provided within the site or surrounding vicinity.
Councilman Hauenstein said for the parking reduction he generally does not like cash in lieu. He would
rather see alternate mobility. Mr. Barker said they are not paying cash, HPC just reduced the parking by
one.
Councilman Frisch said he knows the existing building and it is in need of any in Aspen. This has
basically been affordable housing just run by the free market. There is no doubt that if anyone wanted to
build a free market condo they would have a hefty bill. There is some value in wheeling and dealing a
bit. He is not sure he wants to get involved in calling this up based on the special review process.
Councilman Myrin said he does not have much to say on the box.
Mayor Skadron said he supports the HPC recommendation and is not desirous of a call up.
Councilwoman Mullins said yes we want affordable housing but it seems like through the special review
we would get a 1,500 square foot floor area increase and one foot higher and the elimination of one
parking space. It is a really big package of incentives. It is also in the Main Street historic district. She
would like to see it looked at again. Mayor Skadron said the mass and scale are in line with the
neighboring properties.
Councilman Frisch asked if the FAR has to do with the livability or did they capture more units. Mr.
Barker said there would be less units on site. Councilman Frisch said APCHA has minimum units.
Without the increase they wouldn’t meet them. Mr. Barker said there would be fewer units. The
replacement requirements make them provide 8 units in one form or another.
Ms. Garrow said this is under the old code. This is likely the last project you will see under these
parameters.
Councilman Frisch said he is fine with it as proposed.
Mayor Skadron said this will not be called up.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2017 – Reed Compliant Sign Code Updates
Phillip Supino, community development, stated this code amendment is a result of the Supreme Court
decision Reed versus the Town of Gilbert in 2015 requiring sign codes to be content neutral. If you have
to read the sign to determine if it complies with the code it is not content neutral. What can be regulated
includes size, material, portability, commercial vs residential, number, time restriction and things like
that. The policy goals include does it comply with the requirements of first amendment. Ensure
appropriate balance of community ascetics. Maintain public health and safety. Limit the proliferation of
excessive signs. Meet informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs.
Direction received from Council to date.
Unify construction site content. Develop concept and process for construction site screening art. Both of
these live in the Construction Management Plan and will be a subsequent discussion.
Provide options for sandwich board signs. Maintain the status quo or eliminate them. Mr. Supino
provided four options:
Eliminate sandwich boards which would result in zero.
One per 30 linear feet of building frontage: There could be a possibility of 533 or 107 at the 20 percent
participation rate.
One per building: There could be a possibility of 241 or 48 at the 20 percent participation rate.
One per second tier space tenant: There could be 1,197 or 240 at 20 percent participation rate.
P80
IX.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 28, 2017
8
Ms. Garrow said in analyzing this we took public feedback from businesses that they want to be treated
fairly. Based off of that we recommend the eliminate option. It makes most sense because we can always
ramp it back up. At this point, given what we have been trying to balance, we are at option one.
Councilman Frisch said his direction is we drop the direction of sandwich boards for further study. His
preference is to put it aside for the foreseeable future while we get more community input.
Councilman Myrin asked on the Main Street banners, what happens to them at the end of the year. Ms.
Garrow said they become property just for that time. We are maintaining the status quo.
Councilman Hauenstein said for number six I think we can be flexible on the brightness on the new signs.
He is good on most of these. For construction wraps use Maroon Bells or aspen trees. For all the other
for construction make them minimal. The argument that everyone should be treated the same is a valid
argument but people in the basement don’t have a window so they aren’t being treated equal. I want
people in second tier businesses to be able to survive. I don’t want to open that can of worms at this
point. I think sandwich boards have a valuable place in the community in getting people to businesses.
We could always go back to option one.
Councilwoman Mullins asked to have a sandwich board do people pay a fee. Ms. Garrow said they pay a
sign permit. Councilwoman Mullins said she is ok with everything. The brown bag thing, I’ll go along
with Council if they want the graphics. In terms of sandwich boards, I’ve never been crazy about them
because they clutter the pedestrian way. There are several reasons why to eliminate them completely.
Now they are used as a wayfinding tool. If they are rented out they are no longer a wayfinding tool.
There is a big risk in trying to monitor the content. There are real inequality. How do you divide up the
signs for a building with multiple tenants. They have lost their original function. She supports
eliminating them. We can always review it again depending on the backlash.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Mayor Skadron said there is some support for the second tier space and some to eliminate. The prudent
thing is to follow option one and eliminate them. The issue as Ann said is it is hard to manage. He is
concerned about proliferation of signage. We could have hundreds or thousands of signs. It is easier to
allow more should we find a way to let that happen appropriately. He supports option one. There is also
a suggestion to drop them from the entire discussion and pass the ordinance without them.
Mr. True said the sandwich boards that are out there now have approval. If you eliminate them they are
grandfathered and we would say they are good for one year from approval.
Councilman Myrin said page 419 says September 28, 2018. He will support where Ann and Steve are.
Mayor Skadron said that with great sensitivity with the issues it may cause to our small businesses.
Ms. Garrow said the pieces related to construction signs will be flushed out related to construction
management plan.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2017; Seconded by Councilman Myrin.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, no; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) Conference with attorneys regarding pending
litigation, Castle and Maroon Creek Diligence cases, C.R.s. 24-6-402 (e)(i) Determining positions relative
to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations, and C.R.S. 24-6-
P81
IX.b
Page 1 of 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
RE: Policy Resolution: Historic Preservation Benefits
Resolution #108, Series 2018
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution#108, Series of 2018 describes policy direction for code amendments to various
sections of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, including Historic Preservation, Growth Management Quota
System, Transferable Development Rights, and Zone Districts. The objective of the proposed code
amendments is to improve the historic preservation benefits, in place since 1987, to align with current
policies reflected in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and with philosophies of the Historic
Preservation Commission, City Council and the community developed after three decades of experience in
the implementation of the benefits.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will draft an ordinance for Council’s consideration to amend the
Land Use Code is accordance with the policies contained in the attached resolution. First Reading is
tentatively scheduled for September 24th and Second Reading on October 8th.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Land Use Code sections connected to historic preservation.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach.
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued.
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
P82
X.a
Page 2 of 9
BACKGROUND:
Aspen has a rich history of historic preservation, with the first preservation ordinance adopted in 1972.
Shortly thereafter, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was created and two historic districts –
the Commercial Core and Main Street - were established. With the guidance of HPC and Staff, Council
developed the “City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures” listing significant
historic resources that meet the criteria for historic designation and protection. Today, the Inventory
contains 300 properties from both Victorian and Modern eras. All of these properties are required to go
through a more rigorous and time intensive review than similar non-historic properties. Based on the
adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, HPC and City preservation staff are given the powers and
duties to review and approve, approve with conditions, or to disapprove work on properties listed in the
Inventory. HPC and Council can grant certain benefits for listed resources as an incentive for maintaining,
preserving, and enhancing the historic property. The intent for these benefits is to encourage best historic
preservation practices. The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan states as a Policy “Ensure that the historic
preservation benefits package encourages owners of landmark properties to preserve structures to the
highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the neighborhood.” It
also states “Encourage the use of the City’s Historic Transferable Development Right program as a method
of preserving the historic integrity of designated structures.”
Most of the historic preservation benefits have been in place since a major expansion of the preservation
program occurred in 1987. Few amendments have been made to the benefits since that time. The Historic
Landmark Lot Split and Transferrable Development Rights are more recent additions that were creative
approaches to reducing the pressure to add on to a historic structure.
Staff believes that benefits for historic preservation have been critical to transforming the view of historic
designation from a burden, as it was seen in the 80s. The fact that private property owners have remained
interested in revitalizing historic sites over the last three decades since benefits were adopted is a credit
to the community. More than 100 outstanding historic preservation projects have received awards from
HPC in this time, and the City has received recognition from the State Historical Society and was recognized
as Historic Preservation Commission of the Year by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions for
the pro-active and successful policies that have been implemented in Aspen. City staff has been invited
to speak about Aspen’s historic preservation benefits at State and National conferences, where the
program is viewed as a model for others to follow.
This said, staff and HPC acknowledge that not all historic preservation projects have successfully balanced
development and community benefit. In 2017, Council provided direction to examine the preservation
benefits. There are a number of amendments to the historic preservation benefits that could potentially
improve outcomes without unnecessarily threatening the positive aspects of the program. There are
many remaining opportunities to restore buildings which may have been destructively altered prior to
historic preservation policies being adopted. Of the approximately 2,000 parcels of land in Aspen, only
P83
X.a
Page 3 of 9
300 contain historic resources. The preservation program creates an opportunity for partnership between
the City and property owners to help the maintain Aspen’s valued historic character.
OVERVIEW:
Below is a complete list of preservation benefits as outlined in the Municipal Code and those sections
proposed for code amendments in the attached Policy Resolution are highlighted. The public notice for
this Policy Resolution covered all Chapters of the Municipal Code regulating preservation, so Council has
the ability to amend any benefit.
Description
Amendments
Proposed
A
Historic Landmark Lot
Split may allow subdivision of property
B Increased Density
may allow two detached single-family
dwelling units or duplex on smaller lot X
C Variations
may allow development in side, rear and
front setbacks, development that does not
meet min. distance between buildings, up
to 5% additional site coverage, less public
amenity for commercial historic
properties.
D
Parking reduction/fee
waiver
reductions on sites unable to
accommodate
E Conditional Uses depending on zone districts
F Floor Area Bonus
may grant up to 500 sq. ft. for projects
that demonstrate exemplary HP practices X
G
Growth Management
Quota System Exemption may be exempt or reduced X
H Waiver of impact fees may be eligible for impact fee waiver
I Rehabilitation Loan Fund zero interest loan for urgent repairs
J
Conservation easement
program easement which may create tax benefits
K
City-Owned Building
Rehabilitation fund
maintenance of historic assets owned by
the City accommodated in Asset
Management Plan
L
Transferable Development
Rights (TDR)
undeveloped floor area to be relocated to
a different property within the city X
M Tax credit applications 20% state income tax credit X
P84
X.a
Page 4 of 9
N
Community-initiated
development opportunity for public/private partnership
O Building Code flexibility
flexibility in options for Building Code
compliance
P Contractor Training
required training for all preservation
projects
Q Cultural Heritage Tourism
websites, tours and other outreach efforts
undertaken when possible
R
Preservation Honor
Awards held annually in May
S Historic Markers occasionally provided by City
T Work Sessions can be held by HPC for qualifying projects
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The following sections correspond to the sections in the Policy Resolution.
Section 1: Overall Code Amendment Objectives
This section of Resolution #108 outlines the high-level goals for each of the sections proposed for
amendment. These goals reflect the input staff has received from HPC, Council, the general public and
identified stakeholders. These include ensuring continued preservation of all historic resources, ensuring
that historic preservation projects appropriately balance development opportunities and community
benefits.
Section 2: Historic Preservation, Chapter 26.415
This section proposes amendments to the main Historic Preservation Chapter, including amendments
related to density and floor area increases, as well as tax credit applications. The policy goal for the
amendments to this Chapter of the Municipal Code is “raise the bar” and focus specifically on direct
preservation of the historic resource and actions which are beyond standard expectations. The criteria
are to focus on benefits that allow a historic resource to be expanded only minimally, with most new
square footage in a detached structure or transferred off the site. The floor area bonus should not just
facilitate a larger addition to a historic structure. The criteria must define and reward exemplary
preservation work and improve outcomes by more clearly communicating what qualifies for the bonus
before an applicant makes the investment of designing it into their project. With regard to the tax credit,
the goal is to reduce in house workload and responsibility for implementing regulations created by other
agencies.
1. Increased Density, Section 26.415.110.B: This benefit allows, by right, two detached single-family
dwelling units or a duplex on a smaller lot than would be possible if the parcel was not designated
historic. HPC believes that this can be a very good preservation outcome because any benefit that
P85
X.a
Page 5 of 9
makes it possible to detach new construction from the historic resource (in this case in the form
of a second residential unit on the site) helps to retain the integrity of the resource.
Both staff and HPC recommend one particular change to this benefit. By taking advantage of
building a second residential unit on a site, there is typically an automatic increase in allowable
floor area by a few hundred feet, depending on lot size. HPC feels that a property that receives
this increase in floor area should not also be eligible for an additional floor area bonus, creating a
“double dip.” If the increase allowed by zoning is less than 500 square feet, HPC is open to a
property owner earning no more than the “short-fall” as a bonus.
2. Floor Area Bonus, Section 26.415.110.F: HPC may grant up to 500 sq. ft. of additional floor area
for projects that demonstrate exemplary HP practices. Projects currently must demonstrate at
least one of the following criteria are met:
1. Design of project meets all applicable design guidelines;
2. Historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a
manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
3. Work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
4. New construction reflects proportional patterns found in the historic building’s form,
materials or openings;
5. Construction materials are of the highest quality;
6. Appropriate transition defines the old and new;
7. Project retains historic outbuildings; and/or
8. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
HPC recognizes this as the most valuable of all of the incentives, and the one that has the most
potential to motivate excellent preservation. HPC does not want this benefit eliminated but
has a number of ideas for possible adjustments, including:
• Amend the floor area bonus so it is not the same for all lot sizes. The existing sliding
scale for by-right floor area already allows a disproportionately large amount of square
footage on small lots and HPC does not wish to aggravate this. HPC suggests that
small lots should be eligible for less bonus area than larger lots to avoid
overdeveloping a property.
• Update the criteria for the floor area bonus and require more criteria to be met. Some
of the criteria address actions any applicant would likely take and should not earn an
extra award, such as using high quality exterior materials on a new addition. Improved
criteria should reward work that is above and beyond the minimum treatment
expected for a historic structure. For instance, keeping a historic porch in good repair
is a required treatment, not necessarily eligible for the award of a bonus. Re-opening
P86
X.a
Page 6 of 9
an enclosed porch is a sacrifice of enclosed space that HPC cannot necessarily require
of an owner, but can motivate with the opportunity of a bonus.
• Create criteria that recognizes some small actions as worth only a portion of the bonus
versus extensive restoration being worth a larger portion of the bonus.
• Create criteria that clearly convey certain preferred outcomes, such as multiple small
structures on a lot rather than one large structure, or creating a close relationship
between the height of the historic resource and any addition.
• Create criteria which discourage the award of a bonus where outcomes which may not
be preferred, such as underutilizing a historic resource through the removal of floor
levels from the interior of a historic resource (not currently within the authority of HPC
to prevent) and using that “found” square footage is used to create a larger new
addition.
• Create criteria that reward the property owner for exceeding requirements for other
community priorities, such as the voluntary creation of affordable housing.
3. Tax Credit Applications, Section 26.415.110.M: The State of Colorado offers a 20% state income
tax credit for qualified historic preservation work, up to a maximum of $50,000 per project, to
encourage the renovation and re-use of older buildings. Beginning in 2020, an additional 10%
credit will be available to Rural Areas, which will include Aspen. The City has the option to review
applications affecting local properties or to forward the applications to the State for review.
For a number of reasons, this tax credit is not heavily utilized in Aspen. Property owners may not
owe State Income Tax, may not want to undertake the review process, or may not want to agree
to aspects of the tax credits which may limit interior work on a property. Applications are
occasionally received and processed by Community Development and the City is allowed to retain
the application fee of up to $750 per project. The fee must be earmarked to be used only for
historic preservation purposes.
The City has the ability to continue to review tax credit applications through 2019, based on a
Resolution Council passed by Council in 2008 agreeing to do so. The City also has the option to
stop reviewing applications and begin forwarding them to the State for review, which is staff’s
recommendation. The tax credit regulations are complicated and staff’s limited occasion to review
projects makes the review process unfamiliar. Approvals are subject to audit by the Department
of Revenue, exposing the City to some risk. Finally, tax credit reviews add to an already heavy
workload. Staff has not included formal action in the attached Policy resolution because there are
applications under review by Community Development now and the City’s ability to review the
P87
X.a
Page 7 of 9
applications will expire by itself in about a year. In practice, we plan to forward any applications
after the current ones to the State unless Council provides different direction.
Section 3: Growth Management Quota System, Chapter 26.470
Certain projects have fewer or different requirements in Growth Management because the property is
historic. Historic homes generally provide no affordable housing mitigation and there is reduced
affordable housing mitigation for commercial development in a historic building than what is required in
a non-historic building.
