Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.worksession.20100419
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Phil Overeynder, Director of Public Works and Environmental Initiatives FROM: Kim Peterson, Global Warming Project Manager DATE: April 19, 2010 RE: Energy Smart Loan Program Update SUMMARY: Pitkin County staff is developing the Energy Smart Loan Program (ESLP). This program will allow homeowners in Aspen to borrow money for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements and to pay the loan back via an increased property tax assessment. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In October 2009, Council passed an ordinance allowing Aspen residents to opt in to the loan program. DISCUSSION: Dylan Hoffman, Pitkin County's Energy Manager, will present Council with an informational update of the program. Attached to this memo are: 1) a powerpoint presentation describing the ESLP program, 2) a draft list of eligible measures, and 3) a draft ESLP plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: A requirement of the loan program is to first have an energy audit by a certified BPI contractor. Since the City of Aspen is currently offering a financial incentive to homeowners within the urban growth boundary, the demand for audits will have an impact on the utilities fund that is available for such audits. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: By reducing upfront capital barriers, homeowners will be able to increase the energy efficiency of their properties and add renewable energy systems. Presumably, such improvements will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases participating homeowners emit. RECOMMENDATION: There is no recommendation requested. This is an informational briefing only. ALTERNATIVES: N/A PROPOSED MOTION: N/A Analysis I Energy Audit Required for all projects, BPI or HERS qualified auditors are qualifed Air Sealing Measures should result in final ACH of.35 Air Sealing Duct Sealing Mastic only Whole House Fan Must have controls (thermostat or timer, multi -speed). Fan opening must be properly insulated and sealed in winter. Ventilation Attic Fan Must have controls (thermostat or timer, multi -speed). Fan opening must be properly insulated and sealed in winter. May be solar -powered. Heat Recovery Ventilator Must meet Energy Star criteria, no integral electric resistance heater. Attic R-49 minimum required in open attic; cathedral ceilings will vary. Wall R-21 minimum Insulation Floor R-38 minimum Ducts R-8 minimum Perimeter R-10 minimum Crawls ace Sealed seam and edge vapor barrier. R-10 minimum wall insulation High Efficiency Furnace AFUE >= 95 % Boiler AFUE>=93% Heating Ground Source Heat Pump Closed loop only. Must meet Energy Star: EER >14.1, COP >=3.3. Installer must be IGSPHA certified. Programmable Thermostats Installed permanufacturer's specifications Evaporative Cooling Installed per manufacturer's s ecifications Cooling Air conditioner Replacement only, SEER? 16 Water Heating On-Demand/Tankless Energy Factor of 0.82 or higher(Energy Star listed) natural gas or propane only Lighting Fixtures/ballasts Energy Star listed fixtures, linear fluorescent, CFL or LED fixtures that cannot be lam ed with incandescent bulbs. Timers, Sensors, Dimmers Must be hardwired to electrical service Home Energy Monitor Must be hardwired to electrical service Window Repair Reglazing and repair of historic, old growth windows, does not include coatings or finishes. Exterior windows and glass doors Replacements. U.32 maximum, air sealing measures to.35 AC/hr Windows, Doors, and Storm windows Weatherstripping required. Total window assembly of U<0.32 Skylights Window Film IMust meet Energy Star criteria Insulating shutters or blinds R-5 minimum for shutters, R-3 for blinds, proper installation required Insulating exterior doors U-32 minimum Solar Hot Water Sk li hts Renewable Replacements only. U .32 minimum Energy Measures Must be rated by the Solar Rating and Certification Corportation. R-4 minimum for insulation on collector pipes. COSEIA certified installer. Solar Photovoltaics COSEIA/NABCEP certified installer. Small Wind Wood/Pellet Stoves Pellet Stoves Minimum 75% efficiency, 2 grams/hr or less particulate rating All eligible measures are subject to all applicable existing regulations and permitting processes. Payment will be made to the contractor upon final inspection by the relevant local authority, based upon existtng building department practices. Contractors in compliance with relevant professional regulations are eligible to provide services in the Energy Smart Loan Program. The listing of eligible members does not constitute a warranty of any kind, nor does the Energy Smart loan Program guarantee energy or cost savings associated with these measures. Energy Smart Loan Program Update Aspen City Council, April 1911' COLTNT� M GEO ESLP Regional Coordinator $25,000 Grant for Program Admin Competitive Process CORE Selected as non-profit grantee -Key Staff Contact —Jason Haber, CORE Mid -valley Project Manager GEO ESLP Marketing Grant in process Energy Smart Loan Program Development Transparent process and program Job creation EE/RE development User-friendly Self-sustaining Simple and accessible Scalable/Replicable Measureable results Stakeholder Groups Technical Advisory Group Convened group on 2.18.10 Included building officials, energy experts, and contractors. Internal Administrative Group Outreach/Marketing Group Consumer Group(s) Administration $1,000,000 Initial loan pool Target Interest Rate= 5% 1-2% for Program Administration $100 Application Fee (non- refundable) Draft Eligible Measures Designed to integrate with existing: Building Codes (stakeholder meeting 2.18.10) •Local/State incentives and Rebates •Federal Tax Incentives Draft Eligible Measures Energy Efficiency •Energy Analysis •Air Sealing •Ventilation •Insulation •Heating •Cooling •Water Heating •Lighting •Windows, Doors, and Sky Renewable Energy Solar Hot Water Solar Electric ©Small Wind Wood/Pellet Stoves .. ,.. ...,, ._. _,,._. , :. Required for all projects, BPI or HERS qualified auditors are Analysis EnergyAudit qualified Air SealingMeasures should result in final ACH of .35 Air Sealing Duct Sealing Mastic only Whole House Fan Must have controls (thermostat or timer, multi -speed). Fan opening must be properly insulated and sealed in winter. Must have controls (thermostat or timer, multi -speed). Fan Ventilation Attic Fan opening must be properly insulated and sealed in winter. May be solar -powered. Heat Recovery Ventilator Must meet Energy Star criteria, no integral electric resistance heater. Attic R-49 minimum required in open attic; cathedral ceilings will vary. Wall R-21 minimum Floor R-38 minimum Insulation Ducts R-8 minimum Perimeter R-10 minimum Crawlspace Sealed seam and edge vapor barrier. R-10 minimum wall insulation High Efficiency Furnace AFUE >= 95 Boiler AFUE >= 93% Ground Source Heat Pump Heating - Closed loop only. Must meet Energy Star: EER>14.1, COP>=3.3. Installer must be IGSPHA certified. Programmable Thermostats linstalled per manufacturer's specifications Evaporative Cooling Installed per manufacturer's specifications Cooling Air conditioner Replacement only, SEER >_ 16 Energy Factor of 0.82 or higher (Energy Star listed) Water Heating On-Demand/Tankless natural gas or propane only Energy Star listed fixtures, linear fluorescent, CFL or Fixtures/ballasts LED fixtures that cannot be lamped with incandescent Lighting bulbs. Timers, Sensors, Dimmers Must be hardwired to electrical service Home Energy Monitor Must be hardwired to electrical service Reglazing and repair of historic, old growth windows, Window Repair does not include coatings or finishes. Replacements. U .32 maximum, air sealing measures Exterior windows and glass doors Windows, Doors, and I Storm windows Skylights I Window Film Insulating shutters or blinds Insulating exterior doors required. Total window assembly Oust meet Energy Star criteria t-5 minimum for shutters, R-3 for blinds, proper nstallation required J-32 minimum teplacements only. U .32 minimum � � 1'i'KIN C UNT� ESLP Steps Mandatory property owner workshop Complete an energy audit on property Obtain estimates and/or bids from confractors Apply with the County Notice to proceed Statement of completion Contractor payment Begin special assessment (repayment) � � �'i'KIN COUNT Financing Options Bond Sale (individual vs. regional) Internal Funding Local Bank Line of Credit Clean Renewable Energy Bonds Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds Private Financing State/Legislative Update SB 10-100: Multi -County LID's Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds $5.9M PACE Allocation State-wide PACE program (HB 1328- Miklosi) Additional Considerations Deed Restricted Properties Condos/HOAs Do-it-yourselfers Existing vs. New Construction Contractor Certification Rebates and Incentives Utility Release and Tracking Advance Repayment Completion time limits Next Steps Continue Stakeholder Group Meetings Begin Public Outreach and Complete Plan Solidify Program Financing Detailed Internal Impact Scenarios BOCC Approval Program Launch and Outreach Property Owner Workshops First Submittal of Applications (June 2010) Questions and Comments Dylan Hoffman Energy Program Manager (970) 429-2897 dylan.hoffman@co.pitkin.co.us Energy Smart Loan Program Draft Plan cz,n April 13`h, 2010 In November 2009, the voters of Pitkin County approved Referendum 1A to develop the Energy Smart Loan Program. This allows Pitkin County to offer loans for energy efficiency and/or renewable energy improvements on eligible properties. These loans are then recollected on participating properties through special assessments upon their property taxes. The program is voluntary and only affects property owners choosing to participate. Pitkin County Staff has researched other similar Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs in existence across the country and has developed the following draft for your review and input. Comments are encouraged and can be forwarded via email to dylan.hoffman@co.pitkin.co.us. The following recommended eligibility measures, process, details, and standards have been developed to receive feedback on the program's development. ELIGIBILITY: Participants must be property owners in Pitkin County, Colorado. Also while the goal of the program is to expand to commercial properties, currently the program will only launched to residential properties. Any property that defaulted on property tax and/or special assessment payments within the past 3 years will not be eligible. See the White House Policy Framework below for more information. ELIGIBLE MEASURES (Detailed List Attached): Enerev Efficiencv (EE) Measures: • Analysis • Air Sealing • Ventilation • Insulation • Heating • Cooling • Water Heating • Lighting • Windows, Doors, and Skylights Renewable Energy (RE) Measures: • Solar Hot Water • Solar Photovoltaics • Small Wind • Wood/Pellet Stove Upgrades PROCESS: A key component of the Energy Smart Loan Program is that it provides for rolling enrollment, instead of a pre -defined sign-up deadline. This means that whenever a homeowner is ready to make the proposed energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements eligible under the program, they may do so at any time as long as funds are available. This process allows for much better accessibility to the public, scheduling and capacity for contractors, and more manageable program administration. The proposed homeowner process would include the following: 1. Attend an informational ESLP Workshop. 2. Complete an energy audit on the home through a BPI -Certified auditor. 3. Acquire bids for the work to be completed on the home, select contractor to perform the work. Any licensed contractor in Pitkin County can perform the work. 4. Submit an application which includes a signed contract between owner and contractor, and a copy of the energy audit results. A $100 non-refundable fee is paid along with the application to help cover some administration costs and eliminate projects not intending to move forward within the proposed time limit for project completion. 5. The owner is given a notice to proceed which states their project is eligible for ESLP funding and payment will be issued upon completion. 6. The owner submits a statement of completion and a copy of the final inspection by the relevant local authority, based upon existing building department practices. This statement clearly states that the work is complete and the owner is satisfied with the improvements made by the contractor. For improvements which do not require permitting within the underlying jurisdiction, an inspection will be performed by a representative of the ESLP to ensure that the proposed scope of work has been completed on the subject property. 7. Payment is forwarded directly to the contractor named on the application in the contracted amount. 8. The cost of the improvement is attached to the subject property by Pitkin County as a special assessment and amortized over 15 years. The first payment due on the assessment would be on the following year's tax notice. The assessment can be paid in two halves as with the primary property tax amount, in full for the annual amount due, or the entire assessment may be paid off at any time without prepayment penalty. If the property ownership changes, the assessment lies with the land unless the remaining balance is paid off in its entirety. FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES: The target loan package is a 15-year term with a fixed 5% interest rate. The interest rate covers associated administration costs of the program. This investment does not affect the general fund nor reserve funds. It is proposed that the program is to begin with $1,000,000 available to eligible homeowners. A minimum limit of $3,000 and a maximum limit of $50,000 are proposed per participating property. Staff is concurrently pursuing several funding options for the program. One is a partnership with local banks to provide financing for the program through a long term low interest line of credit to Pitkin County which it would then administer to participating property owners. Other larger scale opportunities exist in the form of low interest bonds; however, bonding only makes sense in a larger multiple -county framework which is currently not an option. The current direction to launch the program, however, is to start small, utilizing readily available funding sources, and grow the program as warranted by demand. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM DETAILS: • Deed restricted homes can participate but cannot include over base appreciation unless entirely paid off before time of sale. • Condominium owners are eligible with appropriate authorization from their Home Owners Association, if necessary, for each improvement measure. • Do-it-yourselfers may participate but only for materials, not time. • The program would be eligible for existing homes only; not new construction (at least for program start up; this issue may be revisited at a later date). • Contractors in compliance with relevant professional regulations within the underlying jurisdiction are eligible to provide services in the Energy Smart Loan Program. A 3-year minimum warrantee on materials and workmanship is required for participating contractors. • Any rebates or other incentives would need to be factored into the loan amount. The County is considering requiring that the rebates or incentive amounts be reduced from the amount of the loan, or that those amounts can be rolled into the loan with a stipulation that immediate repayment of those amounts is required upon their payment. Any available tax credits available to the owner of the property would not be subtracted from the amount of the loan. • Participants will be required to submit a utility release for the previous 12-month period. Energy use of participating properties would be monitored to demonstrate energy use trends associated with the program. No personal use information would be shared without express written consent of the property owner or representative. • All eligible measures are subject to all applicable existing regulations and permitting processes. • The listing of eligible measures does not constitute a warranty of any kind. While the eligible measures are expected to have positive returns on investment, the Energy Smart Loan Program can not guarantee energy or cost savings associated with these measures. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AS PER THE WHITE HOUSE POLICY FRAMEWORK: Assessment Reserve Fund: A reserve fund should be established at the local -government level, to protect the energy investor against late payment or non-payment of the assessment. This reserve fund means that the value of mortgage lenders' collateral should not be reduced by any failure by the homeowner to pay the PACE assessment. Length of Loan: The length of time for a homeowner to repay the PACE assessments should not exceed the life expectancy of the energy efficient improvements. Financing Relative to the House Value: As a general matter, PACE assessments should not exceed a certain percentage of appraised value of the home, generally 10%. Clear Title: Applicants must prove they are the legal owners of a property, unanimous approval of property -holders is required, and the title should be clear of easements or subordination agreements that conflict with the assessment. Financing only where no current default: Participation in the program should not be allowed unless: (i) property taxes are current; (ii) no outstanding and unsatisfied tax liens are on the property; (iii) there are no notices of default or other evidence of property -based debt delinquency for the lesser of the past three years or the property owner's period of ownership; and (iv) the property is current on all mortgage debt. No Negative Equity Financing: PACE loans to borrowers who are "underwater' — whose mortgage and other debt on the property is greater than the current value of the house — raise particular risks because such loans are especially likely to default with less than full payment to private lienholders PACE programs should require a current estimate of appraised value, and outstanding property -based debt cannot be less than the value of the property. Vulnerable Areas: Local governments should be cautious in using the PACE model in areas experiencing large home price declines, where large numbers of "underwater' loans may exist. PACE programs in such areas should proceed only after careful attention to local real estate conditions and programmatic safeguards to avoid contributing to additional borrower defaults. Escrow: To reduce the risk of non-payment of property assessments, homeowners should escrow payments for PACE programs in the common situations MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director`3�'Qi�, COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney Cindy Houben, Pitkin County Community Development Director RE: Inn at Aspen — Work Session DATE: April 19, 2010 SUMMARY: The Inn at Aspen is a lodging and commercial building located at the base of Buttermilk Ski Area just outside the City boundary. The Inn at Aspen is not part of the Skiing Company ownership. The property appears to have the contiguity needed for annexation into the City. The property is owned by multiple parties in a condominium form of ownership. The Inn owners are contemplating a redevelopment and would like to discuss the property with the City Council. The common route the City has used for a property such as this is for the property owner to apply for the first few steps of annexation, which follows state statute, then apply for all the necessary land use approvals including zoning, and then finalize the annexation. This approval process includes public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, typical of any significant project. At the point the City and the landowner are satisfied with the planning for the property, the land use approvals are granted and the annexation is finalized. This process gives both the City and the landowner the ability to "back -out" at any point through final land use approvals and up to final annexation. Another route is for the property owner and the City to complete annexation first and assign the property with zoning. Then, the property owner could proceed through the City's approval process to review the development proposal. This process provides the property owner with more certainty on zoning parameters but allows the City less discretion or ability to back -out. This approval process also includes public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. In order for the Inn to apply for the development approvals, the Inn would like to have a development partner. Currently, they don't have a partner and they have not developed a specific vision or design to put forward through a land use review. The Inn owners believe attracting a development partner hinges on having a basic understanding of the City's vision and development expectations for the property. The Owners believe that this can be best accomplished if the property is first annexed and assigned specific zoning. This would not preclude the site specific development review that would come later. Page 1 of 3 Planning staff has advised the Inn that City Council would probably be reluctant to provide any direction that could be considered binding prior to a design going through public hearings. And, that land use hearings and