These GMQS exemptions can be positive for preservation because they may reduce or eliminate
additional programming and square footage on the property and reduced project costs may help to offset
the unique expenses involved in historic preservation work. Recent feedback provided to staff by two
separate experts in construction in Aspen indicated that historic preservation projects involve:
• Significant design fees and carrying costs resulting from one to two years of HPC review process
for large projects.
• Up to triple the construction cost of a non-historic project ($100-$300 more per square foot for
the entire project, not just the historic portion).
• Lengthy processes to source appropriate preservation techniques and materials, complex custom
fabrications, and higher risk construction challenges, such as lead paint abatement.
• Risk involved with extra supervision of the project by HPC staff, and delays in resolving unexpected
conditions.
• 3-6 months of extra construction time.
When asked whether the financial value of the current historic preservation benefits made up for these
challenges, it was reported that even with the value of benefits there is typically uncovered “loss” that
the owner must assume when undertaking preservation in Aspen. The basis of the adoption of benefits
so many years ago was to offer a partnership between the City and the stewards of the community’s
history.
In past discussions, Council has highlighted affordable housing waivers as an important area for code
changes. Staff finds it particularly important to maintain the benefit for commercial properties, where
few other benefits are typically relevant and the size and complexity of the project may be significant.
There could be potential changes to the amount of AH mitigation reductions given to residential projects.
For reference, the approximate value of a typical affordable housing waiver that might be granted if a
historic home on an R-6 lot is expanded by 2,000 square feet would be $109,632.
While staff agrees that this is an important benefit for historic properties given the additional costs
required for these types of projects, staff recognizes the concern with impacts to the city’s critical
P88
X.a
Page 8 of 9
affordable housing program. Staff recommends that the benefit be amended to only allow an affordable
housing waiver for a historic resource, not a non-historic dwelling that may be built on the same lot, for
instance when a historic resource is converted from a single-family home to a duplex.
To the extent that Council finds additional amendment to be necessary to the relief provided to residential
properties, staff suggestions include:
• Reduce mitigation for the historic unit by 50%, or
• Allow the floor area bonus or affordable housing waiver, not both.
In all cases staff would like to ensure the affordable housing benefit remain available by-right to
AspenModern voluntary historic designations.
Section 4: Transferable Development Rights, Chapter 26.535
City Council may approve the creation of TDRs, which allows undeveloped floor area to be severed from
a historic property and sold and developed on a different non-historic property within the city. This has
been a very effective preservation benefit, essentially sterilizing some historic properties from further
development. The benefit could be improved through the creation of new criteria to only allow TDRs to
be severed from a lot which contains a historic resource and not from a lot that was created through a
subdivision of a historic parcel. Additional clarity in the criteria to extend beyond a simple math equation
is also proposed.
The policy goal for the amendments to this Chapter of the Municipal Code is to ensure the effectiveness
and health of the market for TDRs by limiting them to actions which have direct benefit to historic
resources, and taking a property’s specific characteristics into account when establishing TDRs.
Section 5: Zone Districts, Chapter 26.710
Some of the benefits discussed above, such as extra floor area being provided for increased density, are
referenced in the Zone Districts, therefore amendments to this chapter are necessary to achieve the
changes noted above.
The policy goal for the amendments to this Chapter of the Municipal Code is to ensure consistency with
amendments to other chapters noted above.
Section 6: New Benefits
HPC and stakeholders proposed that this discussion of improvements to historic preservation benefits
include options for new benefits. In particular, benefits that do not necessarily add more mass to a site
are of interest, including speeding up the process for HPC projects through expedited permit review, or
reducing the costs of the process with City fee waivers. At this time, staff recommends additional study
of these, and returning with potential changes as part of the Ordinance review.
P89
X.a
Page 9 of 9
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Since Council’s request in December 2017 to examine the Historic Preservation Benefits, HPC has held
three (3) policy discussions, Council held a worksession and attended site visits to several current
preservation projects, an online community survey was conducted and staff hosted a stakeholder meeting
with a number of homeowners, architects, planners and developers with first-hand experience with the
historic preservation benefits. The complete feedback received through the public outreach resulting
from the community survey and stakeholder’s meetings are provided in Exhibits B and C to this memo.
In general, feedback has been supportive of the preservation benefits with none recommended to be
eliminated. On-going careful management of the program is encouraged. A strong message that came
out of the stakeholder’s meeting was don’t break what isn’t broken now.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution #108, Series 2018, approving a Policy Resolution regarding amendments
to the Historic Preservation Program.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #108, Series 2018
Exhibit A –Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit B –Community Survey Results
Exhibit C –Stakeholder Meeting Summary
P90
X.a
Resolution #108, Series 2018
Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #108
SERIES OF 2018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING POLICIES IN SUPPORT
OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), a Policy Resolution is required to
initiate the process of amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the City’s
historic preservation regulations; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with members of the public, historic property
owners, local architects, designers, and planners; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends Council consider
changes to the Historic Preservation, Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision,
Transportation and Parking Management, Transferable Development Rights, Impact Fees
and Zone Districts sections of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code as described below will ensure the ongoing
effectiveness and viability of the regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use Code to
achieve City Council’s policy and regulatory goals; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on September 17, 2018 the City Council approved Resolution #108, Series of 2018,
by a __ to __ vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Overall Code Amendment Objectives
The objectives of these code amendments are to:
P91
X.a
Resolution #108, Series 2018
Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 2 of 3
A. Ensure continued preservation of all historic resources.
B. Ensure historic preservation projects appropriately balance development
opportunities and community benefit.
Section 2: Historic Preservation Benefit Code Amendment Goals by Topic
The goals of the Historic Preservation Benefits amendments are to:
A. Maintain the ability to create two detached units where currently allowed, while
limiting the total amount of square footage that can be developed as a result of the
additional unit.
B. Strengthen the review criteria for the Floor Area Bonus, including
1. Provide no bonus for lots that can achieve 500 square feet or more from the
creation of two detached units or a duplex.
2. Create a sliding scale of potential Floor Area Bonus based on lot size.
3. Update criteria for a bonus and/or create a sliding scale of potential Floor
Area Bonus based on the level of preservation achieved.
4. Limit the ability for a Floor Area Bonus when significant interior space is
removed in an effort to create a larger addition.
5. Establish criteria that reward an owner for exceeding requirements for other
community priorities, such as the creation of affordable housing.
C. Return review of Historic Preservation State Income Tax Credit applications to the
State of Colorado.
Section 3: Growth Management Code Amendment
The goals of the Growth Management amendments are to:
A. Balance the importance of the historic preservation and affordable housing
programs by ensuring that any affordable housing mitigation waivers or reductions
for residential projects are directly related to the preservation of a historic resource.
Section 4: Transferable Development Rights Code Amendment
The goals of the TDR amendments are to:
1. Strengthen the criteria for the establishment of TDRs.
2. Limit creation of TDRs only to lots that contain a historic resource.
Section 5: Zone Districts Code Amendment
The goal of the Zone District code amendments is to:
1. Ensure the items listed in sections 2-4 are appropriately incorporated into the
relevant zone districts.
Section 6: New Benefits
The goal of these amendments is to:
A. Determine if other benefits may be beneficial and achievable, including expedited
permit review, or permit review fee reductions.
P92
X.a
Resolution #108, Series 2018
Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 3 of 3
Section 7:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 8:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this ___ day of September, 2018.
___________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ _______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P93
X.a
Historic Preservation Benefits Policy Resolution
Exhibit A - Staff Findings
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A:
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes that the proposed code amendments are aligned with community interests. Multiple
community plans, citizen task forces, public surveys, etc. have upheld historic preservation as a priority
over the more than forty years that Aspen has maintained historic preservation regulations. As the
program has matured, adjustments to review processes and decision-making guidelines have occurred
several times. An update to the historic preservation benefits in order to ensure the continued
preservation of all historic resources and to ensure historic preservation projects appropriately balance
development opportunities and community goals is appropriate.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.310.040 - Amendments to
the Land Use Code standards of Review - Initiation NOT MET
DOES NOT
APPLY
26.310.040.Amendments to the Land Use Code In reviewing a request to
pursue an amendment to the text of this Title,per Section
26.310.020(B)(2),Step Two –Public Hearing before City Council,the City
Council shall consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an
adopted policy, community goal, or objective of the City including, but
no limited to, those stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible
with the community character of the City and in harmony with the
public interest and the purpose and intent of the Title.YES
YES
MET
Review Criteria for Policy Resolution
Staff is requesting Council approval for code amendments to various sections of the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, including Historic Preservation, Growth Management Quota System, Transferable Develpment
Rights, and Zone Districts. The review criteria in Section 26.415.030 must be met to make amendements to
the Land Use Code.
YES
P94
X.a
Historic Preservation Benefits Policy Resolution
Exhibit A - Staff Findings
Page 2 of 2
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan states as a Policy “Ensure that the historic preservation
benefits package encourages owners of landmark properties to preserve structures to the highest
possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the neighborhood.” It
also states “Encourage the use of the City’s Historic Transferable Development Right program as
a method of preserving the historic integrity of designated structures.”
Stakeholder and general input has been sought in the crafting of the proposed amendments. The
intent is to encourage best historic preservation practices.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community
character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of
this Title.
Staff Findings:
Historic Preservation is directly tied to ensuring compatibility with the community character
through retaining structures that illustrate the City’s past and guiding new construction to be
sympathetic with the surrounding context. Historic Preservation directly serves the public
interest by protecting neighborhood scale, retaining meaningful examples of local architecture
and history, and underscoring Aspen as a unique place to live and visit.
The proposed amendments are intended to improve preservation outcomes related to
residential, commercial and civic properties throughout the community. Further, the proposed
policies and code amendments ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the City’s Land
Use Code by ensuring its accuracy and the effectiveness of the regulations contained therein.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P95
X.a
25.41%31
57.38%70
10.66%13
6.56%8
Q1 Transferable Development Rights (TDR): Square footage that could
be added to a historic property can be severed, sold and built on a
different, non-historic property within the city. The historic property owner
captures the value of the square footage without making an addition to a
historic building.My perception of TDRs is:
Answered: 122 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 122
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:DATE
1 Additional development should occur where permitted by basic zoning rather than transfer
additional impacts to other neighborhoods. As I recall, Historic TDR's are in part created by historic
FAR bonuses, increasing impact.
4/9/2018 10:35 AM
2 In the case below, the lot size is disproportionate to the building. Allowing for a TDR would
appropriate the site more cohesively. This also should not be a historic property as the building
has very little aesthetic and architectural value.
4/5/2018 9:56 AM
3 I think the TDRs should be capped at 3....... this is a "make believe" market and it seems silly to
allow that much to be removed from one site
4/4/2018 9:47 PM
4 make it a staff-level review. requiring City Council review is an unnecessary disincentive; the
criteria are objective anyway
4/4/2018 4:23 PM
5 5 TDRs is too much to preserve 1,250 sq ft. in the case you list here. % TDRs has more than a
million dollar value
4/4/2018 11:32 AM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
1 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
EXHIBIT C
Community Survey ResultsP96
X.a
6 I don’t believe all development rights should be severed from a property. Some should remain to
allow minor expansions in the future.
4/3/2018 7:34 PM
7 keep buildings as historically accurate as possible 4/3/2018 1:47 PM
8 TDR's are great, but as per usual, case by case evaluation better keeps to the mission of historic
preservation. Unusual circumstances require attention is all.
4/3/2018 1:34 PM
9 This would be appropriate where the Owner of the historic property wishes to (1) first and foremost
retain the historic nature of a listed historic property, and (2) not be financially harmed by its
preservation. This is NOT a tool or trick to be used by a developer to gain square footage on
another parcel.
4/3/2018 1:14 PM
10 I wish that there wasn't a square footage bonus at all... but having it on a non-historic building is
better than having it on a historic building!!
4/3/2018 12:34 PM
11 TDR are an outdated incentive for historic preservation.Aspen's real estate is all based on
maximizing developable sq footage. Secondf why should rneighbors of a receiving site bear the
burden of a de facto upzoning that is the result of a speculative real estate development.
4/2/2018 6:18 PM
12 TDRs are not always the answer to appropriate historic preservation. Too many TDRs flood the
market and impact the value of the incentive. There is a delicate balance that needs to be
considered when granting TDRs.
4/2/2018 7:33 AM
13 Hard for the Board to determine which projects do and do not deserve the bonus; too subjective. In
addition, the question does not let the reader know that the bonus is currently determined by the
Board.
4/1/2018 7:38 PM
14 just a way to promote corruption 3/29/2018 8:34 PM
15 Appropriate when a building fits in with the Victorian Character of Aspen. Not appropriate when a
building is preserved simply to be preserved and may not actually be worth preserving.
3/29/2018 3:23 PM
16 The ability to sever TDRs should be available to all properties. It will then be up to the property
owner to decide if it is appropriate for his/her situation.
3/29/2018 2:10 PM
17 TDR's are too freely given and shift mass & scale to other properties. In the example below, the
site and location can appropriately accommodate 1,250 SF in new development
3/29/2018 1:38 PM
18 We need appropriate easements and multigenerational homes 3/29/2018 12:59 PM
19 Don't allow additions.3/29/2018 12:35 PM
20 It is very subjective whether the site is better as-is, or added to. There are many excellent
examples of historic buildings with interesting modern additions.
3/29/2018 12:09 PM
21 It should only land on certain (size limited) properties 3/27/2018 11:47 AM
22 Historic property must not look out of place but more a base where newer building appearances
are based on. A segue to modern building appearances etc
3/27/2018 10:28 AM
23 I think the TDR program has been administered in a haphazard way based on political whims not
on the guidelines of the program. There needs to be consistency and fairness with this program.
3/27/2018 10:21 AM
2 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P97
X.a
21.19%25
62.71%74
7.63%9
8.47%10
Q2 Historic Landmark Lot Split/Density Increase: Instead of attaching a
large addition to a historic building, a property owner may divide their
allowed square footage into two buildings; the historic structure and a
new structure alongside it. The historic property owner achieves his/her
development rights, while the development is comprised of smaller
structures which are likely more in scale with the neighborhood. My
perception of the historic landmark lot split/increase density is:
Answered: 118 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 118
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:DATE
1 Parking should be accommodated on site - not depending on street parking 4/14/2018 7:37 PM
2 good idea 4/12/2018 2:02 PM
3 Lot split should not increase permitted FAR 4/9/2018 10:36 AM
4 If the historic structure is saved, the lot split should be allowed to go whichever direction.4/5/2018 10:26 AM
5 Jane Jacobs states that new builds should be interwoven with old builds to gain a more complete
timeline and aesthetic of a city/town/neighborhood. This is excellent.
4/5/2018 9:59 AM
6 no physical connection should be allowed when allowing lot split 4/4/2018 11:34 AM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
3 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P98
X.a
7 I believe this is the most important benefit for ensuring sensitive development next to historic
homes.
4/3/2018 7:35 PM
8 The historic value of a building should include the property it is on.4/3/2018 3:51 PM
9 Appropriate in Most Cases.4/3/2018 1:36 PM
10 Appropriate when fire ratings of exterior walls is not required for code when 2 buildings are too
close together, and the lot is wide enough, and has adequate access to both homes as if they
were individually built (including adequate parking for both.)
4/3/2018 1:16 PM
11 The reality however seems to be that the add on structures ovehwhelm the scale of the historic
resource.
4/2/2018 6:21 PM
12 Depends on the size of the lot.4/2/2018 4:18 PM
13 While sometimes appropriate, this can result in more density that negatively impacts the landmark.
However, the new Design Guidelines are challenging to meet for new additions, so a lot split may
be the best option.
4/2/2018 7:35 AM
14 Appropriate in all cases, if the lot size meets the minimal requirement.4/1/2018 7:39 PM
15 Destroy's the character of the town 3/29/2018 8:34 PM
16 A small house will rarely fit the needs of many families.3/29/2018 3:25 PM
17 Again, I like having this tool available to property owners. They can determine if it makes sense for
them. The example below is wonderful!
3/29/2018 2:11 PM
18 Lot splits increase density and total developable SF due to exclusions. Lot splits are very valuable
so an increase in (exempt or other) SF is inappropriate if lot split granted.
3/29/2018 1:40 PM
19 Style should be consistent 3/29/2018 1:00 PM
20 don't allow additions.3/29/2018 12:36 PM
21 I do like the smaller massing.3/29/2018 12:14 PM
22 "in scale" : a presumption that small is better. Not always so.3/29/2018 12:11 PM
23 The architecture of the new, separate building takes away from the character of the neighborhood.3/27/2018 8:25 PM
24 Building a mansion behind a historic house is a joke and an abuse of the system 3/27/2018 5:29 PM
25 except where we want to limit overall sq ft. building divide remains the best choice.3/27/2018 11:49 AM
4 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P99
X.a
25.66%29
54.87%62
10.62%12
8.85%10
Q3 Variations: Historic properties are eligible for reductions in required
building setbacks from property lines, reduction of parking requirements,
and increase in maximum building footprint. This provides the property
owner with flexibility given the fact a historic structure may occupy much
of their lot, and variations may allow more sympathetic placement of new
development on a historic property.My perception of the variation benefit
is:
Answered: 113 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 113
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:DATE
1 Street parking should not be an option 4/14/2018 7:38 PM
2 Should include permission to remove overgrown trees planted in historic times that threaten
foundations OR are providing too much shade and blocking interface with the residential streets.
4/12/2018 2:03 PM
3 Reduction of set backs impacts neighbors 4/9/2018 10:37 AM
4 There's no a reason a shed should be considered historic. In this case the addition could be
compensated by the removal of this shed. Allowing for more landscaping and a better design all
around.
4/5/2018 10:03 AM
5 it needs to not 4/4/2018 9:53 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
5 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P100
X.a
6 eligibility is appropriate in all cases; whether or not to grant the variation is appropriate in some
cases
4/4/2018 4:25 PM
7 not appropriate when impacting neighbors or changing line of sight 4/4/2018 11:36 AM
8 Setback variations are appropriate almost all the time. I don’t think parking variances should ever
be allowed.
4/3/2018 7:36 PM
9 Not All cases, a scenario where a historical home's presence is dwarfed or diminutized is a
scenario of failure.
4/3/2018 3:50 PM
10 Appropriate when the goal of design is historic preservation. NOT appropriate to give developers
more square footage or relaxed requirements when developing on a historic lot.
4/3/2018 1:18 PM
11 I think it could be percentage based so that we retain green space. I think having yards increases
the feel of having a community here.
4/3/2018 12:37 PM
12 Set backs for off street parking seem logical 4/2/2018 6:22 PM
13 Variations are necessary for all hp projects. They should not just be granted to the historic
landmark, but also to the new construction. There needs to be a compromise on historic
developments and appropriate variations for new construction that support good preservation and
placement of additions is necessary.
4/2/2018 7:36 AM
14 In some cases a zero, or minimal setback id not sympathetic to the neighboring property.4/1/2018 7:40 PM
15 We tried. We refused to pay the bribe demanded.3/29/2018 8:35 PM
16 The more tools the better!3/29/2018 2:12 PM
17 Front & back yard set back variances only - side yard set backs with adjacent properties produce
unreasonable impact on neighboring lots.
3/29/2018 1:43 PM
18 This is only true of historic properties which already been “improved”3/29/2018 1:01 PM
19 Leave the buildings they way they are.3/29/2018 12:36 PM
20 Old buildings generate the same number of cars as new. Forgiveness of on-site parking just
pushes the car on to the street.
3/29/2018 12:13 PM
21 Moving a historic house to make room for a mansion should never be approved 3/27/2018 5:29 PM
22 variances to set backs and parking requirements should be reviewed on a case by case bases to
ensure they do not have negative impacts on the neighborhood and/or surrounding development
3/27/2018 10:19 AM
6 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P101
X.a
31.86%36
49.56%56
11.50%13
7.08%8
Q4 Square Footage Bonus: Historic preservation projects that
demonstrate exemplary practices and meet specific criteria may be
awarded up to 500 square feet of bonus square footage to construct on
the site. This provides the property owner with additional value to off-set
the potential extra costs of a historic preservation project.My perception
of the square footage benefit is:
Answered: 113 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 113
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:DATE
1 Bonus SF should never become a TDR - must only be used within basic zoning, set backs without
impact to other properties.
4/9/2018 10:38 AM
2 eligibility is appropriate in all cases but the granting of the bonus is case-by-case and that's
appropriate
4/4/2018 4:26 PM
3 not in addition to TDRs 4/4/2018 11:39 AM
4 We should not be adding more development on historic properties.4/3/2018 7:37 PM
5 When appropriate. Bonuses and incentives to keep very strict to a historic profile should be offered
if they actually show that they encourage folks to embrace the historical qualities.
4/3/2018 3:52 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
7 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P102
X.a
6 Not appropriate. Historic residences were typically small and allowing more footage than currently
allowed only diminishes historical significance.
4/3/2018 1:19 PM
7 Historic buildings cannot be removed. The great number of renovations is for speculative resale
purposes. Why because the developer is getting a free upzoning of additonal sq footage. Question
how many of the recently renoved Victorian builidngsd have been doen for owner occupants- very
few. The free additonal space is a developers dream becasue they didn't have to pay for the extra
s developable land. Eliminating it would likely result in lower prices for the roperties for a while. But
not for long since the supply is fixed.
4/2/2018 6:27 PM
8 The bonus provides an important award for the detail, time and patience required to go through the
historic preservation review process and to accurately restore a historic home.
4/2/2018 7:38 AM
9 Rules are far to strict. One either has to ******** or spend thousands finding historic pictures.
We tried and gave up.
3/29/2018 8:36 PM
10 If a property owner is performing outstanding stewardship, they should be commended for it.
Historic properties are expensive to maintain and to improve. This is a great incentive!
3/29/2018 2:13 PM
11 500 square foot bonus is highly valuable and in my view typically too freely given - a bad trade for
the community that creates excess value for property owner and impacts on neighbors in the form
of increased development.
3/29/2018 1:45 PM
12 Connector requirement should be eliminated.3/29/2018 1:32 PM
13 Live small. More square feet with fewer year round residents is not desirable 3/29/2018 1:03 PM
14 The point is to "PRESERVE". The whole neighborhood has to be considered. Taking one lot out of
context ignores the overall effect. There is nothing in the "constitution" that says one has to have a
bigger house. If you need a bigger house, go somewhere else.
3/29/2018 12:43 PM
15 real estate value is market driven. Extra cost of historic project? Myth.3/29/2018 12:15 PM
16 Developers will always jump through hoops to increase square footage which is the only reason
people want to do these projects
3/27/2018 5:31 PM
17 Where exemplary practices are demonstrated 3/27/2018 10:19 AM
8 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P103
X.a
42.73%47
28.18%31
11.82%13
17.27%19
Q5 Affordable Housing Reduction: Historic properties are allowed to
provide less affordable housing mitigation than non-historic properties to
offset the impacts of new development on the site. This alleviates the
requirement to add more mass to a historic site in the form of affordable
units and/or reduces a significant cost to the property owner, who can
then direct those funds to preservation.My perception of the affordable
housing reduction benefit is:
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 110
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:DATE
1 AH is a critical community need that should not be burdened by Historic preservation.4/9/2018 10:40 AM
2 If you're going to make me look at an eye-sore it better have some benefits to the community. In
this case the whole thing should have been torn down.
4/5/2018 10:06 AM
3 I think commercial properties need to have more strict guidelines 4/4/2018 9:56 PM
4 with historic properties, an owner does not have the demolish option and renovation of historic
fabric is often quite expensive and more expensive than demolishing and rebuilding would be.
don't punish people for having to maintain a historic property by making it more expensive to work
with than a non historic property. allow the offset to remain.
4/4/2018 4:28 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
9 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P104
X.a
5 not appropriate if there are real increases in number of employees 4/4/2018 11:41 AM
6 I think commercial reductions are appropriate, but not residential reductions.4/3/2018 7:37 PM
7 Who is actually building ADUs? They are mitigated to the city with a check, not an actual bed for a
head. Obviously that check affords to build elsewhere, but could you imagine how cool it would be
to live in an Affordable Housing Unit attached to a historic home? Cause I can't, too few of these
exist. Some day none will.
4/3/2018 3:57 PM
8 housing requirements should be kept and the owner/builder need to offset housing somewhere
other than the historic site. The buyers of these properties can afford it.
4/3/2018 1:51 PM
9 Again, not appropriate. Affordable housing or lack thereof has no impact on historical significance.
This would be a loophole for a developer to overbuild and under-provide for the community.
4/3/2018 1:20 PM
10 Need more information.4/3/2018 12:39 PM
11 However its questionable whether or not the "saved " fees actually result in better historic
preservation.
4/2/2018 6:32 PM
12 HP projects are generally much more time consuming and expensive than typical non-historic
development. Waiving affordable housing is an important balance to the overall development
equation. The new Design Guidelines restrict above grade development on a site which will create
a huge road block for onsite affordable housing.
4/2/2018 7:40 AM
13 This is an important cornerstone benefit and should continue to be available.4/1/2018 7:47 PM
14 Bad example since it appears all work has stopped there and the suggestion of a new business is
gone. Now an eye sore on Main. They should loose any exceptions. Dont let them add mass or
avoid the affordable housing requirement. A business that purchases an historic building can pay
for it and requires housing off site.
3/31/2018 8:03 AM
15 limit to commercial only 3/30/2018 11:19 AM
16 The idea of affordable housing is good. Many cities are now using. However, affordable housing
does not bring more workers into the town. It just rewards the lucky few, many who retire and do
not work in Aspne.
3/29/2018 8:38 PM
17 Waiver of AH fees for historic preservation unfairly burdens other community needs. $100,000 AH
fee is immaterial compared to acquisition and development cost.
3/29/2018 1:48 PM
18 The intent is desirable the actual consequences are not.3/29/2018 1:05 PM
19 *******3/29/2018 12:44 PM
20 "direct those funds to preservation." All development must meet AH requirements. In your
example below - the developer needs no help. This is a purely commercial enterprise, and the for-
profit venture must stand on its own.
3/29/2018 12:18 PM
21 I think that offsets like this are crucial to the affordability of renovated an historic structure.3/29/2018 12:16 PM
22 The new developments often result in homes that are large enough they require several
employees to run them, or at least several to manage them throughout the year.
3/28/2018 9:57 AM
23 On site mitigation for employee housing for residential (ADUs) have been removed from the land
use code. The burden of employee housing should be shared equally by all development,
especially businesses, with credit for the existing floor area that is remaining.
3/27/2018 10:25 AM
10 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P105
X.a
7.00%7
12.00%12
55.00%55
26.00%26
Q6 Exemptions or reduced affordable housing requirements is often one
of the few Historic Preservation Benefits applicable to Commercial
properties.Should this benefit be offered to:
Answered: 100 Skipped: 23
TOTAL 100
Residential
properties only
Commercial
properties only
Both
residential ...
Neither (or no
properties)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Residential properties only
Commercial properties only
Both residential and commercial properties
Neither (or no properties)
11 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P106
X.a
37.27%41
40.00%44
9.09%10
13.64%15
Q7 Development Fee Waivers: Historic properties may be allowed a
reduction or waiver in fees associated with city parks, transportation, and
parking that are typically charged to offset the impacts of new
development. This reduces costs to the property owner, who can then
direct those funds to preservation.My perception of development fee
waiver benefit is:
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 110
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:DATE
1 Purchase price of a property should reflect the cost of development. Cost of fees should be borne
by the seller/owner/new owner not the broader community.
4/9/2018 10:41 AM
2 When my client can save money wherever they can, that means I'm more likely to get that contract
signed and which may lead to reallocated money into the project budget.
4/5/2018 10:08 AM
3 problem is, City Council never likes to grant any fee waivers 4/4/2018 4:28 PM
4 only for the historic properties which best reflect Aspen's history 4/4/2018 11:43 AM
5 These are relatively small fees, but can provide a major benefit to enable preservation. I think
these are important to retain.
4/3/2018 7:38 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
12 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P107
X.a
6 The buyers and owners of these properties can still afford to support parks, transportation and
parking.
4/3/2018 1:52 PM
7 fess for tree removal should be removed. Too many historic houses are blocked from view or
excessively shaded by evergreens in parwticular. Evergreens are generally not native to the valley
floor.
4/2/2018 6:34 PM
8 The benefit of historic preservation to the community is on par with the Impact fees for
Transportation/Air Quality and Parks. The community benefits from restored historic properties the
same way that the community benefits from Parks and from Transportation initiatives.
4/2/2018 7:42 AM
9 Residential only. Commercial should pay to play!3/31/2018 8:04 AM
10 Not a good idea. It promotes corruption.3/29/2018 8:38 PM
11 A fourth generation aspen family should not be forced to sell and move out of aspen because of
“affordable housing” fees
3/29/2018 1:07 PM
12 ******3/29/2018 12:44 PM
13 "direct those funds to preservation"?? These are simply real estate deals - no help needed. You
won't see any Aspen developers standing in line at the St. Mary's soup kitchen.
3/29/2018 12:21 PM
14 It is too time consuming and too expensive to renovate historic structures in Aspen. More waivers
and more efficient and quicker approvals are helpful.
3/29/2018 12:18 PM
15 Saving 100k means nothing to these people, why are we giving them anything?3/27/2018 5:32 PM
13 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P108
X.a
34.23%38
39.64%44
19.82%22
6.31%7
0.00%0
Q8 Do you think the historic preservation projects you are aware of in the
community contribute to telling the unique story of Aspen’s past?
Answered: 111 Skipped: 12
TOTAL 111
Greatly
contributes
Contributes
Somewhat
contributes
Does not
contribute
I don't know
of any histo...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Greatly contributes
Contributes
Somewhat contributes
Does not contribute
I don't know of any historic preservation projects
14 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P109
X.a
20.00%22
38.18%42
29.09%32
9.09%10
3.64%4
Q9 Do you think that the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program is
successful in retaining and maintaining historic landmarks?
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 110
Very successful
Successful
Somewhat
successful
Not successful
I don't know
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very successful
Successful
Somewhat successful
Not successful
I don't know
15 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P110
X.a
Q10 Please provide your zip code of residence.