public scrutiny may ultimately change City Council's opinion and direction. Planning staff has suggested the City's COWOP process as a potential way to define general development parameters acceptable to the City. Unlike other COWOP processes, this would not result in an ability to build the project, but would define basic development expectations and may provide the Inn with the ability to attract a partner and apply for further reviews. However, a COWOP process with a private property owner needs to include either public property (park, rights -of -way, etc.) or an element of substantial public interest such as affordable housing, public parking, etc. Alternatively, the Inn could proceed through the standard process now or wait until they have a development partner to assist them in a proposal. PLANNING ISSUES: Over the past few years, City staff has provided the following general comments to the Inn representatives: a. Annexation, then redevelopment: In the past 10-15 years, several large development projects have been entitled in the County and then annexed into the City. Highlands, Maroon Creek Club, Five -Trees are examples. Administering the entitlements of a large, complex, multi- year review approval granted by a different jurisdiction is unwieldy at best, certainly not ideal. If this property is eventually going to be developed in the City (which is staffs expectation), City staff strongly prefers the property be annexed first and the entitlements be accomplished within the City's Land Use Code. This will minimize "translation" frustrations and other land use SNAFUS. In the alternative, the property could be entitled in the County and the entitlements converted, in whole, into a development agreement between the City and the property owner. The downside to this strategy is it may require a whole new review process with the City prior to annexation. The Inn understands this and, moreover, is aware that a revised water service agreement would include the requirement for annexation at the discretion of the City. b. Coordination with Aspen Skiing Company: There are two major properties at the base of Buttermilk — the SkiCo lands and the Inn property. There will undoubtedly be physical and operational overlap between the two. Ideally, both properties are designed together and the boundary is "invisible." But the ownership structure does present a very practical obstacle to this ideal — the two owners may have different timeframes and expectations. Staff has suggested that if a two-party development strategy cannot be reached that some basic physical planning be accomplished to understand access, infrastructure, or operational issues that may extend beyond the individual properties. The Inn initially attempted a joint process with the SkiCo, using Design Workshop to prepare plans that would reflect a common design and development approach. The plans that were prepared were ultimately rejected by the SkiCo, who apparently determined that they wanted to pursue a separate process with Pitkin County. Page 2 of 3 c. Pursuing options with Pitkin County: Planning staff has asked the Inn to pursue entitlement options with the County planning staff to discover general development parameters for this property. The County does not have a COWOP process and the Inn does not believe they have an appropriate zone district for lodge development. But, there may be a similar way to discuss and agree upon general development expectations. Those discussions with County staff have occurred. County staff has taken the position that they are not opposed to annexation and review of this development by the City, although they expect to have a strong voice through referral comments. County staff is also presenting the Inn's annexation discussion to the County Manager and Board of County Commissioners. d. Compliance with the AACP: The Inn is aware of the ongoing evolution of the Community Plan and their representatives have attended many of the meetings. A redevelopment plan for this property would need to be in compliance with the AACP. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Memo from Stan Clauson Page 3 of 3 s STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES ING landscape architecture. planning. resort design e _ q12 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.970/925-2323 f.970/920-1628 info@scaplanning.com www.scaptanning.com 8 February 2010 John Worcester, City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Inn at Aspen / Request for Comments on Pre -annexation Parameters Dear John: On behalf of our client, the Inn at Aspen, we would very much appreciate your review and comment on the development parameters contemplated for the Inn at Aspen as explored in the attached pre -annexation documents. Based on our meeting with you on 9 September 2009, we have prepared these pre -annexation documents with the intent of initiating a formal annexation process with the City of Aspen. The documents are intended to provide a basis for negotiation between the City and representatives of the Inn when drafting an anticipated formal Annexation Agreement. Your agreement as to the confidentiality regarding the client's intentions and this material is appreciated. At our meeting of 9 September 2009, you outlined the following tasks as suggested pre- requisites for initiating this discussion. Those were: 1. Inform the County of our intentions; 2. Provide an analysis of the impact of an Inn at Aspen annexation on the possible annexation of other properties at the Buttermilk base; 3. Speak with Phil Overeynder regarding the impacts on the water system of additional development at the Buttermilk base; 4. Outline what the Inn at Aspen is seeking with respect to uses, FAR, unit count, heights, etc. 5. Provide a list of benefits for the City; 6. Respond to the legal question concerning the need for an annexation election if less than 100%u of the owners sign the annexation petition. Attorney Jody Edwards, acting on behalf of the Inn, has informed Cindy Houben, Pitkin County Planning Director, of the Inn's interest in pursuing annexation with the City. In his comments Jody cited the requirements for annexation of an amended water service agreement, the lack of an appropriate zone district for lodge development in the County, and statements by City staff that they would prefer not to annex a project that had already gone through a County permit process. Item 2, above is addressed through the attached Contiguity Study, which shows that there is currently sufficient contiguity for annexation of the Inn at Aspen parcel and, further, that an Inn annexation only enhances the ability to annex adjacent Buttermilk parcels. Items 3-6 are MAnowmaFFU YEB _0 8 2010 _z fi John Worcester, City Attorney City of Aspen 8 February 2010 Page Two R addressed in the attached "Inn at Aspen Pre -annexation Development Overview." We believe that the community benefits would be significant. Moreover, a redevelopment of the Inn to provide additional lodging opportunities at the base of Buttermilk is consistent with both the current Aspen Area Community Plan and on -going planning concepts in the AACP update which is now in progress. We would look forward to scheduling a meeting with you at your earliest possible convenience to receive your comments on these documents, and would like to schedule a worksession with the City Council on the potential annexation as soon as practicable. With best regards, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Encl: Inn at Aspen Pre -annexation Development Overview, dated 1 February 2010 Annexation and Contiguity Study Map, revised 1 February 2010 Cc: Richard H. Frye, President, Inn at Aspen Board of Managers Steve J. Seyffert, representing the commercial interests at the Inn at Aspen Jody Edwards, Esq., Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC 1� STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINc landscape architecture. planning. resort design 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t 970/925-2323 f.9701920-1628 info@scaplanning.com www.scaptanning.com Inn at Aspen Pre -annexation Development Overview 1 February 2010 On behalf of the owners at the Inn at Aspen, Stan Clauson Associates is pleased to present this Development Overview. The intention of this document is to acquaint staff and the City Council with the key factors in the potential redevelopment of the Inn at Aspen, which is a property located in Pitkin County and which may be seeking annexation into the City of Aspen in order to further mutually beneficial redevelopment objectives. General Information The Inn at Aspen is located at the entrance to the city of Aspen, and is the first lodging and ski -related facility that the visitor sees when entering the community. It is the intention of the Inn at Aspen to completely redevelop the existing structures as a high -quality, but affordable mid -priced lodging facility offering an attractive lodging option meeting contemporary guest needs. The Inn at Aspen was originally constructed in 1969 as a Holiday Inn. It was subdivided and renovated in 1984, and turned into a condominium lodging facility with an active rental program. The Inn at Aspen consists of an approximately 95,000 square foot structure, containing 124 guest rooms, and 16,952 square feet of commercial, which consist of restaurant and conference meeting facilities. The Inn at Aspen property (the "Property") contains a total area of approximately 9 acres or 392,040 sq ft. A Joint Development Agreement will be executed by and between the Inn at Aspen Condominium Association (the "Association") and a yet to be determined development partner (the "Manager"). The Manager will manage and implement the redevelopment of the Property. Subsequent to the execution of a Pre -Annexation Agreement, a development partner would be selected. The initial zoning to be established on the Property is requested to be the Ski Area Base (SKI) zone district. The zoning is requested to be reviewed as a PUD, as prescribed under Section 26.710.330 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City would retain Commercial Design Review of the proposed redevelopment of the Property. The following floor area ratios, taken from the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district, are requested be applicable to the Property: a. Total maximum FAR: 2.5:1 b. Commercial uses: arts, cultural and civic uses. Public uses; academic uses; childcare center, commercial parking facility: 1:1 c. Lodging units, timeshare lodging units, and exempt timesharing units: 2:1 d. Affordable Multi -Family housing:.25.1, which may be increased by Special review, pursuant to Section 26.430 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. e. Free -Market Multi -Family Housing:.25:1 The following