Answered: 109 Skipped: 14
#RESPONSES DATE
1 81611 4/14/2018 7:40 PM
2 81611 4/12/2018 2:05 PM
3 81611 4/11/2018 10:58 PM
4 81611 4/10/2018 10:31 AM
5 81611 4/10/2018 9:15 AM
6 81612 4/9/2018 3:36 PM
7 81611 4/9/2018 3:27 PM
8 81611 4/9/2018 10:42 AM
9 81621 4/6/2018 11:29 AM
10 81611 4/6/2018 10:30 AM
11 81611 4/6/2018 9:13 AM
12 81623 4/6/2018 8:41 AM
13 81611 4/5/2018 5:54 PM
14 81611 4/5/2018 11:55 AM
15 81611 4/5/2018 10:30 AM
16 81623 4/5/2018 10:17 AM
17 81611 4/5/2018 10:09 AM
18 81611 4/5/2018 7:54 AM
19 81611 4/4/2018 9:56 PM
20 81611 4/4/2018 4:29 PM
21 81611 4/4/2018 11:44 AM
22 81611 4/4/2018 9:48 AM
23 81621 4/3/2018 7:44 PM
24 81611 4/3/2018 7:38 PM
25 81611 4/3/2018 6:47 PM
26 81611 4/3/2018 4:47 PM
27 81611 4/3/2018 3:58 PM
28 81611 4/3/2018 3:55 PM
29 81611 4/3/2018 3:16 PM
30 81621 4/3/2018 2:44 PM
31 81623 4/3/2018 1:55 PM
32 81656 4/3/2018 1:52 PM
33 81611 4/3/2018 1:45 PM
34 80122 4/3/2018 1:42 PM
35 81611 4/3/2018 1:21 PM
16 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P111
X.a
36 81611 4/3/2018 1:21 PM
37 20016 4/3/2018 1:17 PM
38 81623 4/3/2018 12:40 PM
39 81611 4/2/2018 6:35 PM
40 81611 4/2/2018 4:23 PM
41 81621 4/2/2018 10:19 AM
42 81611 4/2/2018 9:43 AM
43 81623 4/2/2018 8:29 AM
44 81611 4/2/2018 7:56 AM
45 81621 4/2/2018 7:43 AM
46 81611 4/1/2018 7:48 PM
47 81623 4/1/2018 12:44 PM
48 81611 3/31/2018 8:05 AM
49 81611 3/31/2018 7:33 AM
50 81611 3/30/2018 12:49 PM
51 81611 3/30/2018 11:20 AM
52 81611 3/30/2018 9:28 AM
53 81611 3/30/2018 8:01 AM
54 81623 3/29/2018 9:12 PM
55 81611 3/29/2018 9:02 PM
56 80220 3/29/2018 8:39 PM
57 81611 3/29/2018 8:17 PM
58 81611 3/29/2018 6:20 PM
59 81615 3/29/2018 6:09 PM
60 81611 3/29/2018 5:27 PM
61 81611 3/29/2018 5:04 PM
62 55345 3/29/2018 3:43 PM
63 81611 3/29/2018 3:28 PM
64 81611 3/29/2018 3:06 PM
65 81651 3/29/2018 2:47 PM
66 81611 3/29/2018 2:21 PM
67 81611 3/29/2018 2:18 PM
68 81654 3/29/2018 2:14 PM
69 81623 3/29/2018 2:14 PM
70 81623 3/29/2018 2:11 PM
71 81654 3/29/2018 2:09 PM
72 85266 3/29/2018 1:51 PM
73 81611 3/29/2018 1:49 PM
74 81611 3/29/2018 1:33 PM
75 81611 3/29/2018 1:31 PM
76 81623 3/29/2018 1:27 PM
17 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P112
X.a
77 81612 3/29/2018 1:11 PM
78 81611 3/29/2018 1:10 PM
79 81611 3/29/2018 1:09 PM
80 81154 3/29/2018 1:03 PM
81 81611 3/29/2018 12:47 PM
82 81623 3/29/2018 12:45 PM
83 81623 3/29/2018 12:41 PM
84 80911 3/29/2018 12:35 PM
85 81621 3/29/2018 12:31 PM
86 81611 3/29/2018 12:27 PM
87 81611 3/29/2018 12:22 PM
88 81621 3/29/2018 12:18 PM
89 81650 3/29/2018 12:14 PM
90 81611 3/29/2018 12:13 PM
91 60616 3/29/2018 12:12 PM
92 81623 3/29/2018 12:09 PM
93 81611 3/29/2018 12:09 PM
94 81611 3/29/2018 12:07 PM
95 81621 3/29/2018 12:06 PM
96 81611 3/28/2018 8:51 PM
97 81611 3/28/2018 10:01 AM
98 81611 3/28/2018 8:07 AM
99 81611 3/28/2018 7:26 AM
100 81623 3/27/2018 8:30 PM
101 81611 3/27/2018 5:33 PM
102 81611 3/27/2018 5:09 PM
103 81612 3/27/2018 4:42 PM
104 81611 3/27/2018 12:16 PM
105 81611 3/27/2018 11:51 AM
106 81611 3/27/2018 11:38 AM
107 81611 3/27/2018 10:43 AM
108 81611 3/27/2018 10:28 AM
109 81611 3/27/2018 10:27 AM
18 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P113
X.a
10.38%11
89.62%95
Q11 Do you own a designated historic landmark in the City of Aspen?
Answered: 106 Skipped: 17
TOTAL 106
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
19 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P114
X.a
Exhibit C
Stakeholder Meeting Summary
Historic Preservation Benefits Stakeholder Meeting
Date/Time: July 2, 2018 at 12:00-1:00 p.m.
Location: Aspen City Hall
List of Participants:
Planners: Sara Adams, Mitch Haas, Stan Clauson
Architects: Gilbert Sanchez, Derek Skalko, Sarah Broughton, Eric Westerman
Owners: Bill Guth, Howard Mallory, Lou Stover, David Harris
Interested Public: Dorothea Farris
Staff: Amy Simon, Ben Anderson, Kevin Rayes
Meeting Summary:
New Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
-The new Design Guidelines are much more restrictive and this is a concern.
-The new Design Guidelines have caused some to walk away from pursuing historic projects.
-Since the implementation of the new Design Guidelines, new cases have slowed down.
-Corner lots have become difficult to take on. If incentives are not provided, people will avoid
corner lots.
-Council’s concerns regarding visual impact are a result of projects under the old Design
Guidelines. Time is needed to test the new Design Guidelines. Some issues may resolve
themselves.
Incentives/Benefits:
-Aspen’s HP incentive program has been very successful over the years.
-Incentives are in good working order, no fixing required because it is not broken.
-Incentives are so important for HP projects.
-Focus on benefits that do not require expansion.
-Support parking reductions and waive fees for HP projects.
-Allow a mix of benefits.
-Cannot implement changes to the incentives with the new Design Guidelines. A breaking point
will be reached where HP projects will be difficult to undertake.
-There is a disconnect between the 500 sf bonus and the TDR program.
-Without the incentive program, certain HP projects would not be possible to undertake.
-Preservation program will not go away if the bonuses go away.
-Floor Area Bonus: some more criteria would be good.
P115
X.a
Financial Benefits:
-Monetary values are difficult to establish because there is not a standard cost. Each project is
different. You shouldn’t put an arbitrary cap on the value of incentives to be granted.
-A private property owner’s financial gain should not be a concern. The City gains other things
through the process.
Future Requests/Suggestions for Historic Preservation Program:
-Add worksession back, possibly as part of due diligence.
-Explain interior demolition and floor area impacts, partial removal is okay.
-Create a standard expectation for getting on HPC agenda and approximate timeframe.
-Add expedited timing and review process for HP projects.
-Reintroduce the idea of double basements for HPC projects.
P116
X.a
Ordinance #22, Series of 2018
333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave.
Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE #22
(SERIES OF 2018)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, RESCINDING DESIGNATION,
DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 333 PARK AVENUE AND 931
GIBSON AVENUE, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT A
PARCEL ID: 2737-181-00-017
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-00-004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from BMH
Investments, LTD, owner of 333 Park Avenue and contract purchaser for 931 Gibson Avenue,
see Exhibit A for legal description, requesting approval for the following:
• Relocation- (Section 26.415.090) for the relocation of the two historic buildings from 333
Park Avenue (R-6 Zone District) to 931 Gibson Avenue (R-15A Zone District).
• Demolition- (Section 26.415.080) of non-historic additions found on 333 Park Avenue
before the relocation of the historic buildings.
• Rescinding Designation- (Section 26.415.050) of 333 Park Avenue if relocation of the
historic buildings is approved.
• Designation- (Section 26.415.030) of 931 Gibson Avenue if relocation of the historic
buildings is approved; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments on
the Application from the City Engineering, Building, and Parks Departments; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
application, and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on July 11, 2018, during which the recommendations of the Community
Development Director and comments from the public were heard by the Historic Preservation
Commission, and recommended approval with conditions by Resolution No. 9, Series of 2018,
by a vote of seven to zero (7 – 0).
WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of
public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the
applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304, and the public was
provided full access to review the Application; and,
WHEREAS, 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 recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation
P117
X.b
Ordinance #22, Series of 2018
333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave.
Page 2 of 6
Commission, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2018, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 22,
Series of 2018 with conditions, on First Reading by a three to zero (3 – 0) vote; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 17, 2018, the Aspen
City Council approved Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2018, by a _____ to _____ (_ – _) vote,
approving Relocation, Demolition, changes to Historic Designations and associated land use
reviews for 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the
applicable development standards; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Aspen City Council grants 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue land use review approvals for
Relocation of two (2) historic buildings from 333 Park to 931 Gibson, demolition of non-historic
elements on 333 Park Avenue, and Rescinding of Designation at 333 Park Avenue and Designation
of 931 Gibson Avenue following relocation, subject to the conditions of approval as listed herein.
The designation on 333 Park Avenue shall be removed and the designation on 931 Gibson Avenue
shall be added only upon safe relocation of the historic resources to 931 Gibson Avenue, as
determined by the Chief Building Official and Historic Preservation Officer. The location of the
historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the
City that are maintained by the City of Aspen Community Development Department.
The following conditions shall apply to 931 Gibson Avenue after the safe relocation of the historic
resources and the historic designation of the property:
1. A future lot split is prohibited unless approved by City Council.
2. The property shall contain a single driveway and single curb cut.
Section 2: Historic Preservation, Major Review
A separate application for Historic Preservation Major Development will be submitted for HPC
review. The project shall be subject to applicable code requirements, in place at the time of
application. The application shall include an updated Relocation Plan, for review by the Parks and
Engineering Departments. Approval of the Relocation Plan is required prior to issuance of a
building permit for work on 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue.
P118
X.b
Ordinance #22, Series of 2018
333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave.
Page 3 of 6
Section 3: Parks
The relocation of the historic structures will require pruning to trees. The Relocation Plan shall
address all applicable Parks Department requirements to ensure protection and minimal impacts to
trees. Pruning of City trees for the relocation requires a certified arborist under the supervision of the
City Forester, and paid for by the applicant. Permission for any pruning on private property will be
required from private property owners prior to Parks signing off on the plan. Any tree removals
require owner permission as well as tree removal permits from the Parks Department.
Section 4: Engineering
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the Municipal Code, Title 21 and
all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The project
shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. A major drainage report that
meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards is required with building permit submittal.
Section 5: Building Permit
As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a report from a
licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the house and outbuilding can be
moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structures, must be submitted with the
building permit application. In addition, the applicant must provide a bond, letter of credit or
cashier’s check in a form acceptable to the City Attorney in the amount of $30,000 for the
historic house and $15,000 for the historic outbuilding to be held by the City during the duration
of the relocation process.
Section 6: Impact Fees and School Land Dedication
Any applicable fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and
paid at building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee
schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal.
The allocation of any fee credits for demolition work on 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson
Avenue shall remain with the parcel where the structures are currently located. Credits shall only
be given for legally established floor area.
Section 7: Stream Margin Review
The applicant shall apply for a Stream Margin review for the demolition work on 333 Park
Avenue as an administrative review prior to submission of a building permit for the project.
Section 8: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 9: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
P119
X.b
Ordinance #22, Series of 2018
333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave.
Page 4 of 6
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 10: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested
for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure
to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of
said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all
plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective
date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and
shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation
of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice
advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a
vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use
Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described properties: 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals
required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen
provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of
publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A).
The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen
Home Rule Charter.
Section 11: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 27th day of August, 2018, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 17th day of September, 2018.
P120
X.b
Ordinance #22, Series of 2018
333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave.
Page 5 of 6
________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of __________, 2018.
________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P121
X.b
Ordinance #22, Series of 2018
333 Park Ave. & 931 Gibson Ave.
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A: Legal Description of Addresses
333 Park Avenue
A tract of land situated in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 and in the
Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th
P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado. Said tract is part of the Lone Pine M.S. 1910 and the Mollie
Gibson Lode, M.S. 4281 Am and is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at the West Corner of Lot 1, Sunny Park Subdivision, whence corner No. 3 of said
Mollie Gibson Lode bears N 43°40'00" W 146.00 feet and S 38°00'00" W 100.00 feet; thence S
46°20'00" W 10.00 feet to a point on the centerline of a road easement as shown on a plat
recorded in Book 4 at Page 398 of the records of Pitkin County; thence following said centerline
16.23 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet, the chord of which
curve bears S 55°17'30" E 16.12 feet; thence S 66° 55'00" E 49.99 feet along said centerline;
thence S 32° 09'58" W 13.39 feet; thence S 50° 17'00" W 130.26 feet; thence N 34° 17'00" W
59.99 feet; thence N 52° 40'00" E 34.33 feet; thence N 43°40'00" W 32.60 feet; thence N 46°
20'00" E 86.00 feet; thence S 43° 40'00" E 32.00 feet to the point of beginning.
931 Gibson Avenue
Parcel 1:
A Parcel of Land situated in the Southeast ¼ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the 6th Principal Meridian more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence corner No. 11 of the East Aspen Additional Townsite bears South
54°52’17” East 58.10 feet; Thence South 34°54’00” West 46.63 feet to The True Point of
Beginning; Thence North 63°58’00” West 185.12 feet; Thence South 15°30’00” West 86.60 feet;
Thence South 63°54’00” East 155.54 feet; Thence North 34°45’00” East 88.30 feet to The Point
of Beginning.
Parcel 2:
A Tract of Land situated in the Sunset Lode, U.S.M.S. No. 5310, being more fully described as
follows:
Beginning at a point on the Easterly side line of said Sunset Lode whence Corner No. 10 of East
Aspen Additional Townsite bears North 34°45’ East 46.63 Feet; Thence North 63° 58’ West
185.12 feet to a point on the Westerly side line of said Lode; Thence following said Westerly
side line North 15°30” East 17.03; Thence South 62°54’41” East 150.27 feet; Thence 39.76 feet
along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 295.57 feet to a point on said Easterly side;
Thence following said Easterly side line South 34°45’ West 10.70 feet to The Point of
Beginning.
Together with any property lying Northerly of the above described property and the Southerly
line of Gibson Avenue.
P122
X.b
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A.1
Relocation
Staff Findings
26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to
preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is
embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association
with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the
relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it
only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant.
C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or
object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or
object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or N/A
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its
relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or N/A
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character
and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic
relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical
impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the
building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
MET
Review Criteria for 333 Park Avenue & 931 Gibson Avenue
Section 26.415.090 -Relocation of Designated Historic Properties
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.090 - Relocation of Designated Historic Properties
26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their
original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their
association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property
may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it
significant.
MET
P123
X.b
Page 2 of 3
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not
affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it
is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
Staff Finding: The proposed relocation will not adversely affect the integrity related to the site because
it is not located in a Historic District or in its original location. Currently there are no apparent
architectural relationships between 333 Park and the closest historic residence due to irregular building
placement/orientation and building alterations. The applicant has met with other city departments to
discuss a route for safe relocation, provided documentation determining the historic buildings would
withstand the relocation, and a receiving site has been identified. Staff finds that the proposal meets
criteria 1, 2, and 4. and the additional three criteria for relocation. A more detailed relocation/repair plan
will be required at design review.
Part of the criteria for evaluating if relocation is appropriate is ensuring the relocation results in the best
preservation option for the historic resource given its character and integrity. In evaluating this, staff
examines the physical relocation impacts (can the structure withstand the act of relocation), as well as
what the final development opportunities for the site will be. In this case, the applicant has provided
documentation from an experienced house mover confirming the resources can physically withstand
relocation.
Typically, relocation of a historic resource to a new site is highly discouraged (HP Design Guidelines
9.8), however, the preservation plan to restore the two historic resources to their original configuration
P124
X.b
Page 3 of 3
and re-introduce the front façade back to its street facing orientation helps promote the goal of creating
awareness and appreciation for Aspen’s Victorian Heritage.
Staff finds that all applicable criteria are met for the proposal for relocation.
P125
X.b
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.2
Demolition
Staff Findings
26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on
the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will
be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
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, N/A
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the
structure, N/A
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or N/A
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural,
archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in
which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
YES
YES
YES
YES
MET
Review Criteria for 333 Park Ave.
Section 26.415.080 - Demolition of Designated Historic Properties or Properties within a Historic District
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.080 - Demolition of Designated Historic Properties or Properties within a
Historic District
26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve
the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of
properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be
allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
MET
P126
X.b
Page 2 of 2
approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets
any one 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
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is
located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic
District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to demolition all non-historic additions that have been made to
the historic resource. These additions do not contribute to the cultural significance of the historic
property, which meets criteria d.) and meet the three additional criteria for demolition because it is not
contributing. Historic Preservation Guidelines 2.6 calls for the removal of non-historic layers that cover
the original material. It is important to follow through with repairing the original, underlying material.
Staff finds the applicable criteria are met.
P127
X.b
Page 1 of 8
Exhibit A.3
Designation
Staff Findings
26.415.050 Rescinding Designation.
A. Application and review. An application for the removal of a property from the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the same submission requirements and review
procedures as for designation described in this Chapter except that with respect to Subsection
26.415.030.C.4 an explanation shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the
criteria for designation. The HPC and City Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that
the property no longer meets the criteria for designation and, if so, shall remove the property from
the inventory. A parcel created through an historic Landmark lot split cannot be de-listed unless there
is a finding that the resource which originally caused the site to be landmarked meets the criteria for
removal from the historic inventory.
Staff Finding: 333 Park Avenue (also known as 101 Park) was designated in 1995, Ordinance 4, Series
1995, and added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an individual Aspen
Victorian Landmark. (See Exhibit C.) This property met the criteria for designation because it contained
historically significant building from the 19th century. A property will be “delisted” or removed from the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures list if it no longer maintains its integrity or
historic significance. If the historic residential buildings located at 333 Park Ave. are removed and
relocated to another site, the property will no longer meet the criteria for historic designation. The
property will no longer contain a significant structure from the 19th century nor posses historical integrity.