setback requirements are requested to be applicable to the Property: a. Front yard setback (from Colorado State Highway 82): 100 feet. b. Side and rear yard setbacks: No requirement. Through a PUD, and with Commercial Design Review, four-story elements may be requested as part of this project. Four-story elements are not anticipated to exceed fifty percent (50%,) of the total building mass. The maximum height limitations requested for the Property are: a. Four-story building elements: 52 feet b. Three story building elements: 40 feet c. Two-story building elements: 28 feet Other aspects of the PUD shall be in conformance with the dimensional requirements of the Commercial Lodge zone district, including Public Amenity Space and Maximum Residential Unit Size limitations. Under applicable zoning using the Commercial Lodge zone district parameters more floor area would be allowed than is likely to be sought as part of a land use application. The final mix of uses, square footage of development, and provision of required utilities would be developed and refined in future Annexation Agreement. Some portion of the required affordable housing requirement generated by redevelopment is proposed to be provided onsite. It is proposed that the remaining affordable housing requirement may be provided at a location yet to be determined within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), such as the Aspen Airport Business Center (the "AABC"). Provision of affordable housing at the AABC would depend on future master planning efforts. In the event the AABC is not identified as suitable for additional development, affordable housing will be located at a location or locations within the UGB acceptable to the City of Aspen, and the Association and Manager. Initial transfers of ownership interest in individual units from the old to the redeveloped Property for existing owners would be exempted from the Real Estate Transfer Tax (REIT). Subsequent transaction would be eligible for REff and as such would create a substantial additional source of RETf funding for the City. • Page 2 Pursuant to Parking Easement Agreement with the Aspen Ski Company, surface parking would be provided in surface parking spots in a number commensurate with the number of surface spots available presently and made available throughout the redevelopment activities. Final parking is proposed to be provided for by parking adjacent to the Aspen Ski Company's property located to the north of the Property. Discussion with Phil Overeynder, City of Aspen Utilities Director, has indicated that there is sufficient domestic water storage capacity and sufficient infrastructure to accommodate redevelopment by the Property. Mr. Overeynder has conditioned service on annexation of the Properly to the City. Discussion with Tom Bracewell, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, has indicated that sufficient infrastructure exists for modest redevelopment. However, significant redevelopment may require upgrades to the sewer system and would need to be the subject of an infrastructure study to determine the extent of any improvements. Cost for sanitation infrastructure improvements would be pro -rated between the Inn at Aspen and other new development, such as additional development at Burlingame Ranch or Harbert Lumber. Following is an outline for a proposed Pre -annexation Agreement: Ouffine for Pre -Annexation Agreement The Development Plan A. Development Parcel - 9 acres base of Buttermilk B. Zoning of Property Proposed For Annexation i. Zoning - SKI, with all allowed and conditional uses in the SKI zone district ii. Dimensional Requirements - same as Commercial/Lodge Zone, with PUD approval for additional height up to 50 feet on certain portions of the project not to exceed 507o of the overall building mass il. No more than 100 condo/lodge rooms (whole ownership or fractional) at maximum of 400 sf each iv. No more than 120 condo/lodge rooms (whole ownership) at 500 sf each V. No more than 10 condo/lodge rooms (whole ownership) at maximum of 800 sf with lock -off capabilities to 400 sf sub -units vi. No more than 5 condo/lodge rooms at maximum of 1,000 sf with lock - off capabilities to 400 sf sub -units vii. Up to 25 multi -family residential units with max 1,500 sf, with additional 500 sf bonus allowed with TDRs (whole ownership, fractional or a combination) vil. Up to 30,000 sf of commercial retail space, including restaurants, conference spaces, kitchens, concierges, health/fitness center, day care facilities, etc. ix. Lodging amenities and services: lobby, administrative office space, storage space, etc. C. Development Rights 0 Page 3 i. Vested Rights - 7 years ii. Subdivision - divide the properly into lots and phases during land use review process D. Transportation Demand Management Plan - shuffle service from the property into town and to the airport; immediate access to local bus and BRT with enhanced facilities; bicycles available for guests; guest information indicating car -free benefits. E. LEED-Certified Green Construction Techniques Required F. Affordable Housing Development Obligations per code. Some portion of required AH to be provided on -site. G. Parking & Parking Easement - accommodation of modified SkiCo Easement, plus additional parking for the project as required by City of Aspen Land Use Code H. Ski Easement- Accommodate SkiCo Skiing Easement, but we can use much of the area beneath this easement for subgrade requirements of the lodging development. 2. Benefits to the City A. REiT B. Provision of required Affordable Housing per City of Aspen Land Use code — some portion on site C. Sales tax from Inn operations D. Parking & Transit Contributions E. City Control over review and development, including Commercial Design Review F. Mid -Priced affordable lodging. 3. Schedule For Annexation A. Petition B. Resolution of Substantial Compliance C. Resolution of Eligibility D. Election (very doubtful we can get 100%signatures so will need election) E. Annexation & Zoning Ordinances 4. Landowner's Obligations A. Petition for Annexation (signed by 5076 of owners) B. Process Land Use Applications 5. City's Obligations A. City's obligations with respect to annexation - including election at end of process B. City's obligations with respect to processing and reviewing land use applications in a timely manner C. City's obligations with respect to water service 6. Property Owner's Remedy for Default by City A. Reimbursement of all costs and expenses of entitlement and annexation process if approval not received within defined parameters 7. City's Remedy for Default by Property Owner 0 Page 4 A. City may deny applications and petition for annexation B. If default after approvals granted, City may refuse to issue permits until breach cured 8. Waiver 9. Binding Effect 10. No Third Party Beneficiaries 11. Governing Law 12. Additional Documents 13. Counterparts 14. Captions 15. Amendment 16. Assignment 17. Severability 18. Recording Agreement 19. Incorporation of Exhibits 20. Legal Actions Against Annexation and Development & Appeal Period 0 Page 5 sz S t STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESINc # landscape architecture. planning. resort design Memo , pu North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado g16u t.97o/9x5-o3a3 t9]o/9aoa6xe ih Info®scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.con, To: John Worcester, Esq., City Attorney From: Stan Clauson and Patrick Rowley, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. CC: Jody Edwards, Esq., Klein, Cote and Edwards Date: 1 February 2010 Re: Inn at Aspen / Contiguity Study In connection with the proposed annexation of the Inn at Aspen, contiguity of adjacent parcels will be increased by the annexation of the Inn at Aspen. Current contiguity with the City of Aspen boundary is limited to those parcels with frontage on Highway 82. This memorandum WII utilize a percentage of perimeter for identifying the contiguity threshold rather than the more normally recognized 1 /6. 1 /6 is equivalent to 16%, The level of existing contiguity for the following parcels is: • Parcel Number. 273503401001 Owner. Aspen Skiing Company Approximate Area of Perimeter. 6,409 feet Contiguity Percentage: 3% (192 feet) • Parcel Number. 273502307800 Owner. Inn at Aspen Condo Association Approximate Area of Perimeter. 2,844 feet Contiguity Percentage: 247o (681 feet) Parcel Number. 273510102002 Owner. Aspen Skiing Company Approximate Area of Perimeter. 1,991 feet Contiguity Percentage: 13% (259 feet) Upon successful completion of the annexation, contiguity with the City of Aspen boundary will be increased to encompass not only those properties vAth frontage on Highway 82, but those properties immediately adjacent to the Inn at Aspen. Future levels of contiguity will be: a Parcel Number. 273503401001 Owner. Aspen Skiing Company Approximate Area of Perimeter. 6,409 feet Contiguity Percentage: 18% (1,135 feet) 0 Parcel Number. 273502307800 Owner. Inn at Aspen Condo Association Approximate Area of Perimeter. 2,844 feet Contiguity Percentage: 24% 1681 feet) • Parcel Number. 273510102002 Owner. Aspen Skiing Company Approximate Area of Perimeter. 1,991 feet Contiguity Percentage: 287o (549 feet) • Parcel Number. 273510102003 Owner. Aspen Skiing Company Approximate Area of Perimeter. 2,635 feet Contiguity Percentage: 28% (742 feet) • Parcel Number. 273503400948 Owner. Buttermilk Mountain Skiing Corporation Approximate Area of Perimeter. 839 feet Contiguity Percentage: 16% (132 feet) Please note that every effort is made to provide accurate and complete Information. The findings within this analysis are based on our best understanding of the clients Intent and our understanding of land use code provisions that address those Intentions. No warranty Is expressed or implied as to the suffabAffy or accuracy of this information. This analysis must be confirmed through a formal Pre -application conference with public agency staff. Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. shall not be responsible for arty consequential damages arising from any service or action performed. 0 Page 2 Maroon Creek Club Pitkin County Colorado Department of Transportation Buttermilk Meadows © STAN CIAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC M9 ,,I MPox+OrvY- Cov - .Approximate Boundary City of Aspen Existing Contiguity Proposed Contiguity w O r— -- ?Aaroon Creek h ..'mot. � � 0 0000 �• R _ Club i C �•...��.. State "Ihwglx' 82 Aspen Skiing Company ,Lnppeni [[] ,= u i =3 _ Parcel No. �,.,T ,f, FF k173510102002 L 6_ +. €i 1 i Perimeter: +/- 1991 feet jai ��� �riiit1i�- s Contiguity Percentage: i B6ttermil Mountain , a IS iir>g oration =� ' Parcel ' 2735034 948 Perimeta - Conttgu`tty Pence tage: Aspen Skiing Skiing Company mpany Parcel No. arcel No. 273503401001 \Aspen 510102003 Permeter. erimeter.