A.Application and review.An application for the removal of a property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for
designation described in this Chapter except that with respect to Subsection 26.415.030.C.4 an explanation
shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation.The HPC and City
Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property no longer meets the criteria for
designation and,if so,shall remove the property from the inventory.A parcel created through an historic
Landmark lot split cannot be de-listed unless there is a finding that the resource which originally caused the site
to be landmarked meets the criteria for removal from the historic inventory.
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a) The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains structures which can be
documented as built during the 19th century, and NOT MET
b) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials,
workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score
sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this
criterion.
NOT MET
MET
Review Criteria for 333 Park Ave.
Section 26.415.050 - Rescinding Designation
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.050 - Rescinding Designation
P128
X.b
Page 2 of 8
Staff finds the applicable criteria for retaining designation will no longer be met, if relocation is
approved.
26.415.030 Historic Designation. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as
the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is
intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the
historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and
communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to
protect.
B. Aspen Victorian
1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites
and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or
object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated
quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated
according to the criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the
majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described
below:
1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or object or a
collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of
significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the
criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing
resources in the district shall meet the criteria described below:
NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
a) The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains structures
which can be documented as built during the 19th century, and
b) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting,
design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt
and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the
Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion.
YES
YES
Review Criteria for 931 Gibson Ave.
Section 26.415.030 - Historic Designation
MET
Summary of Review Criteria for Section 26.415.030 - Historic Designation
26.415.030 Historic Designation. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to
determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation
provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the
public interest to protect.
B. Aspen Victorian
P129
X.b
Page 3 of 8
a) The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains
structures which can be documented as built during the 19th century, and
b) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City
Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices
which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply
this criterion.
Staff Finding: If a site becomes a receiving site for historically significant resources, historic designation
of the property will ensure protection and benefits for the historic resource according to the municipal
code. If the historic residential buildings from 333 Park Ave. are relocated to 931 Gibson Ave., the site
will meet criteria a. and b. The public score sheet, conducted by staff, records a score of 90 where 50 is
the required minimum score threshold for designation. (Public score sheet attached.)
Staff finds the applicable criteria for historic designation are met, and s upports designating 931
Gibson Ave. if the relocation is approved.
P130
X.b
Page 4 of 8
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- 19TH CENTURY HIGH STYLE RESIDENCE
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
Address: 931 Gibson Avenue (after relocation of historic resources to site)
Total Score = 90 (minimum threshold for designation is 50)
________________________________________________________________________
• LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred.
5- The structure is in its original location.
4- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original
alignment and proximity to the street.
3- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic Aspen townsite.
0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the original site.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 2
________________________________________________________________________
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property.
BUILDING FORM : 7
10- The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating documentation, is
unaltered and there are no recent additions.
8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and the addition(s) would
meet the design guidelines.
6- The plan form has been more altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines.
4- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable manner, but if the addition were removed,
at least 50% of the building’s original walls would remain.
2- The structure has been expanded and the addition overwhelms the original structure and has
destroyed more than 50% of the building’s original walls.
0- Two historic structures have been linked together and the original character of the individual
structures is significantly affected.
ROOF FORM : 10
10- The original roof form and the original porch roof, if one existed, are unaltered.
8- The original main roof is intact, but the porch roof, if one existed, has been altered.
6- Dormers have been added to the structure or additions have been made that alter roof form,
but the changes would meet the design guidelines.
2- Alterations to the roof have been made in a less sensitive manner, not in conformance with
the design guidelines.
0- Less than 50% of the original roof form remains.
P131
X.b
Page 5 of 8
SCALE : 5
5- The original scale and proportions of the building are intact.
4- The building has been expanded, but the overall impression of it as a 1 ½ or 2 story structure,
with a relatively small footprint, is retained.
3- The building has been expanded and the scale of the original portion is
discernible.
0- The scale of the building has been negatively affected by a large addition,
whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic structure.
FRONT PORCH : 10
10- The front porch is not enclosed and original decorative woodwork remains, or if there was
no porch historically, none has been added.
8- The front porch is enclosed but maintains an open character and some original materials.
6- The front porch is not original, but has been built in an accurate manner, per the design
guidelines.
2- The front porch has been enclosed and most original materials are gone.
0- The front porch is completely gone or replaced with a porch which would not meet the design
guidelines.
DOORS AND WINDOWS : 9
10- The original door and window pattern is intact.
8- Less than 50% of the doors and windows are new and the original openings are intact.
2- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or some of the original
opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most or all of the original door and window openings have been altered.
COMPLEXITY OF DESIGN : 5
5- The overall sense of “elegance” and intricacy in design and detailing is intact.
0- Detailing has been removed and the building has a “plain” appearance.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 50)= 46
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
PROXIMITY TO SIMILAR STRUCTURES : 5
5- The structure is one of a set (at least three) of buildings from the same period in the
immediate area.
P132
X.b
Page 6 of 8
3- The building is part of a neighborhood that has numerous remaining buildings from the same
period.
0- The building is an isolated example from the period.
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES : 3
5- A number of elements of the original landscape are in place, including historic fences,
walkways, plant materials and trees, and ditches.
3- Few or no elements of the original landscape are present, but the current landscape supports
the historic character of the home.
0- The current landscape significantly obscures views of the structure.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) = 8
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR WOODWORK : 6
10- Most of the original woodwork, including siding, decorative shingles, trim, fascia boards,
etc. remain.
6- Original siding has been replaced, but trim and other elements remain.
6- Original siding is intact but trim or other elements have been replaced.
0- All exterior materials have been removed and replaced.
DOORS AND WINDOWS : 8
10- All or most of the original door and window units are intact.
8- Some window and door units have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions
of the originals.
6- Most of the original windows have been replaced, but with generally accurate reconstructions
of the originals.
0- Windows and/or doors units have been replaced with inappropriate
patterns or styles.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 14
________________________________________________________________________
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION : 5
5- The original detailing is intact.
P133
X.b
Page 7 of 8
3- Detailing is discernable such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original house or the
original detailing is gone.
0- The detailing is gone.
FINISHES : 5
5- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry unpainted.
4- All exterior woodwork is painted and masonry is painted.
3- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance but masonry is
unpainted.
2- Wood surfaces are stained or modern in appearance and the masonry is painted.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 10) = 10
• ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and
a historic property.
5- The property would be generally recognizable to a person who lived in Aspen in the 19th
century.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
________________________________________________________________________
• BONUS POINTS
UNIQUE EXAMPLE : 0
5- The style of the building is unique or one of a small group among the19th century high style
homes left in Aspen. (i.e. It is Second Empire, Dutch Revival, or another unusual style.)
MASONRY : 0
5- Original brick chimneys and/or stone foundation remains.
5- The structure’s primary wall material is masonry.
OUTBUILDINGS : 5
5-There are outbuildings on the property that were built during the same period as the house.
PATINA/CHARACTER : 0
5- The materials have been allowed to acquire the character of age and are obviously
weathered.
________________________________________________________________________
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 (and up to 20 bonus points)
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 50 POINTS
P134
X.b
Page 8 of 8
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be
found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point
range to more accurately reflect the specific property.
P135
X.b
From: Ian Gray
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 5:35 PM
To: Sarah Yoon <sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com>; Patrick Harris <patrick.harris@cityofaspen.com>;
Justin Forman <justin.forman@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: RE: 333Park/931Gibson
Hi Sarah,
Attached is a copy of the site visit from last week for the latest tree discussion for the proposed
house move.
Beyond the house move, Parks will need the usual documents to process a removal/dripline
excavation permit for the receiving location at 931 Gibson.
The following documents will comprise the checklist of those required for construction-based tree
removal / dripline excavation permit applications: 1) a landscape plan that shows all current trees,
the existing buildings and an ’X’ on the center of the trees requested for removal; 2) a site
construction or management plan that shows tree protection zones around trees being retained,
utility ingress points and accurate trenching widths if new access is required, and survey-accurate
drawing (to architectural plans) for the absolute limit of disturbance for shoring (micropile, soil
nail, or layback excavation) and grading; 3) a landscape plan that shows the new building, retained
trees and proposed new tree planting; 4) a spreadsheet for the tree removals with species, diameter
at breast height (DBH) measurements in inches, condition rating, and reason for removal; 5) a
spreadsheet with proposed tree planting, DBH in inches, and species; 6) A firm quote for the
installed cost of proposed new tree planting on company letterhead of the installer if that cost is
desired as an offset to the assessed mitigation for the trees proposed for removal.
That should cover things from my end.
Best,
Ian Gray
City Forester
Parks Department
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
p: 970.429.2031
ian.gray@cityofaspen.com
www.cityofaspen.com
EXHIBIT B - REFERRAL COMMENTSP136
X.b
From:Ian Gray
To:Sarah Yoon
Cc:Flynn Stewart-Severy; David Radeck
Subject:333 Park - 931 Gibson
Date:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 1:27:31 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Sarah,
I wanted to update my comments related to the 333 Park Landmark moving to the 931 Gibson site.
I have had further meetings with the applicants and their designees in the past month to review and
walk the proposed transportation route via Park Circle. As requested, the applicants have a certified
arborist on their team and have verbally committed to working with Aspen Tree Service. These
services will be paid for by the applicant. Some of the pruning that will be required falls outside of
recommended best practice for both clearance above roadways and live crown ratios; however, it is
reasonable to believe that these trees will survive the required pruning to move the house.
My original comments related to COA assets/trees which would be affected during the move are
included below as well additional notes to other trees requiring attention not previously addressed.
I have not commented on any trees on private property which might require pruning— permission
for any pruning would be required from any affected property owners prior to Parks signing off on
the plan. Any tree removals would also require owner permission as well as tree removal permits
from the Parks Department.
- 410 Park, corner - remove 2 smaller stems of multi-stem cottonwood and remove two low
branches higher in the canopy
- 414 Park, Condos - remove 4 low limbs on multi-stem cottonwood
- 511-512 Spruce Street - raise and reduce 4 crabapple trees
- 860 Gibson Street – multi stem cottonwood near entrance to trailer park would need
raising by removing 3 or four low branches
- 851 Gibson - raise street side of lodgepole pine
- 931 Gibson - 2 or 3 cottonwoods on opposite side of the street to the receiving site would
need raising
I am not in favor of removing any of the cottonwood stems at 927 Gibson west of the entrance to
the receiving site – these trees should be protected. With a modicum of pruning I believe trees on
both sides of the road in the vicinity of the receiving site can be protected from impacts from the
house moving. The contractor indicated that it should be feasible to roll past the entrance to the
east and then back the unit into the site thereby largely avoiding the trees at the west side entrance.
The Park Circle route is an improvement over the two previous routes proposed by the applicant and
has the least amount of tree impacts. The overall scope of the project is fairly straightforward. Parks
will not need to issue any permits for the COA trees/assets, but I will need to process a work order
for the necessary pruning. I hope this helps clarify the Parks Department position.
As with any new development/construction, my previous comments regarding the document
P137
X.b
submission requirements for the receiving site still apply.
Kind regards,
Ian Gray
City Forester
Parks Department
585 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
p: 970.429.2031
ian.gray@cityofaspen.com
www.cityofaspen.com
P138
X.b
Memorandum
From: Justin Forman, PE
Senior Project Manager
City of Aspen Engineering Department
To: Sarah Yoon
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development Department
Date: July 27, 2018
RE: 931 Gibson – 333 Park Historic Conceptual Comments
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project conceptual
packet submitted for purpose of the HPC meeting.
General:
1. Sheet A11 shows the 2 moving routes for the project (King or Gibson), it was deemed from site
visit with applicant team that these would not work. A 2nd site visit was performed and the new
proposed moving route is up Park Circle to Gibson.
931 Gibson Avenue:
1. Reference A7.0 dated 7/10/18. This project is not within the sidewalk deferred zone. Applicant to
provide a sidewalk the entire length of the property along Gibson Avenue. This may require
relocation of utilities. Applicant may need to coordinate design with Engineering & Parks
Departments to minimize tree impacts.
2. Curb & Gutter will be required along the entire length of the property along Gibson Avenue.
3. Applicant will be required to follow the requirements of a major development within the Urban
Runoff Management Plan.
333 Park Avenue:
1. Applicant will be required to provide a slope stabilization plan and revegetation plan with native
vegetation tied to the appropriate permit(s) during house demolition/relocation. Applicant should
be prepared for temporary irrigation for extended period until vegetation establishment.
2. Water service line to the property will need to be abandoned per City of Aspen Water Standards
at the main line and this entire service line removed from the ground.
P139
X.b
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018
1
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob
Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent were Sheri Sanzone and Willis Pember.
Staff present:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Greenwood said she was not here for that meeting, but she read the
minutes and it seemed interesting. Mr. Blaich moved to approve the draft minutes for June 13th, 2018,
Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Mr. Halferty entered the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko said the Meadows is looking pretty amazing. They did it
pretty quickly and amazingly.
DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Simon said she is recusing herself from 330 Park and 931 Gibson.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she will speak with Mr. Halferty and Mr. Kendrick tomorrow
about St. Mary’s. She will discuss by email tomorrow along with two projects to show Mr. Blaich shortly.
Ms. Greenwood asked if all the projects are covered. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think so and she has a
few upcoming requests.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded everyone that they have been invited to an opening reception
for St. Mary’s sanctuary project on Sunday. She also sent them an email asking for a special meeting on
Aug 1st. We do have a quorum, but she would like to know if anyone cannot make it. Mr. Pember is
unavailable.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for 520 E. Hyman, which is the building
where I Pro is for some work on the third-floor penthouse unit. We also issued one for a remodel of the
space where BB’s kitchen was. She also received an application for 501 E Hyman for an addition
between Clark’s and Marcus. This application is to add a new entry door to the non-historic addition.
After discussing with the building department, we felt this was resolved in a way that met guidelines and
did not need HPC review.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said everything is in order.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
333 Park and 931 Gibson
Sarah Yoon
P140
X.b
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018
2
This involves the relocation of the historic residence to new lot on 931 Gibson. Currently, 333 Park is in
the R6 zone district. The rear property faces the Roaring Fork River. 333 Park contains two historic
resources, which are proposed to be relocated. It was located to this site in the 1960s from Main Street.
It was designated historic in 1995. 931 Gibson is in R15A zone district. Currently, there is a residential
building on this site with a demo permit that has expired. The applicant is exploring different routes for
relocation. The review requests are as follows: approval of demo of non-historic additions, relocation of
2 historic resources to the new site and rescinding the historic designation from 333 Park. For 931
Gibson, the applicant is requesting approval of relocation to this site and the designation of the property
to protect the historic resources, the design approval for a basement and above ground addition which
has a 10-ft. connector and 10 ft. one car garage along with demolition of the residence on the current
lot. The applicant is requesting dimensional variances for the front and rear yard setbacks and the 500-
sq. ft. bonus. On page 2 of the staff memo, it outlines the review process as it will involve Council
heavily in the review process. The applicant proposes to restore the original Sanborn map footprint
configuration of the two historic resources and reorient the front façade back to street facing, which will
increase its visibility. Ms. Yoon showed images of the original footprint. In reviewing the criteria for
relocation, 333 Park is not in a historic district and the resource will not have any adverse impacts on
area. It is an acceptable alternative in this case and they meet all three of the additional criteria. There
is an argument that the current location is over 50 years and of historical importance. The applicant has
proposed to restore the historical character. They have also proposed a minor addition to the rear of
the resource, which is in compliance with HPC guidelines. With the relocation, staff has concerns with
the changes in allowable floor area on the accepting site. The new calculations differ from what was in
the packet and are being passed out at the meeting. The lot sizes are significantly different from each
other so the relocation will increase the floor area by 922 ft., not including the floor area bonus. The
historic resource will now allow two detached units on the site, which was not allowed prior to the
relocation. Regarding the demo criteria, the demo of all non-historic additions is supported. The
applicant expressed that the first design, is the preferred designed. Staff has concerns with the
connector, the site placement of the garage and request of the front setback variation. The applicant
has provided a revised design that redesigned the connector from 5 to 10 feet in length and the above
grade addition has been reduced to a single car garage to 250 from 500. In this design, the applicant has
extended the connecting element to 10 ft. and reduced the above grade addition. They also moved
back the addition so the variation will only be for the front porch. They are still asking for the sub grade
variation for the living space. They do request the 500-sq. ft. bonus for their preservation efforts and
want it for the Gibson space and meets six of the eight criteria for the bonus. HPC may grant up to 500
sq. ft., not on rights, but merits. Staff supports relocation of the historic resource with exception of the
sub grade variation. The lot can accommodate for the basement without a variation. HPC will need to
determine the following issues: $150,000 deposit necessary for relocation of the outbuilding, the
granting of the floor area and the total amount and the granting of the front and rear yard setbacks.