+1-6409 feet 2635 feet Contiguity Percentage: ity Percentac +1-16% +1-260/a Crown Subdivision Maroon Creek Club M/B Buttermilk M/B Buttermilk Pfeifer Pfeifer PUD PUD Pfeifer PUD omE r0 9 U h i a O>° NORTH 0��"_ c C Ln C O MA C 0 O QU Q O N C Q Imo-' 26.710.330. Ski Area Base (SKI). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District is to provide for areas which allow for a mixture of uses related to ski area uses and operations including, skiing and appurtenant uses and strictures, ski area administrative offices, recreation, lodge/hotel, retail, restaurant and bar uses, tourist -oriented service uses and residential uses. It is intended that this Zone District will apply to areas located at the base of ski areas and all development within this district will be master planned through a planned unit development (PUD) process. B. Permillerl uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District: 1. Alpine and Nordic ski areas, related uses and support facilities typically associated with the uses and operations of ski areas. 2. Lodge units. 3. Hotel, 4. Multi -family dwellings. 5. Detached residential or duplex dwellings. 6. Dining rooms, customary accessory commercial uses, laundry and recreational facilities located on the same site of and for guests of lodge units, hotels and dwelling units. 7. Accessory residential dwellings restricted to Affordable Housing Guidelines and Section 26.520.040. 8. Ski area administrative offices. 9. Restaurants and bars. 10, Special events associated with ski areas including such events as ski races, bicycle races and concerts; with special event committee review. 11. Parks, outdoor recreational uses and trails. 12, Recreational facility. 13. Retail establishments. 14. Public transportation stop. 15. Terminal building and transportation related facilities. 16. Medical clinic accessory to the ski area. 17. Fire, police and emergency services facilities. 18. Accessory buildings and uses. 19. Outdoor vendor carts or areas for food and beverages sales and preparation. 20. Timeshare lodge. 21. Exempt timesharing. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425; 1. Daycare center. 2. Offices, business. 3. Public and private surface and underground parking areas. 4. Essential governmental and public utility uses, facilities, services and buildings (excluding maintenance shops). 5. Post office substation. D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District shall be set by the adoption of a final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26,445, of planned unit development. E. Signs. Signs within the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 26.510, Signs. A sign master plan may be approved in conjunction with a PUD review process allowing for the establishment of dimensional and quantity sign standards for the PUD. (Ord. No. 35-2000, § 1; Ord. No. 21-2002 §§5, 6 [part]) 26.710.200, Commercial Lodge (CL). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District is to provide for the establishment of mixed -use commercial and lodge development by permitting commercial uses on the ground floor with lodging development above. Free-market residential units within this zone district shall be permitted, but not required, to be used as short-term tourist accommodations. The City encourages high -occupancy lodging development in this zone district. A Permided uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District: 1. Uses allowed in basement and ground floors: Those uses allowed in Basement and Ground Floors, respectively, within the Commercial Core Zone District. Uses and facilities necessary and incidental to uses on Upper Floors. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. 2. Uses allowed on upper floors: Hotel or lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timesharing, offices and activities accessory to timeshare unit sales (see Chapter 26,590), conference facilities, accessory uses, storage accessory to a permitted use, affordable multi -family housing, free-market multi -family housing. (Food service for on -site lodge guests is an accessory use.) C. Condltlonal uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, academic uses or child care centers located on upper floors. 2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): No requirement. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet) No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet); No requirement. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement. 7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 8. Maximum height: 28 feet for two-story elements of a building. 36 feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be increased to 40 feet through Commercial Design Review. See Chapter 26.412. For projects with an average lodge unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square feet or less, three-story elements of a building may be 38 feet, which may be increased to 40 feet through commercial design review. 9. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement. 10. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: April Barker, Stormwater Manager, Engineering THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: April 15, 2010 MEETING DATE: April 19, 2010 Work Session RE: Urban Runoff Management Plan Update SUMMARY: Staff is presenting changes to the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) since the last Council work session on the subject, which occurred in August 2009. This Manual contains design criteria and technical guidance for addressing stormwater drainage in development and redevelopment in Aspen. BACKGROUND: In December 2008, Council approved a professional services contract with AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for the development of an updated Urban Runoff Management Plan aimed at improving stormwater management in the City. The Urban Runoff Management Plan was originally adopted as the drainage design guidance document in 1973. The City's stormwater drainage requirements and design criteria have been periodically modified since then but never officially accepted through ordinance. Staff felt this criteria was outdated and inadequate to efficiently and consistently review development plans and to meet the goals of the Clean River Initiative. The goal of the Clean River Initiative is to significantly reduce the amount of urban stormwater pollutants reaching the Roaring Fork River. Council has stated that staff should place focus on mitigating the impacts of development and construction on the environment. Also, one of Council's Best Year Yet goals in 2009 is to implement a development review and building permitting process that enables the City Council to act as environmental stewards. There are currently no standards or requirements to address water quality in the City's drainage criteria. In April and August of 2009, staff and consultants presented an update on the manual's progress. The major topic of discussion was the new water quality design standards. The new criteria requires development and redevelopment to design and implement permanent best management practices (BMPs) that can remove pollutants from their site's runoff before it leaves their site. The pollutant of focus in Aspen and the Roaring Fork River is TSS (total suspended solids). TSS can be removed from stormwater by filtration, infiltration, and settling. Council supported this approach to improving the quality of stormwater runoff in the City. DISCUSSION: In the August work session Council requested staff provide more opportunities for public comment. Staff held two public meetings to discuss the updated manual — October 27, 2009 and March 3, 2010. Comments and suggestions from those who attended those meetings have been incorporated into the new draft. The latest draft of the Urban Runoff Management Plan can be found online at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Engineerin ). Overall, the public that attended these meetings is supportive of the updated manual. Since the Council work session in August, and as a result of public meetings, changes to state requirements, and input from other City departments, the following significant changes have been made to the Manual: Exceptions made for smaller projects. Projects adding or disturbing less than 1000 square feet will be required to meet less stringent standards and allowed to submit a modified drainage plan and report that does not require a professional engineer's review (a portion of the Manual addressing this policy is included as Attachment A). Changes to floodplain requirements (a portion of the Manual addressing this policy is included as Attachment B). o The lowest floor of structures built or improved in the 100-year floodplain must be located 1 foot above the base flood elevation (previously, the requirement was for the lowest floor to be built at or above the base flood elevation). o New or improved critical facilities must be protected from the 500-year flood. Zones were established to identify properties within mudflow hazard areas. The "blue zone" includes those properties on or within 200 ft of a slope greater than 30%. The "yellow zone" includes those areas located south of Durant and within a 2ft or greater mudflow depth during the 100-year mudflow event. o Sites located within a blue zone will be required to do a mudflow analysis for their property. Mudflow impacts must be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. o Sites located with a yellow zone will be analyzed on a case -by -case basis to determine if mudflow mitigation is necessary. (Chapter 7- Mudflow is included as Attachment Q. There currently is not a chapter in the Municipal Code that can incorporate stormwater management ordinances reasonably. Staff would like to establish Title 28 of the Municipal Code (draft is included as Attachment D), which would adopt the Manual as the guiding document for stormwater management in the City and would house subsequent stormwater ordinances, putting stormwater all in one place. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachment A — Minor vs Major Projects and Requirements Excerpt from Urban Runoff Management Plan, April 2010: 1.2.4 Overview of Requirements Unless specifically exempted, no development, disturbance of land or land use, or construction shall be undertaken without first having been reviewed, approved and issued a permit compliant with the requirements of this document. Unless specifically exempted, no building shall be erected, moved or structurally altered without a building permit issued pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Code. This manual provides detailed guidelines on development and building permits that require engineering review. However, for complete requirements, see the Aspen Land Use Code. All development and redevelopment projects in the City of Aspen that will: • increase the amount of impervious area on a site (this includes adding hard surface patios, increasing the footprint of the house, etc.), • disturb more than 200 square feet of land on the site (this includes grading, even if a structure or hard surface is not added, as well as "scrape and replace" of impervious area), or add or repair snowmelt, are required to obtain an engineering review as part of the building permit application review process. At a minimum the engineering review requires documentation that there will be no adverse impact to drainage on the site or downstream of the site, description of the existing and proposed drainage, and description of the plan to address water quality requirements. However, in most cases the engineering review will require, as determined by the Development Engineer, completion of a sufficiency checklist, attendance at a Pre -Application Meeting with the Development Engineer, preparation of a compliant City of Aspen survey, and development of a Grading and Drainage Plan and Report, a Construction Management Plan, a Soils Report, and, in certain circumstances, an Excavation Stabilization Plan. The City has established a de minimus threshold for stormwater management. Generally, projects can be classified as minor or major based on the amount of impervious area added by the project and/or the amount of land that is disturbed during the project'. "Land disturbed" includes simple grading without the addition of a structure or hard surface, as well as impervious areas that are "scraped and replaced." See Table 1.1 below for general requirements. Submittal requirements vary for each project classification, as explained in the appropriate sections of 1.3. Table 1.1 General Requirements for Minor and Major Projects Impervious area added OR Project General Requirements land disturbed Classification <200 square feet ------ No requirements 200 —1000 square feet "' Minor (green) Water quality treatment for the disturbed or added area Drains to green infrastructure Does not require Professional Engineer 200 — 1000 square feet ** Drains to hard infrastructure Minor (urban) WQCV for the disturbed or added area Does not require Professional Engineer WQCV for the disturbed or added area, >1000 square feet and Major Detention to the pre -development rate for the entire site <50% of site Requires Professional Engineer WQCV for entire site, 0 >50% of site, or 50% of existing Major Detention to the pre -development rate for the entire site structure, more Requires Professional Engineer "Exception: Minor projects located in Environmentally,jens¢Ive Areas, geologic nazaru areas, ui m juubuicuunei U, I,V„- jurisdictional floodplains may be required to do a more detailed drainage analysis and design. 'The de minimus threshold for minor projects applies only to a single addition on a given piece of property. If cumulative additions on a property over time increase the impervious area by more than 1000 square feet, 'major" project requirements and evaluations will apply to all impervious areas that are in addition to the 'baseline" imperviousness determined from the 2008 aerial photography. For the purposes of discussion of the minor (green) versus minor (urban) above, stormwater infrastructure can be divided into two areas — hard and green. Hard stormwater infrastructure, such as streets, curbs and gutters, alleys, inlets, and pipes, do not provide any water quality benefits (Le they do not remove pollutants from stormwater runoff). "Green' infrastructure, such as grass -lined or vegetated swales, does provide water quality benefit by infiltrating some runoff and filtrating pollutants from the remaining runoff. Therefore, those projects that drain to hard infrastructure must insure that water quality improvements are being made by calculating the water quality capture volume (WQCV). More information regarding water quality improvements and guidelines for calculating the WQCV can be found in Chapter 8 of this Manual. 1.3.6 Engineering Department Requirements The Engineering Department Sufficiency Checklist requires that applicants identify the amount of work to be done for the project and the category this work fits into: minor or major. • Minor projects must only complete the minor grading and drainage plan and report checklist. • Major projects must include a compliant survey, a major site grading and drainage plan and report, a soils report, and a construction management plan. Other items that might be required with the any building permit application include an excavation and stabilization plan, public improvements site plan, floodplain permit, and/or a muciflow analysis. In addition, requirements for parking and driveways, and utility meters and pedestals will also be checked at this stage. Each of these requirements is described in greater detail below, though the guidance for some of these additional requirements is not contained in this Manual. Reference'guidance documents are indicated where necessary. All checklists are included in Appendix A. Appendix A - Checklist for MINOR Developments DRAINAGE REPORT (Narrative) SHALL INCLUDE: The following should be included in a bound, narrative report. • Description of the existing site, including common location, topography, land use, ground cover, soil type (if known), drainage pattern, and receiving system. • Description of the proposed project, including changes to land use, topography, ground cover, soil type, drainage pattern and receiving system. • Discussion of any drainage issues. • Discussion of drainage basins and drainage alterations, including increases in flow, changes in direction, outfalls, etc. Note: Snowmelt cannot drain to the right-of-way. • Description of downstream stormwater conveyance system — hard infrastructure (Minor (hard)) or "green" infrastructure (Minor (green)). o Minor (green) — Description of water quality improvements. Improvements must be made for at least the project area. Describe what efforts have been made to reduce runoff and increase infiltration (e.g. reduce impervious area, disconnect impervious area, route runoff via landscape rather than hard infrastructure). o Minor (hard) — Calculations to determine the WQCV and design a BMP that can treat that volume. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (Sketch Plan) SHALL INCLUDE: The following should be provided on at least 8.5"xl 1" paper (24"x35" preferred). • Name of the subdivision or project, property map and parcel number. • Date of preparation, scale, and symbol designating true north. • Property lines, streets, and waterways (swales, irrigation ditches, streams, etc.). • Boundary lines of project area including disturbance area, construction access, materials storage, etc. • Sketch of proposed work (on topographic map if possible), including calculation of disturbed area. • Drainage direction (with arrows), drainage facilities on site, existing and proposed. • Location and size of BMP to treat WQCV (for Minor (hard) projects only). • Erosion and sediment control measures and revegetation plan. Erosion must be controlled, sediment cannot be allowed to leave the site, and disturbed areas must be stabilized prior to completion. • Start and finish dates. Attachment B — Floodplain Regulations Excerpt from Urban Runoff Management Plan, April 2010: 6.3.4 Building in the Floodplain In order to construct or make improvements to buildings/structures in the 100-year floodplain, the lowest floor of the structure must be elevated to meet or exceed the base flood elevation (BFE) with one foot of freeboard. The BFE must be determined using the most updated FIS, not the FIRM. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, an Elevation Certificate needs to be approved by the Floodplain Administrator for the City. Development in or near the floodway is prohibited if the encroachment causes rise in the water surface above the BFE. 6.3.4.1 Elevation New construction and substantial improvement of residential structures must be elevated to or above the BFE in one of the following three ways: • Elevation on fill • Elevation on piles, posts, piers or columns • Elevation on walls or a crawlspace 6.3.4.2 Elevation Certification An Elevation Certification is an official form of the NFIP that ensures a property's lowest floor is elevated above the base flood elevation. Both the City and FEMA require that the form be used for new construction and for substantial improvements to existing buildings, both to comply with the ordinance and for the owner to obtain a flood insurance policy. See Appendix D for a copy of FEMA's Elevation Certificate. The form may be completed by a land surveyor, engineer, architect, or local official authorized by ordinance to provide floodplain management information. 6.3.4.3 Critical Facilities Flooding does occur above and beyond the 100-year floodplain. For that reason, new critical facilities and substantial changes to critical facilities shall be regulated to the 500-year flood event. New critical facilities should be located outside of the 500-year floodplain and have continuous non -inundated access during a 500-year flood event. Substantial changes to critical facilities should meet these requirements to the maximum extent possible. Critical facilities that cannot be located outside of the 500- year floodplain will require protection to the 500-year level. "Critical facilities" for floodplain purposes means a facility (structure, infrastructure, equipment, service, etc.) that if flooded may result in severe consequences to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any time before, during, or after a flood. Examples of critical facilities include police, fire, emergency management or responders, hospitals, urgent care, communications facilities, public utilities, primary access routes or evacuation routes, hazardous materials facilities, gas stations, schools, day cares, senior centers, community centers, etc. Attachment C 7.0 Introduction Urban Runoff Management Plan Chapter 7 — Mudflow Analysis This chapter provides information on the potential and magnitude of mud floods and mudflows that may develop in Aspen due to rainfall events, snowmelt, or rain on snow events. This chapter also provides guidance on the design process for sites at risk for mudflows, including the allowable mud deposition and mitigation techniques. Mudflows are very viscous, hyper -concentrated sediment flows, whose fluid properties change dramatically as they flow down alluvial fans or steep channels. The behavior of the mudflow is a function of the fluid matrix properties (i.e. density, viscosity, and yield stress), channel geometry, slope, and roughness. Viscosity is in turn