Ms. Greenwood said they discussed at the site, the potential of the front porch as historic. She said it is
not represented in the presentation. Ms. Yoon said the Sandborn map footprint indicated a porch. Ms.
Greenwood said that needs to be communicated. She also asked what is your thinking on the setback
variance for below grade and not supporting it. Ms. Yoon said the new site has the capacity for the
basement and it would not require the variance.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Flynn Stewart-Severy of F&M Architects,
Brian Hendry, owner and Monty Thompson of Thunder Construction
Mr. Hendry introduced himself and said he has a wife, Michelle. We have four kids and two dogs and
have been coming here for 16 years and spend three months a year here. We first saw the property
P141
X.b
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018
3
about seven years ago and we saw it for sale last summer and jumped on it. We love the house and the
location. We are looking forward to restoring it to its original condition and we have spent the last year
developing a plan for what we can do with the house.
Ms. Adams said they have a long list of requests on the screen, but it’s a basic concept to pick up the
two historic resources, remove the non- historic additions and move them to a more appropriate
location and swap the historic designations. We are requesting conceptual approval for a one car
garage. We are requesting a floor area bonus with a condition that it be completely allocated to a
future detached home on the Gibson property and we are fine with it being allocated to below grade
space. This property was constructed in 1889 by the Jacobs family and was located on a 3K sq. lot., but
proposed to be on a 5K lot. The setback was 14 feet so this is part of why we feel the variance is
appropriate. You can see the one story historic addition from the street and the barn along the alley. It
changed hands a few times after Jacobs constructed it and in 1961 the land under the house was
purchased. Mable placed an ad to sell the historic building. The Bibbig’s purchased the property and
moved it to Park in 1962. The historic building has survived till today. Ms. Adams showed images of the
facades as they are today. They went through four iterations within 333 Park before asking for
relocation and worked on this for about a year. There are stream margin setbacks, R6 and 45-degree
angle progressive height setbacks to work within. All required a lot of variances and no visibility to the
street. Flynn scaled the Sanborn map and Brian found the Gibson property and we found that the
Sanborn fits on this property with some massaging. We have been working with parks to find an
acceptable route and we have now met with them twice and are still working with them to come up
with a route that will work with everyone. Priorities are to fully restore the landmark, bring back the
original Main Street configuration and have some street presence. 931 Gibson is a large flat lot and the
intention is to move all the floor area not used by the landmark and designate it to a detached single-
family home. There would be two homes on this lot and the floor area of a duplex on this lot is
comparable to what we are asking for and we think it is better for the neighborhood. The new building
would be under HPC purview since it would be a designated lot. There would be less density than the
original Main Street location. Looking at context, Ms. Adams showed a map of the designated
properties and showed an image of the original proposal with a two-car garage and a five-foot
connector. All of the new square footage is below grade and we would be requesting the 500-sq. ft.
bonus be allocated to the new home. They are fine with the preference that the bonus be used below
grade. The level of restoration is not just physical, but we would be restoring context. This is a serious
preservation effort going on here. We are requesting two setback variations to realign the historic
addition and add the garage. The garage meets the 5 ft. above grade setback but needs the below grade
variation. For the front yard setback, the preservation approach was to have the landmark be
prominent along the street. The new detached building, proposed in the future, will be required to
meet the 25-foot setback line and this is just for the landmark. As for the alternate option, the only way
to elongate the connector from 5 to 10 feet, is to lose a garage bay. We would be pulling the landmark
façade to the 25-foot setback line. We are still requesting the below grade setback variance for 5 feet.
We don’t prefer the one car garage option and feel strongly that the front yard setback should match
those along Main Street. We are requesting a decision tonight as we have another step to go with City
Council. This is a unique project and a great opportunity.
Mr. Kendrick asked when was the property designated historic. Ms. Adams said 1995. Mr. Kendrick
asked if there were any incentives given at that time and Ms. Adams said no, it was a blanket
designation.
P142
X.b
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018
4
Ms. Greenwood asked what part of 931 Gibson is being designated and Ms. Adams said the entire
parcel. Ms. Greenwood asked why are we not seeing what is being proposed for the new building
because this is a serious problem moving forward without that building. Ms. Garrow said when we
looked at the code, we would prefer to see the 2nd building, but it is not required. The criteria for
granting the floor area bonus are really about the preservation effort of the historic resource itself and
not about the additions of the separate building, so they felt comfortable moving forward. The entire
lot is being designated, so at whatever point in the future they decided to move forward with a second
building, it would fall under HPC’s purview. Ms. Garrow said this is a unique proposal and made sense to
them to move forward. Ms. Greenwood said she finds that to be very odd because we grapple with the
bonus and mass and scale on historic properties so it feels contrary to what we do on this board. She
said she has a serious problem with that and it probably should have been discussed. Ms. Garrow said
that one option on the bonus is that the decision will not be made until the second structure is
proposed. Ms. Greenwood said this is not what my clients have dealt with doing almost the same thing.
The lack of consistency with interpretation of the codes is disturbing. Since it is in the R15 zone, when it
is a duplex you can see the reason for a deep setback, so did you ever consider asking for less of a
setback so you could maintain a two-car garage. Ms. Adams said we would be open to that. We wanted
to be sensitive to the requests we came in with. We want to be sensitive to the neighbors and their 25-
foot setbacks. Ms. Greenwood asked if they anticipate the new building will have a 25-foot setback.
Ms. Adams said we would be coming in with the 25-foot setback and we understand how the board
feels about setbacks. Mr. Stewart- Severy agreed with Ms. Adams and said because it comes under HPC
purview, it would be addressed. Having the historic home sit in front of the new development is a nice
gesture.
Mr. Kendrick asked if the FAR can be based on the quality of the restoration, conditionally once the
project is complete and Ms. Garrow said there is a lot of discretion given to HPC so if you wanted to add
conditions based on additional review, you have the latitude to condition it.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
1. Alan Becker, neighbor on Matchless Drive, concerned with additional structures. We don’t
know what they are going to be or look like. Mr. Becker sked what the intention for the
property is and said he is concerned with what the 5-foot setback on the rear of the property
means. Ms. Greenwood explained. Mr. Becker said he generally likes to know the proposed
usage and intent for the additional structures. He asked what the estimated timeframe for the
historic and new structures would be.
Ms. Adams said Brian and Shelly own the property and they are trying to figure out the intent. They are
not sure if they can fit their four kids and two dogs on the property. The historic home is about 2000
square foot of floor area and the detached structure would be about 2500 sq. ft. and 500 with the
bonus. If the bonus is allocated to the basement, that is what we will do. Ms. Garrow said as staff, we
struggled a little bit with what you do with the bonus and it does meet the criteria. Not knowing what a
2nd building will look like, we said if the bonus is granted, we prefer it will be located in the basement
knowing it will be difficult to parse out. If HPC is uncomfortable with that language, we can remove it.
Ms. Adams said if you grant the bonus, it will be 3000 square feet of FAR and that is 1000 square feet
more than the landmark. Mr. Becker said my old understanding was the bonus is up to 500 sq. ft. Ms.
Greenwood said that is correct.
2. David Harris, lives at 117 Neale Ave in a historic resource. He said these kinds of projects are
really good things as long as they are done in a complete manner. Regarding the front yard
setback, my porch sits 10 feet off the sidewalk. In zones where you have a 25-foot setback, they
are dead places, so I encourage you to take a look at that. What is better than having people
P143
X.b
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018
5
enjoy each other. What goes along with that is a sidewalk, is there is “staff” who have decided
that sidewalks are inappropriate in our neighborhoods, so please make sure there is a sidewalk.
Ms. Greenwood asked if engineering is requiring you to put in a sidewalk. Ms. Garrow said it
will be required. Because the zone allows there to be 2 separate buildings, you should try to
master plan the site.
Mr. Lai said he is not familiar with his house but if he prefers the traffic in front of your house, I
would like to take a look at that.
3. Mike Maple asked when was the last time other than the relocation of Zupancis, that there was
a relocation like this and how often does this happen. Ms. Garrow said it is a very unique
project and there were two of these types of relocations, one in 1988 – 134 ½ West Hopkins
moved and the Zupancis. There were a lot of properties moved in the 60s and 70s. This is a
gigantic site and quite unusual. Mr. Maple said his family owned and occupied the adjacent
property for 50 years. It’s a brilliant plan to create development in excess of 3 million dollars.
This is asking for too much. The idea of two structures plus FAR bonus is asking for 18% increase
of development potential. If the home was being relocated to a historic area, it may be
appropriate.
4. Christine Dodaro, lives across the street. She doesn’t think the mailing said what will be built on
the second part of the lot and is concerned about that.
Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment.
Ms. Adams said as for the development of the second lot, it would be a single-family home. It is nice to
hear mike’s comments and we have put our best foot forward with a good solution. It comes with some
tradeoffs and it will be a single-family home that will meet your design guidelines. We are open to
phasing in the bonus. Mr. Hendry said he is not a developer and their intention was to buy one house,
but this has escalated due to scenarios that developed once we built the house. Our intention is not to
disturb or be a hindrance to your mother and father. Our intention is to stay in the house. Mr. Stewart-
Severy said the garage we proposed is based off the Sandborn maps and it is depicted more off a barn
than anything else. The vertical height is up for debate and the original barn was taller than the single-
story structure.
Ms. Greenwood summarized the issues and said that staff is asking for a demo of non-historic addition,
relocation of Victorian to a non-historic site creating a new landmark designation where one never
existed. Staff feels like we should give them a 500-ft. bonus.
Mr. Halferty said the proposed development has strong merits. The relocation would add some
prominence to Gibson. He is ok with some of the variances. The FAR bonus is hard to get his hands
around since it is on a lot where there is no house. It is hard to allocate whether it is sub or above grade
when we don’t know the architecture. He thinks the last iteration with the garage in the back is
admirable and the connecting element works. It is a large lot and the proposed foot print works. The
presence towards Gibson works and conforms to the guidelines. He needs to look more at site planning
for garage access. In defense of applicants they have not gone through the design of the other lot, but it
would be nice to see it. The project is on its way and it is a strong restoration effort. The FAR bonus is
questionable, but he is not saying it is not warranted. He is curious as to where the receiving site would
be. He is in favor of the partial demo and the setback variance. He is curious of the receiving area and
site location of FAR bonus.
P144
X.b
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018
6
Mr. Lai said regarding the rear setback, he is ok with it as it is reasonable with the garage. It is logical to
put the barrier wall below, under it. At the beginning, he was in favor of keeping the 25 feet in the
front, but has been persuaded by Mr. Harris that there may be a social advantage to it. He agrees with
the chair on the 500-foot bonus, but is skeptical about bonuses generally. He would need to be
persuaded that the preservation is exemplary.
Mr. Kendrick said this is an interesting solution to a difficult problem. He likes that the two historic
pieces are coming back together in an original configuration and is fine with the setback. He does have
a problem with the FAR bonus with not knowing what the new building will look like. I know I will not be
in favor of any setbacks for the new building. Moving the building is giving it a lot of value.
Mr. Moyer said he is totally in favor of the renovation and removal of the additions of the resource and
he is in favor of moving it to the new site. He would like to see a two-car garage and seeing it closer to
the sidewalk. We know there will be a structure on the corner and recreating the vitality would be
helpful. He has no issue with the rear setback. He does not have an issue with the bonus if it is
underground. Most of the time, he is totally against giving any type of bonus especially redoing a
resource that has been unknown for a number of years. It is interesting, we know we could have an
8000 plus structure and we are getting much less and it will creates more of a neighborhood and I’m
willing to allow a little discretion.
Ms. Berko said for her, underground doesn’t count and she doesn’t quite understand that. She thanked
Ms. Adams for doing the research about the property. Thank you all for the public comment. It is a
wonderful building that should be seen. Until Mr. Harris brought up the sidewalk and the setbacks, I
wasn’t for them. I would like to see them tied to the requirement of a sidewalk. I like the revision of the
10-foot connector. I’m not sure why if you move it forward why you need the rear yard setback. He’s
having a hard time with the bonus. I don’t know what is going to be there. Tying it to what Main Street
was doesn’t mean much since none of us know it from there. It’s less important to recreate the Main
Street situation. It leaves a potentially huge structure next door.
Mr. Moyer said in the 1990s, we had a concept with shared driveways. That will happen here. Prior to
that, there were a lot of projects that weren’t that great. I would like to see the sidewalk here and the
new project will be set back 25 feet.
Mr. Blaich said this is a commendable project. The owner and staff worked hard on getting it resolved.
He heard some objections that he hadn’t considered. I would be in favor of a 2-car garage. I’ve watched
that neighborhood change over the years.
Ms. Greenwood personally feels, given a 6000-square foot lot, she is totally in favor of the demo and
moving the structure. Being able to do that is your bonus. As Mr. Maple pointed out, you are getting a
lot of development rights by getting a historic designation where one doesn’t exist. For me, you got a
bonus by that. Not a square foot one, but a development one. Regarding the setbacks, I don’t think it is
appropriate to have a 5 foot one for a garage you don’t access off the alley. Maybe the garage is in the
wrong location. New construction should be a product of its own time. In an R zone, the rear yard
setback is 10 feet. Given a site of this size, the rear set back should be 10 feet. I don’t think anyone is in
favor of the 500-square foot bonus. I’m not in favor of the setback for the garage. I would rather see a
lesser set back up front. The demo of the historic addition and moving it is a great idea. The whole site
becoming historic is a lot to grant somebody.
P145
X.b
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018
7
Ms. Garrow said that after listening to the comments, she has a suggestion. It seems like you are in
favor of the demo and relocation. If you are inclined to approve the demo, relocation and change in
historic designation, we can include an update to show both buildings after council approval then the
floor area bonus could be awarded at conceptual. Ms. Greenwood said the conceptual major
development is not ready to be assessed. Ms. Garrow said the suggestion is to take the bonus off the
table. If HPC supports the design and grants the conceptual, we can make the recommendation to
council to add a condition and there be an amended conceptual before final. Ms. Greenwood asked
why we can’t approve the relocation and continue the conceptual. Ms. Garrow said you would only be
making a recommendation to council. The issue is when council approves the ordinance, we would have
no idea where the building is going. Ms. Greenwood asked what is wrong with that. She said she would
push for a two-car garage. Ms. Garrow said it looks like the applicant is amenable to pulling the
conceptual out and just making a recommendation on the relocation and partial demolition.
Mr. Moyer said let’s keep it simple and give them the permission to move and come up with something
better than what they have now. Ms. Greenwood said the restoration effort is excellent, but the garage
could use some work. Mr. Stewart-Severy asked what she meant and Ms. Greenwood said this is just to
be sensitive to the neighbors. With a site that large, it should be 10 feet off the property line.
MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve resolution #9 for recommendation to City Council to
approve the relocation from 333 Park to 931 Gibson, rescinding the designation at Park and adding
designation to Gibson and landmark relocating building and removing non-historic parts. This is only
section 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. Mr. Kendrick seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 7-0, motion carried.
Ms. Garrow stated that if council approves the demo and relocation, the applicant will come back after
city council.
MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 6:30
p.m.
___________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk
P146
X.b
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
September 5, 2018
Aspen City Council
c/o Sarah Yoon and Jessica Garrow
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue Applications
Dear Mayor Skadron, City Council, Ms. Yoon and Ms. Garrow:
Thank you for considering the application for Relocation and exchanging Historic Designation between 333
Park and 931 Gibson to ensure that landmark designation travels with the two historic landmarks. The
one story historic landmark was discovered by the project team while researching the history of the
property. It was not included in any of the inventory forms in the City of Aspen’s files and was not disclosed
by the previous owner during the sale of the property. Two historic landmarks on an already constrained
site with significant slopes, an access easement through the front yard, and located within an
environmentally sensitive area with a height restriction required an uncoventional approach to restore the
compromised landmarks. This is a very unique one of a kind case that necessitates special consideration.
During second reading on August 27th, we presented a few of the multiple studies (shown below)
completed over the past year that resulted in the conclusion that the best preservation approach is to
relocate the landmarks to a more appropriate site: the two historic landmarks at 333 Park do not fit on
the property without numerous variations from the Land Use Code and the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines. Considering that Historic Preservation and compliance with the Land Use Code are top
priorities for the Hendrys and for the community, the application to relocate the buildings was submitted.
Four iterations of the 333 Park analysis are shown below:
Version 1: Turn landmark 180 degrees to face the access
easement. Setback variances, height variance (shown in
black), historic front porch abuts the driveway putting the
historic feature dangerously close to snow plows and
vehicles, one story historic is attached to side of the
landmark which requires removal of historic siding.
Landmark is cantilevered over the slope.
EXHIBIT G - Updated Letter from ApplicantP147
X.b
333 Park and 931 Gibson
September 17, 2018
Version 2: Turn the landmark 90 degrees to face the side
property line. Setback variances, garage is located off the
property, height variance (shown in black), landmark is
cantilevered over the slope. Facing the front of the
landmark to the side property line does not meet the
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and is likely to not
be supported by HPC.
Version 3: Turn the landmark to face Park Avenue. Setback
variances, garage is located off the property, height
variances (shown in black), landmark is cantilevered over
the slope.
Version 4: Turn landmark 180 degrees to face the access
easement. Setback variances, height variance (shown in
black), historic front porch abuts the driveway putting the
historic feature dangerously close to snow plows and
vehicles, one story historic building is cantilevered over the
slope and over an open ditch.
P148
X.b
333 Park and 931 Gibson
September 17, 2018
Unlike other properties, such as the three Zupancis buildings
located in their original location on Main Street, 333 Park is not in
its original location – it was originally located on Main Street. Aspen
has a history of relocating 19th century buildings that dates back to
before the adoption of the historic preservation program. In
Aspen’s post-war renaissance, buildings were relocated to other
properties to make way for new construction and for the practicality
and cost effectiveness of reusing the building (Figure 1). With the
adoption of a Historic Preservation Program, Aspen relocated
buildings when it was deemed the best preservation approach -
typically to avoid large additions to landmarks by separating new
and old construction. 333 Park is a result of the first situation, it was
relocated in 1961 to make room for the Pitkin County Library on
Main Street (now Design Workshop). It is not in its original location
and based on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Land
Use Code, the 333 Park location is not an appropriate setting for
the two landmarks and the buildings are non-conforming. The best
preservation approach is to locate the buildings to a more
appropriate location. The site restrictions at 333 Park are
insurmountable – the Roaring Fork River is and will remain
protected with setback and height restrictions, the steep slopes on
the property are not permitted to be re-graded, and the access
easement through the front yard is unlikely to change because it
provides the only vehicular access to three other developed
properties.
The top priority for the Hendrys is to restore the landmark
and the one story historic addition in its original
configuration. The proposed relocation and restoration
increases the integrity score of the landmarks from 68 points
at 333 Park to 93 points at 931 Gibson. The new location
provides ample space to reorient and restore the two
landmarks and provides a more appropriate setting and
relationship to grade than the current location of the
landmark perched above the Roaring Fork River. 931 Gibson
is surrounded by 19th Century landmarks and historic maps
show residential development in the Gibson neighborhood
(Figure 3).
The landmark and one story historic addition fit on the 931
property in their original configuration with the one story
addition directly behind the two story landmark. The
orientation of the landmark to the street matches its original
location on Main Street which meets the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines. The overall plan is to have
two separate buildings on the 931 Gibson property: the landmarks and a new separate building. The total
floor area for the property is 4,530 sf which would be divided between the two separate buildings. The
“The character of a historic structure is
greatly influenced by the surrounding
framework of streets and public spaces,
the physical characteristics
of the specific site, and the way in which
the historic resource is situated on the lot.”
Figure 1: Example of the history of relocating buildings in Aspen.
A 1955 Aspen Historical Society photograph moving a home.
Figure 2: Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
Figure 3: 1893 Willits map of the Gibson Avenue neighborhood.
P149
X.b
333 Park and 931 Gibson
September 17, 2018
landmarks equal about ~1,800 sf of floor area without any additions, meaning the new separate building
could be roughly ~2,730 sf of floor area subject to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Any
addition or new construction requires approval from HPC after City Council grants relocation approval.
City Council will have call-up authority consistent with any other historic project.
Mr. Beck (the owner of 935 Gibson) and some Council members discussed the concept of requiring one
large building on the site rather than two separate buildings. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
prefer to separate new and old construction in separate masses rather than a large addition attached to a
landmark. To reinforce this preservation tenet that Aspen has incorporated into its program for decades,
the 2016 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines added a new guidelines that restricts the amount of
above grade square footage attached to the landmark:
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be
distinguishable against the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the
above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade
development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this
policy if two or more of the following are met…
Restricting the property to one large mass instead of two smaller buildings conflicts with the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines and does not allow the Historic Preservation Commission full authority to
decide the appropriate placement, design, massing, scale and style of the landmarks and new
construction. Design Guideline 10.4 allows some variation from the requirement, but the intent is clear –
separate new construction in order to not overwhelm the historic resource. The Historic Preservation
Commission unanimously supports the proposal to relocate the historic landmarks from 333 Park to 931
Gibson with a 7-0 vote.
Some members of City Council and the neighbors on either side of 931 Gibson expressed concern over a
historic landmark lot split. A lot split is not proposed. The Hendrys agree to language in the Ordinance
that requires City Council approval for any future lot split of the property. An application would have to
be submitted to the Community Development Department, public notice would be provided, a
recommendation would be requested from HPC, and the application would be considered by City Council.
931 Gibson currently has two curb cuts and no sidewalk along the front property line. The Hendrys are
willing to commit to one driveway and curb cut for the property which physically lends the property toward
a single family residence and reduces impacts on Gibson Street. The Hendrys are in discussions with Mr.
Beck and his attorney to hopefully reach a private agreement that addresses Mr. Beck’s concerns. In
“A new building must be compatible in mass and scale
with its historic neighbor and not overwhelm it. At the
same time, minimizing any addition to the historic
resource and shifting square footage to the new
structure is generally desired.”
Figure 4: Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
P150
X.b
333 Park and 931 Gibson
September 17, 2018
response to David Harris’ comments about sidewalks, the Hendrys are supportive of putting in a sidewalk;
however, it is up to the City Engineer to determine the appropriate location of the sidewalk based on the
City’s adopted Sidewalk Master Plan.
We look forward to presenting this project to City Council as we feel strongly this is the best preservation
solution for this important landmark. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like more
information to complete your review. sara@bendonadams.com or 970-925-2855.
Kind Regards,
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
Principal
BendonAdams, LLC
Attachments [provided at First and Second Reading]:
A - Designation and Delisting to move the landmark to 931 Gibson & to remove the vacant 333 Park
from the inventory
B - Demolition of non-historic additions
C - Relocation (including letter from Bill Bailey confirming ability to relocate structures)
D - Drawings and comparisons
P151
X.b
Page 1 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: Continued, Second Reading, September 17, 2018 - Public Hearing
RE: Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 - 333 Park Avenue and 931 Gibson Avenue –
Relocation, Rescinding Designation, Designation and Demolition
APPLICANT /OWNER:
BMH Investments, LTD
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sara Adams, AICP, BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
333 Park Avenue & 931 Gibson
Avenue
Legal Description:
See Ordinance Exhibit A
Parcel Identification Number:
-333 PARK PID# 2737-181-00-017
-931 GIBSON PID#2737-074-00-004
CURRENT ZONING & USE
-333 Park Ave: Medium-Density
Residential (R-6) Zone District
-931 Gibson Ave: Moderate-Density
Residential (R-15A) Zone District
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Residential
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests City Council approval for demolition of non-
historic additions to the landmarked residence on 333 Park Avenue and
to relocate the historic buildings to 931 Gibson Avenue. Applicant
requests rescinding the historic designation of 333 Park Avenue and
adding designation of 931 Gibson Avenue upon the relocation.
STAFF AND HPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and HPC find the applicant’s request for relocation as an
appropriate preservation practice for the historic buildings at 333 Park.
Staff and HPC recommend City Council approve relocation, demolition
of non-historic additions and the request to rescind historic designation
of 333 Park Avenue and adding designation of 931 Gibson Avenue
following relocation. HPC voted unanimously (7-0) recommending in
favor of the proposal.
Site Locator Map - 333 Park and 931 Gibson
P152
X.b
Page 2 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Response to Council Comments at Second Reading:
Since the second reading with Aspen City Council, the applicant has provided an updated cover letter addressing
the concerns brought up by the public and City Council, and agrees to include language in the ordinance that:
• prohibits a future lot split unless approved by City Council, and
• confirms a single driveway and single curb cut on the property.
This language has been updated in the revised Ordinance #22, Series of 2018.
Another concern was raised during second reading by a neighbor related to future ownership of the
property. The applicant is in discussion with the neighbor to establish a private agreement to address
this issue. Staff supports the process of a private agreement between the neighbors over ownership
details being addressed in the Ordinance.
1. Designation Process with Relocation: Changes to designation only occur if Relocation is approved. The
ordinance is written to ensure the changes to designations occur only after the safe relocation of the
historic structures. The flow chart for this process can be seen below (Figure 1). This was the same process
that was taken for the relocation of the Zupancis Cabins from 540 E. Main Street to the Holden Merlot
open space property. After the relocation of the cabins, the historic designation of 540 E. Main Street
was rescinded (Ordinance #7, Series of 2017).
Figure 1: Flow Chart related to Designation
2. Density Clarification: The relocation of the historic resources to 931 Gibson Ave. does not increase the
allowable density or floor area for the site. Regardless of if this project is approved or not, the property
is limited to no more than two (2) units. The change to 931 Gibson Avenue with the historic designation
is how the two (2) units are placed on the lot and if they are deed restricted. Currently the property could
have a single-family residence of 4,529.82 sf of floor area, or a duplex (two attached units) with 4,949.82
sf of floor area. If the project is approved, the property could have one (1) or two (2) single family
residences with a total of 4,529.82 sf, or a duplex (two attached units) with 4,949.82 sf (see Table 2 below).
If a duplex is pursued in this zone district, the underlying zoning requires one (1) of the two (2) units be
deed restricted as affordable housing. The figure below is a simple diagram demonstrating what types
of building configuration is allowed on 931 Gibson according to the zone district.
P153
X.b
Page 3 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Figure 2: Allowable Floor Area – 931 Gibson Ave.
3. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines – Massing: The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines deal with
the mass and scale of new buildings on landmarked properties. The intent for this section in the guidelines
is to create compatibility between the new building and the historic resource by taking the following
design decisions into account: building orientation, alignment, mass and scale, and building form. To best
preserve and maintain the historic resources, the guidelines require any new addition be distanced from
the resource with a connecting element and remain subordinate in appearance to the historic resource.
Where possible, new construction is encouraged to be completely detached from the historic resource.
If the historic resources are relocated to 931 Gibson Avenue, HPC will review the design proposal
according to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. New additions will have to carefully consider
total above grade floor area and mass/scale related to the historic resources. Given the detailed HP
Design Guidelines, staff does not recommend a limitation on how the above grade mass is placed. Below
are a few relevant design guidelines:
HP Design Guideline 10.4: The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the
original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider
exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met:
The proposed addition is all one story.
The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the
proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource.
The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to hav
been particularly detrimental to the historic resource.
The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed
historically.
The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street.
There are no variances requested in the application other than those related to historic conditions that
aren’t being changed.
The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
P154
X.b
Page 4 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must
be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
HP Design Guideline 10.8: Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred.
HP Design Guideline 11.3: Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic
buildings on a parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original
site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resouce.
P155
X.b
Page 5 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
NOTE: The remainder of the memo from the August 27th public hearing.
Response to Council Comments at First Reading:
1. Council requested clarification on the overall review process. For second reading City Council is
ultimately asked to determine if relocation of the structures on 333 Park is acceptable, along with the
subsequent decisions for designation and demolition. If relocation and designation are approved, the
applicant will submit for Major Development of 931 Gibson in a new application. This will be a standard
two-step review process consisting of conceptual and final design review through HPC. City Council call-
up would also occur, following the Conceptual review. No Historic Preservation benefits are requested
as part of the current application. Instead, any benefits would be part of the subsequent Major
Development application, and reviewed by HPC according to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
and benefits criteria. It is important to note that the application would be subject to the code in place at
the time of that application, and not vested in the current code.
2. Council requested additional information regarding HPC purview if designation was rescinded
from 333 Park and 931 Gibson was designated. If relocation is approved, the historic designation would
follow the historic resource because designation is designed to protect the specific historic resources.
Without the historic resources on 333 Park, the lot will no longer qualify for retaining its historic
designation and HPC will no longer have purview over future development. Underlying zoning
requirements for R-6 would apply to any future development. If 931 Gibson contained the historic
buildings, it meets the criteria for designation and will be subject to HPC review and design guidelines
for any proposed development moving forward. Future requests for development and benefits would be
subject to HPC review, as well as City Council call-up.
3. Council requested information on any relocation precedents where a historic resource was
relocated to a new site and historic designation granted, and what possible ramifications for future
projects might be. In the 60s and 70s, before the HPC was established, a number of historic buildings
were relocated around town, but documentation depicting this activity is not available. When comparing
historic maps with existing conditions, it appears that many historic structures were relocated to the
Smuggler area of town. (See below, Willits Map, 1893) More typical relocation of historic properties seen
today is the shifting of the resource within the original, designated lot. All the Victorian era buildings with
historical integrity are protected through local historic designation with the intent to protect it by
subjecting any proposed development or change to a board level review with design guidelines and
criteria specific to preservation.
Staff identified two projects that involved the relocation of a historic resource to a new site: 134 ½ W.
Hopkins approved in 1988, and the more recent Zupancis Cabins in 2016. 134 ½ W. Hopkins was relocated
from 120 N. Spring Street to West Hopkins, and the Zupancis Cabins were moved from the new Police
Station on Main Street to Holden Marolt open space. In both cases the relocated historic resources were
in their original location before relocation. The determining factor for relocation is directly related to the
final preservation outcome of the resources themselves. The Zupancis Cabins were examples of
resources demonstrating a high level of historic integrity, both interior and exterior, that could be fully
P156
X.b
Page 6 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
restore and interpreted off-site – a unique opportunity not likely to be replicated in another existing
building..
Before relocation, 2016 (Photographer Skalko) After relocation, 2018
134 ½ W. Hopkins was identified as possessing architectural significance and the relocation to West
Hopkins would “make the house more accessible to the public and increase its prominence in the new
context, as we see it.” (Staff memo, 1988). At the time, the HPC evaluation of the resource on N. Spring
Street resulted in a low evaluation score, whereas the proposed site for relocation enhanced the receiving
neighborhood by restoring historic site conditions. The case file indicates that there was also large
development that posed a threat to the resource if it remained on N. Spring Street.
Before relocation, 1988 After relocation, 2012
Staff finds that these types of relocation requests have not been common because the combined
conditions of a resource with a higher level of historic integrity benefiting from relocation is rare.
Additionally, each historic preservation project is evaluated utilizing the HP design guidelines and review
criteria on a case-by-case basis, therefore, using a past precedent may not render much support for future
projects.
4. Council asked for clarification of allowable floor area for both properties and the allowed number
of units, as well as additional information regarding the neighborhood context of the Gibson lot
P157
X.b
Page 7 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
related to other historic resources. 333 Park, located in the R-6 zone district, has a gross lot area of
10,418 sf., but after slope and easement deductions are made the net lot area equals 6,048 sf 1. Based on
these numbers, the allowable floor area for a single family dwelling is 3,246.72 sf. As a historic lot, a
detached dwelling is permitted with an allowable maximum floor area of 3,607.68 sf. Any development
on this lot will need to take stream margin review requirements into consideration.