a function of the type of sediment (clay or silt), the sediment concentration, and the water temperature. Mudflows have high sediment concentrations and high yield stresses, which may produce laminar flow'. Smaller rain events (i.e. 10-year or 25-year storm event) are more likely to cause mudflows than larger events such as the 100-year flood. Usually, the peak concentration of sediment during a mudflow event is about 45%, and the average sediment concentration is between 20% and 35%. The probability that a mudflow event will occur in Aspen is relatively high. Geologic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey show large areas on Aspen Mountain directly above the City that are defined as potentially unstable, and mudflows have historically occurred in and near the City. 7.1 Mudflow Analysis in Storm Drainage Master Plan The FLO-213 Model was applied as a part of the Surface Drainage Master Plan developed in 2001 (WRC Engineering 2001) (Master Plan). The model was used to estimate the amount of runoff expected to occur during a rain event and the expected depth of flow, water and sediment. WRC developed a delineation of mudflow hazard areas (mudflow plain) in the downtown portion of the City and evaluated alternatives for reducing and/or managing mudflow hazards including drains and channels, cutoff walls, diversion of mudflows to abandoned mines and regulation of development in the mudflow plain. It is notable that the WRC analysis focused only on the downtown portion of the City—mudflows have the potential to occur in other parts of the City, especially in areas that are on or adjacent to steep slopes. Based on economic analysis, the preferred alternative in the Master Plan was to regulate development within the mudflow plain by requiring modeling of the effects of development on the mudflow plain. When model results show that development activities will result in adverse impacts to nearby properties (i.e. a rise in the mudflow elevation), mitigation/refinement of project design is required to keep post - development mudflow elevations at or below pre -project levels to the maximum extent practicable. 7.2 Applicability This chapter applies to all new development and redevelopment within the City of Aspen that lies in blue or yellow mudflow zones. The blue mudflow zone includes areas on or within 200 feet of a slope greater than 30% defined on the City of Aspen slope map (can be located in the City GIS or Engineering departments). The yellow mudflow zone are those areas south of Durant that are located within the 2-ft mudflow depth on the 100-yr mudplain map in the Master Plan as shown in Figure 1. Blue mudflow zones - For development projects that will modify existing grades or create additional obstructions (buildings, roads, etc.) in blue mudflow zones, the applicant must an analysis of the 100•year mudflow event to demonstrate that the proposed development will ' Mud floods are similar to mudflows, but they are less viscous, more turbulent and contain less sediment than mudflows (they behave more like "clear water" flood flows). Chapter 7 - Mudflow Analysis 7-1 Rev 4/2010 Attachment C Urban Runoff Management Plan manage mudflow impacts to his/her site and neighboring site to the maximum extent practicable, providing appropriate safety from mudflow impacts that are physically and economically feasible. Factors that will be considered in determining the "maximum extent practicable" for each site include mudflow depth, proximity to steep slopes, soil characteristics, slumping and earth movement, possible mudflow obstructions, potential mudflow paths, integrity/strength of the existing or proposed on -site structure(s) and neighboring structures, proposed mitigation techniques (both structural and non-structural),and economic reasonability and feasibility. Yellow mudflow zones — For areas located in the yellow mudflow zone, requirements of this chapter will be identified by the City Engineering Department on a case -by -case basis considering factors including mudflow depth in a 100-year event, presence or close proximity of steep slopes (typically >15 or 20 percent) on -site or up- or down -gradient of a development, soil characteristics, history of past mudflows, slumping and earth movement, and other factors. Mudflow analysis is not required if the applicant can demonstrate that the potential area of blockage (i.e. length, width and height) of a proposed structure below the corresponding mudflow elevation from Figure 7.1 will remain unchanged. 7.3 FLO-2D Overview FLO-2D is a two-dimensional, finite difference flood routing model, which uses a kinematic wave or diffusive wave equation to estimate overland flow. In addition to modeling water -only flow, the program also models hyper -concentrated sediment flow. The following general description of the FLO-21D model has been adapted from the Master Plan and the FLO-2D Users Manual (O'Brien 2007). FLO-21) requires a representation of the topography of the study area. This is accomplished by establishing a network of nodes and assigning x-y coordinates and elevations to each node. The nodes must be placed in a rectangular grid with equal spacing between nodes. Decreasing the node spacing increases the number of nodes and decreases the length of time step used in the model. Both factors increase the model's run time. One of the unique features of the FLO-2D model is its ability to simulate flow problems associated with flow obstructions or loss of flood storage. Area reduction factors (ARFs) and width reduction factors (WRFs) are coefficients that modify the individual grid element surface area storage and flow width. ARFs can be used to reduce the flood volume storage on grid elements due to buildings or topography. WRFs can be assigned to any of the eight flow directions in a grid element and can partially or completely obstruct flow paths in all eight directions simulating floodwalls, buildings or berms. Flow in the model is generated by simulating rainfall on each node in the study area or by inputting a runoff hydrograph at select nodes (see Chapter 3 for developing hydrographs). Rainfall and inflow hydrographs cannot be used simultaneously. The amount and direction of overland flow is calculated in eight directions — directly forward and backward, to each side, and in the four diagonal directions. Mudflows are modeled using inflow hydrographs. The input data contains the hydrograph data, flow versus time, the concentration of sediment conveyed by the flow, and concentration by volume versus time. FLO-2D routes the hyper -concentrated flows, tracking the sediment volumes through the system. Changing sediment concentration, dilution effects, and the remobilization of deposits are simulated at each node. Mudflow cessation and deposition can be predicted by the model. Sediment concentration governs the movement of the fluid matrix. The model also accounts for the initial rainfall abstractions and infiltration. Infiltration is estimated for each node using the Green-Ampt equation. The flow area and storage volume associated with each node can be reduced to represent buildings. Streets can also be modeled to increase the conveyance through these nodes. Chapter 7 — Mudflow Analysis 7-2 Rev 4/2010 Attachment C Urban Runoff Management Plan Results generated by the FLO-21) model include outflow hydrographs at designated nodes, maximum flow depths and velocities, and a summary of the total inflow, outflow, storage, and losses within the study area. Additional documentation related to FLO-2D can be found on the website http://www.flo-2d.com/ and in the Master Plan in the mudflow section (http://www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/depts/43/1963-20.pd . 7.4 Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Mudflow analysis for new development and redevelopment shall be conducted by a Professional Engineer with past experience with mudflow analysis, preferably with past experience using FLO-2D. FLO-2D is the preferred method for mudflow analysis. However, the City is willing to accept other models or analyses that are based on the following factors: • Type and quality of soils • Evidence of groundwater or surface water problems • Depth and quality of any fill • Slope of the site and adjacent sites • Weight that proposed structure will impose on slopes For areas falling within the delineated mudflow plain, as established in the Surface Drainage Master Plan (Master Plan), where mudflow depths are greater than 2 foot, modeling analysis should follow the steps below. Mudflow analysis using modeling methods may also be required for other mudflow hazard areas not shown in the Master Plan at the discretion of the City Engineering Department. The following steps are recommended and preferred for mudflow analysis: 1. Obtain current official FLO-2D model files from the City of Aspen. The model files developed by WRC as a part of the Master Plan, including modifications for development projects within the mudflow plain approved by the City since the Master Plan, define the "official" mudflow model for the City of Aspen. Model files reflecting effects of streets and buildings shall be used. Model files can be obtained from the City Stormwater Manager. The City also will provide hard copy and/or electronic model results from the most recent approved application to accompany the electronic model files. 2. Create a duplicate of the official model. The user should first run model files from the City's official model on their own system without making any changes to the input files. Results should be compared with previous results to confirm that the model is running properly on the user's system. Any differences should be resolved to obtain agreement between model runs on a user's computer and previous model runs. Minor differences (< 0.1 ft) may be acceptable and may arise from using different versions of the software. 3. Refine grid. To model a proposed development, a maximum grid spacing of 50 feet is required, as recommended in the Master Plan. If new properties need to be assigned to a node or nodes due to the refined grid, the properties of the nodes from the coarser grid should be retained for the finer grid unless more detailed information is available for the finer grid. The user should run the model with the refined grid for pre -project conditions (i.e. existing structures without modification for proposed development). This model run will establish baseline mud/water surface elevations. 