931 Gibson, located in the R-15A zone district, has a gross lot area and a net lot area of 15,497 sf. The
allowable maximum floor area for a single family dwelling is 4,529.82 sf and does not change with the
relocation of the historic resource. One thing the historic designation will now allows is for two detached
dwellings to exist on the lot. However, the allowable maximum floor area is limited to what is allowed for
a single family home (4,529.82sf.) per underlining zoning requirements.2
The applicant conducted a number of conceptual design studies on 333 Park before pursuing the option
of relocation. (See Tables 1 and 2 below.) The context surrounding the Gibson lot is unique in that a
number of historic resources have been relocated to this area before the HPC was established. If
relocated, the resource will be surrounded by other historic resources in the general vicinity. (See below,
Map of Historic Resources near Gibson, 2018. Historic properties are outlined in orange, and 931 Gibson
is identified by the red circle. )
Aspen Willits Map, 1896 Map of Historic Resources near Gibson, 2018
5. City Council members requested additional clarification on if similar types of relocation
applications could become more common, and if staff’s recommendation is derived from a loophole
in the system or if this is an active promotion of the Historic Preservation program. A proposal such
as this is unusual because it requires the applicant to own two properties and commit to a preservation
1 The Land Use Code required reductions in Net Lot Area if steep slopes or easements exist. Floor area is calculated off of Net
Lot Area, so large lots with significant slopes will have a lower allowed floor area than a large lot with no slopes.
2 It should be noted that 2 attached units (a duplex) is allowed by the zone district, but one half is required to be deed restricted.
P158
X.b
Page 8 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
plan that justifies relocation and the added risk related to the logistics of the relocation. Additionally, this
structure has previously been moved from another part of town, making this type of relocation more
appropriate than if it were in it’s original location. Staff and HPC’s recommendation for approval of the
relocation are based on the HP program’s review criteria and the historic integrity assessment value. (See
Exhibit A.1 and A.3). The historic preservation program is in place to help maintain the historic character
of the city by protecting the individual resources from future development pressures that may
inappropriately impact the resource. The request of relocation from the applicant is an appropriate
preservation method in this instance because the current location of the resource is inappropriate and
the relocation will provide opportunities to restore original conditions such as site placement and visibility.
Staff highlighted the importance of restoring visual prominence of the historic resource in the staff memo.
After the house was relocated to Park Avenue, the once proud example of Victorian architecture was
hidden from public view, which also made it difficult to monitor its physical condition as a historic resource.
There are a finite number of historic buildings from the Victorian era that remain in Aspen to tell the story
of its silver mining history. Prominence and the showcasing of historic resources does need to take
surrounding context into account, but the program strives to promote the awareness and appreciation of
Aspen’s heritage by creating a visual presence of the existing resources for public view.
6. Council members asked about the challenges and balance of historic preservation values with other
community values. Historic designation, as well as rescinding designation is a structured public process
with very specific code criteria that must to be met (Section 26.415.030, 26.415.050) and the final
determination made by City Council. Historic Preservation is identified as an important community value
that links to community character and growth and economy (pg. 55, Aspen Area Community Plan, 2012).
In a recent community survey, more than 93% agreed that historic preservation projects contribute, on
varying levels, to telling the unique story of Aspen’s past. (Q.8, Survey Results, 2018.) A vital community
is always in the process of balancing its many different values. Staff believes this proposal balances the
many competing community values that are articulated in the land use code. Relocation will not result in
more density than could be built today on 931 Gibson. Relocation will create an improved opportunity for
slope stabilization and sensitive development by the Roaring Fork River on 333 Park. And, relocation is
the best preservation opportunity for the historic resource.
P159
X.b
Page 9 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
333 Park Avenue became a designated historic landmark in 1995 because of the Victorian era residence that was
moved to this location from Main Street in the 1960s. During this relocation, the front of the historic house was
oriented to face the Roaring Fork River, and several bandit units were added to the historic residence over the
years. The lot is approximately 10,418 sq. ft. (Gross Lot Area) and located in the Medium-Density (R-6) zone
district. Prior to the submission of this Land Use Application, the applicant fulfilled the conditions specified in the
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemption by decommissioning the kitchens within the bandit units
and obtaining approval by a field inspector.
931 Gibson Avenue is located in the R-15A zone district, and recently had an active building permit to demolish
the existing house and stabilize the site. The lot is approximately 15,497 sq. ft. (Gross Lot Area), but is not a
designated landmark nor located in a historic district. The owners of 333 Park Avenue are currently under
contract to purchase 931 Gibson Avenue as a receiving site of the historic resources if relocation is approved.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCESS:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council, all of which have received a
recommendation from HPC:
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090) of a designated historic landmark to a new location. City Council is the
final review authority.
• Demolition (Section 26.415.080) of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
City Council is given final review authority.
• Rescinding Designation (Section 26.415.050) of 333 Park Avenue due to the proposed relocation of the
historic structure. City Council is the final review authority.
• Historic Designation (Section 26.415.030) of 931 Gibson Avenue due to the proposed relocation of the
historic structure. City Council is the final review authority.
HPC MEETING SUMMARY:
The applicant presented a plan to demolish all non-historic additions built around the historic residence at 333
Park Avenue and relocate the historic house and historic one-story addition to 931 Gibson Avenue to HPC during
the July 11th meeting for Conceptual Design. As part of the application the applicant prepared a conceptual design
for 931 Gibson Avenue with the restored historic buildings including a connector element that linked the historic
buildings to a one-story garage located towards the rear of the lot. With this design, the applicant included a
request for a front setback variation and a floor area bonus for the extensive preservation work proposed.
Although relocating a historic building to another site is typically not supported by the Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, HPC determined the proposal for relocation was an appropriate preservation method in the
case of 333 Park Avenue because it would restore the historic configuration of the two resources and place it
back onto a site that would re-establish a visual presence the residence once had when it was on Main Street
(Figure 1). The proposal also met all of the criteria for relocation in Section 26.415.090.
P160
X.b
Page 10 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Figure 1 Historic Streetscape of Main Street, Aspen Historical Society
The identified receiving site, 931 Gibson Avenue, is a significantly larger lot compared to the original 3,000 sf lot
where the resources were on Main Street; however, the relatively flat site and the number of other historic
resources surrounding the lot on Gibson Avenue brings it closer to the site context it once had on Main Street
compared to where it is now on Park Avenue.
The applicant provided conceptual designs for the historic residence but the design for a future detached
dwelling was not presented at this time; however, it was made clear that any future designs for a detached
dwelling unit would still be subject to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and HPC review. This process
is not uncommon and often seen when historic lot splits are granted, but HPC decided that they would like to
review a conceptual design for Major Development that showed the site plan for the entire site, including any
future detached dwelling unit. The applicant agreed to provide this information and will submit a new, separate
application for Conceptual Major Development if this application for relocation is approved. HPC voted
unanimously (7-0) in favor of the proposed relocation and associated reviews.
In summary, City Council has the final authority to grant relocation of the historic buildings to the identified
receiving site, demolition of non-historic additions on 333 Park Avenue, rescinding designation of 333 Park
Avenue and designation of 931 Gibson Avenue after relocation. HPC was a recommending body for this review.
Both HP staff and HPC recommend City Council approval for the relocation of the historic landmark buildings to
the new site and the designation process and demolition required to achieve the relocation. (See Exhibit F – HPC
Meeting Minutes for more details.)
Allowable Floor Area:
As a 15,497 sf lot on Gibson Avenue, the development potential that exists through underlying zoning for a single
family dwelling is 4,529.82 sf with the potential to land one TDR of 250 sf. With the proposed relocation and
historic designation, the underlying R-15A zone district would allow two detached residential dwellings, but the
allowable floor area is limited to the same 4,529,82 sq. ft. of single-family dwelling floor area because the lot is
less than 20,000 sf. Without the relocation, the lot could have one detached residential dwelling 3. It should be
noted that the same applies to 333 Park – the lot is allowed two detached dwellings with the historic resource,
but only once it is moved. (Details on floor area is outlined in Tables 1 and 2, below.)
3 The current owners of 931 Gibson Ave, applied for a Residential Design Standards review for a single-family home in
October 2017, which does not include the articulation and break down of massing that two separate structures would provide if
this relocation application is approved.
P161
X.b
Page 11 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Dimensions for 333 Park Ave.
333 Park Avenue (Gross Lot Area: 10,418 sf; Net Lot Area: 6,048 sf)
R-6 Maximum Existing
Allowable Floor Area
(Single-Family Dwelling)
3,246.72 sf
(Up to 3,496.72 sf with 1 TDR)
3,793 sf
Allowable Floor Area
(Detached Dwelling)
3,607.68 sf
(Up to 4,107.68 sf with 2 TDRs)
n/a
Number of Units 2 1
Height 25’ 27-7 ¾”
Setbacks
(front, rear, side)
Front: 10’
Rear: 10’
Side: 15’
non-conforming
Table 2. Existing and Proposed Dimensions for 931 Gibson Ave.
931 Gibson Avenue (Gross Lot Area: 15,497 sf; Net Lot Area: 15,497 sf)
R-15A Maximum
(without historic property)
R-15A Maximum
(with historic property)
Allowable Floor Area
Single-Family Dwelling
4,529.82 sf
(Up to 5,029.82 sf with 2 TDR)
4,529.82 sf
(Up to 5,029.82 sf with max. floor area bonus)
Allowable Floor Area
Duplex Dwelling*
4,949.82 sf
(Up to 5,449.82 with 2 TDRs)
4,949.82 sf
(Up to 5,449.82 sf with max. floor area bonus)
Allowable Floor Area
Detached Dwelling**
n/a 4,529.82 sf
(Up to 5,029.82 sf with max. floor area bonus)
Number of Units 1 2
Height 25’ 25’
Setbacks
(front, rear, side)
Front: 25’
Rear: 10’
Side: 10’
Front: 25’
Rear: 10’
Side: 10’
*duplex requires 50% of units to be deed restricted (Section 26.710.060.B).
**lot sizes less than 20,000 sf is limited to single family dwelling floor area (Section 26.710.060).
(Note: Deck allowance is based on allowable floor area without TDRs of Floor area bonus.)
P162
X.b
Page 12 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
STAFF COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of each land use provision requiring Council action. More detailed criteria and staff
findings are provided in the exhibits to this memo.
1. Relocation. The intent for relocation of designated properties is to preserve and maintain the historic
resource in its original location. In the case of 333 Park Avenue, the historic resources were moved to
this site from Main Street in 1960s
The applicant indicates steep slopes, stream margin, and utility/road easements as some of the site
constraints found at 333 Park for designing on-site relocation. Any relocation process would include the
moving the two-story Victorian house and the one-story addition separately. The applicant’s plan for off-
site relocation attempts to restore the original footprint of the two resources, as seen on the historic
Sanborn Maps (Figure 3). If the structure were to remain on 333 Park, the historic relationship of the two-
story Victorian home and the one-story historic addition could not be accomplished due to the site
conditions, particularly the stream margin requirements for increased setbacks and a progressive height
limit from the top of slope measurement. This is illustrated in the application, as well as in the drawings,
below.
Figure 3: Configuration Study with Sanborn Map overlay, F&M Architects.
Relocation of a historic structure to a new site is discouraged (HP Design Guideline 9.8), however,
preservation values can vary from project to project, therefore, proposals for relocation are reviewed on
a case-by-case basis (HP Design Guideline 9.2). When the historic buildings moved from Main Street
(originally located across the street from Paepcke Park where the old library, now home to Design
Workshop, was built), the resources went from being highly visible to hardly being seen. The proposed
receiving site, 931 Gibson Avenue, is a middle lot on a relatively flat grade offering clearer views of the
historic resources from the street. Staff finds 931 Gibson is an appropriate location for this historic
resource, as it provides improved site conditions, opportunity for visibility and the relocation will not
diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of any adjacent designated properties.
P163
X.b
Page 13 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Part of the criteria for evaluating if relocation is appropriate is ensuring the relocation results in the best
preservation option for the historic resource given its character and integrity. In evaluating this, staff
examines the physical relocation impacts (can the structure withstand the act of relocation), as well as
what the final development opportunities for the site will be. In this case, the applicant has provided
documentation from an experienced house mover confirming the historic resources can physically
withstand relocation.
The preservation goal to restore the two historic resources, restore the original configuration and re-
introduce the front façade back to its street facing orientation offer the best preservation outcomes and
promotes the goal of creating awareness and appreciation for Aspen’s Victorian Heritage. Staff supports
the proposed plan for relocation of the historic buildings from 333 Park Avenue to 931 Gibson
because it meets the criteria for relocation and provides the best preservation outcome for the
historic structures (Exhibit A.1).
Figure 4: 333 Park Avenue, 1980 Figure 5: 333 Park Avenue, 2012
2. Demolition: Demolition refers to the loss of building fabric. The intent behind reviewing demolition for
historic properties is to preserve and protect historic resources because of its significant to the
community. The applicant proposes to remove all non-historic additions, including the bandit units, before
the historic resources are located to 931 Gibson Avenue. The proposed areas for demolition does not
demonstrate historical significance nor affect the integrity of the historic resource/property. The Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines also encourage the removal of non-historic material that cover original
material (HP Design Guideline 2.6). Demolition on 333 Park Avenue is considered development and will
trigger an administrative Stream Margin review, which will be completed following HPC’s and Council’s
reviews. Staff supports the proposed demolition of non-historic additions on the building because
it meets the criteria for demolition and complies with the HP Design Guidelines on treatment of
non-historic material covering historic material (Exhibit A.2).
3. Designation: Historic designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of
specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect (Section 26.415.030). It is
a public process that first identifies significant historic properties in the community and reviews
development for appropriateness using the adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines as a
P164
X.b
Page 14 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
standard. The designation of 333 Park Avenue occurred in 1995 as part of a city wide historic sites and
structures inventory update (Exhibit C under the address 101 Park). If the historic buildings on 333 Park
Avenue are relocated to 931 Gibson Avenue, the property will no longer comply with the criteria for
historic designation, therefore, rescinding the landmark status of the property would be appropriate.
If relocation is approved and 931 Gibson becomes the receiving site for the historic buildings from 333
Park Avenue, the property will meet the all two criteria for historic designation because it will now contain
a documented 19th century structure and the property will possess a resource of material integrity that
demonstrates age and workmanship. The public score sheet conducted by staff records a score of 90
where 50 is the required minimum score threshold for historic designation (Please see end of Exhibit C).
It is critical that the property containing the historic resources be historically designated to ensure its
protection as offered by the municipal code. If the relocation is approved, staff supports the
rescinding of 333 Park Avenue’s designation and the historic designation of 931 Gibson Avenue
because they meet the required criteria (Exhibit C).
4. Referral Comments: One important technical factor to consider is the logistical process of relocation.
The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the criteria for Relocation found in the code require safe
relocation of the historic resource by requesting a developed plan for safe relocation and specialty
contractors with experience (HP Design Guideline 9.7). The applicant has identified a specialty contractor
who provided a document confirming the resource would withstand another relocation. The applicant is
also developing a safe relocation route involving other relevant city departments to discuss community
impact and mitigation.
Due to the complexity of the proposal, the applicant has started discussions with Engineering, Building
and Parks on the logistics of relocation and the necessary requirements following relocation. Comments
provided by the other departments are attached as Exhibit B, and included as conditions in the Ordinance.
The Parks Department initially expressed concerns regarding damage to trees along the potential
relocation route. Since then, the applicant has worked extensively with the Parks Department’s forester
to address specific concerns and requirements. The proposed relocation route via Park Avenue was
identified as the route with the least impact on the trees. (See Exhibit B for detailed resolutions.) If
relocation is approved, the Parks Department has indicated a number of conditions to ensure minimal
impact to the trees. A finalized relocation/repair plan meeting these requirements will be required as
part of the final design review application and has been included as a condition in the Ordinance.
Engineering did not express any specific concerns related to the proposed relocation plan. They will
continue to communicate with the applicant on the necessary process for relocation. Some of the items
that will be requested includes a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) and additional coordination with RFTA, police
escort, and agreements for electric shutoffs with Holy Cross during the scheduled date and time for the
relocation of the buildings. Due to the potential impacts the relocation may have on the surrounding
neighbors, Engineering also requires public notification of the proposed disturbance. (See Exhibit B for
additional comments.)
P165
X.b
Page 15 of 15
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and HPC recommends approval of Ordinance #22, Series of 2018.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Ordinance #22, Series of 2018.
ATTACHMENTS: (Exhibits in bold are included in this packet, other exhibits were in the 1st reading packet.)
Ordinance #22, Series of 2018
Exhibit A.1 – Relocation Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit A.2 – Demolition Review Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit A.3 – Rescinding Designation & Historic Designation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Referral Comments
Exhibit C – 333 Park Designation, previous approval
Exhibit D – GMQS Exemption Approval
Exhibit E – Land Use Application
Exhibit F – HPC Meeting Minutes from July 11, 2018
Exhibit G – Updated Applicant Letter
P166
X.b