4. Modify geometry input. To accurately model a proposed project the user must adjust area and width reduction factors for nodes where the proposed development is located. Other than adjustments to geometric parameters to accurately reflect the proposed development, model input values in the official model should not be altered by the user. Chapter 7 - Mudflow Analysis 7-3 Rev 4/2010 Attachment C Urban Runoff Management Plan 5. Compare predicted mud/water surface elevations with pre -project (baseline) conditions. Once the model has been run using the modified geometry to reflect the proposed development, mud/water surface outputs should be compared at nodes for pre- and post -project conditions. A rise in the mud/water surface elevation from the pre- to post -project conditions is allowable only if it affects just the property of the proposed project and the proposed project is designed for hydrostatic and dynamic forces of the mudflow. 6. Evaluate static and dynamic mudflow forces and identify potential mitigation measures. Static forces due to the mudflow can be calculated based on the density of the mudflow and the mudflow depth. The static force of the mudflow must be computed as hydrostatic pressure based on the full depth of the mudflow, as determined by the model, using 1.5 times of the hydrostatic force of water (1.5 x 62.4 Ibs/fP = 93.6 Ibs/fP). Even more significant than static forces, dynamic forces associated with mudflows have the potential to cause structural damage —according to FEMA floodplain training literature, water moving at 10 miles per hour exerts the same pressure on a structure as wind gusts at 270 miles per hour. The forces from a mudflow, with even greater density than water, are even more significant. A number of empirical formulas for calculating the dynamic forces of mudflows are available. Based on review of applicable equations, the following is recommended for calculation of mudflow dynamic forces in Aspen: P9(67-4)H2 = - Where: P = Dynamic Force (Ibs/ft) H = Depth of Mudflow (ft) The dynamic force is assumed to act at a height of one-third of the mudflow depth. A safety factor of 1.5 must be applied to both the static and dynamic forces. The developer/engineer must consult with the City before beginning the mudflow protection analysis to confirm the proper application of this section. Typical mitigation measures include elevating finished floor elevations of buildings above the mudflow plain elevation (plus freeboard), construction of retaining walls to stabilize steep slopes, and construction of diversion channels and/or deflection walls. Prepare submittals to City. Required submittals include a tabular comparison of mud/water surface elevations at all nodes, revised mudflow plain mapping (e.g. update of mudflow depth map in Master Plan), and electronic copies of all model input and output files. Once the City reviews and approves mudflow modeling for a proposed project, the model submitted will become the new "official" model that will be used for future proposed developments within the mudflow plain. 7.5 References O'Brien J.S. FLO-2D Users Manual, Version 2007.06. June 2007. WRC Engineering, Inc., Storm Drainage Master Plan for The City of Aspen. Colorado, November 2001. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44 - Emergency Management and Assistance, Part 60 - Criteria for Land Management and Use, 60.4 and Subpart C. Chapter 7 - Mudflow Analysis 7-4 Rev 4/2010 City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan iZp r Approximate Extent of 1-foot ��+ R Mudflow Inundation LEGEND Ci t " _0 : 1.0 ,, am. ~r + 'O D.. � . .Q— - w uu orra+ or nim VEM - +!ULM nodes Q ��j (j ll ' � - tr � ♦ � � , ��c 1 � 1 y . - sns vr.�nsnm BouraNv 1 �.r' � g �• �, 1 j rt-� ,y. j • ry �,,/ ' .4 ? r t�i '� LI "� �7 f�" r '•' ll\r�0�lr f' `/l-. Cx ..�.:yYs�•v /f ' r_`✓`/ r is `_ "- yr-"-" - 4'� Yellow Zone o/ • o s - s,"'u* 1.0 ✓J��1/� �o.+`r, Blue Zone r2A e+J 'I`�rf+llll���ir it»�i3i/lad/ T+ 4 fff ctt Of /`•✓��3 - F Fw f�lJt��� i rilF4 4�aM» 3 t -INS f IF• �i/'�j'•/�'(.IJj �1 f. // / -- yypp •q,��! Jfr�ii l r P ' ! / /-./_..•' !' `` .� ..per-�// \. ,' R.. Cu ; /r Jtel / "°DTI fTkx Y.Z r F .. �. -... '- •� % � / //� _ W/ 1 \ V 1 oe � ��b7� / .^ /i' /' .� 4..r/.:,�\lry," i \ , t. \ ``\\\` ✓� I�.i —.+'i.r� /�• < OD 0' oa� Off' 'i.,'} \ \ 1 \ �� \ `•"�... „\ ••./ // /� /� SP C'ri \'�, \� r t f -'--�.._�.,,,—. �_._• Qa s'3 c \ CY �rtt� a 1 t \ \\ \ �� `. _�\ �\ \ ``-- `•. ?(.��(j�--.., \\\� rim}"�]�/+y.� \ i \ ., '�. `• �..,� r oiw asr •nm ®O "� �)�� � � .::.•. d... - __ . __ .. Figure 1. City of Aspen Mudflow Plain (Figure 7 from Master Plan) wev+rx ru in nun r••_m r.aar _ cA� r Figure 7.1 City of Aspen Mudflow Plain (Figure 7 from Master Plan) Chapter 7 - Mudflow Analysis 7-5 Rev 4/2010 Attachment D — Title 28 ORDINANCE NO. Series of 2010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW TITLE 28 CODE REGARDING STORMWATER. WHEREAS, Title 28 establishes stormwater management policies to provide reasonable guidance for the regulation of stormwater runoff for the purpose of minimizing damage to public and private property and infrastructure and protecting and enhancing local water resources, and WHEREAS, the Urban Runoff Management Plan was developed as the guidance manual for stormwater management on developing and redeveloping lots in the City of Aspen in August, 1973, and WHEREAS, Section 26.580.020.B.6.a of the City of Aspen Municipal Code states that "the drainage plan for the proposed subdivision shall comply with the criteria in the City's "Urban Runoff Management Plan," and WHEREAS, the Urban Runoff Management Plan was updated in 2009 by staff and consultants, with input from a Technical Advisory Group comprised of local interested parties, to provide stormwater design guidance that reflects more recent science and data, that provides a more efficient development review process, and that assists in meeting the goals of the Clean River Initiative. WHEREAS, Title 28 adopts the updated Urban Runoff Management Plan as the design criteria and guiding document for stormwater management for construction and development activities within the City of Aspen. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by adding a new title, Title 28, Stormwater and Mudflow, which said Title shall read as follows: Attachment D — Title 28 TITLE 28. STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW Chapter 28.01 INTRODUCTION Sec. 28.01.010 Introduction It is hereby determined that: Construction and development activities, and their associated changes to land cover, alter the hydrologic response of local watersheds and increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes, which in turn increase flooding, stream channel erosion, and sediment transport and deposition; Construction and development activities also contribute to increased nonpoint source pollution and degradation of receiving waters; The impacts of development -related stormwater runoff quantity and quality can adversely affect public safety, public and private property, drinking water supplies, recreation, fish and other aquatic life, property values and other uses of lands and waters; These adverse impacts can be controlled and minimized through the regulation of stormwater runoff quantity and quality from new development and redevelopment, by the use of both structural facilities as well as nonstructural measures; Localities in the State of Colorado are required to comply with a number of both State and Federal laws, regulations and permits which require a locality to address the impacts of stormwater runoff quality and nonpoint source pollution these include the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal Water Quality Act, and the Colorado State Water Quality Standards; Therefore, the City of Aspen establishes this set of stormwater management policies to provide reasonable guidance for the regulation of stormwater runoff for the purpose of protecting local water resources from degradation. It is determined that the regulation of stormwater runoff discharges from construction and development activities and other construction activities in order to control and minimize increases in stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion, stream channel erosion, and nonpoint source pollution associated with stormwater runoff is in the public interest and will prevent threats to public health and safety. See.28.01.020 Purpose The purpose of this Title is to protect, maintain and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the watersheds and public residing in watersheds within this jurisdiction by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects Attachment D — Title 28 mudflow and of increased effects of post -development stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution associated with new development and redevelopment. It has been determined that proper management of stormwater runoff and mudflow will minimize damage to public and private property and infrastructure, safeguard the public health, safety, environment and general welfare of the public, and protect water and aquatic resources. This Title seeks to meet that purpose through the following objectives: (1) Minimize increases in stormwater runoff from any development in order to reduce flooding, erosion, non -point source pollution and increases in stream temperature, and maintain the integrity of stream channels and aquatic habitats; (2) Minimize increases in nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development which would otherwise degrade local water quality; (3) Minimize the total annual volume of surface water runoff which flows from any specific site during and following development to not exceed the pre -development hydrologic regime to the maximum extent practicable; and (4) Reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution, wherever possible, through stormwater management controls and to ensure that these management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to public safety. (5) Minimize the impact of a mudflow event to the maximum extent practicable. Sec.28.01.030 Applicability This Title shall be applicable to all construction or development activity, including but not limited to subdivision, building permit, or site plan applications, unless eligible for an exemption or granted a waiver by the City of Aspen. The Title also applies to construction or development activities that are smaller than the minimum applicability criteria if such activities are part of a larger common plan of development that meets the following applicability criteria, even though multiple separate and distinct construction or development activities may take place at different times on different schedules. In addition, all plans must also be reviewed by City staff to ensure that stormwater management measures and controls will be maintained during and after development of the site. Sec.28.01.040 Compatibility with Other Permit and Code Requirements This Title is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any other municipal code, rule or regulation, stature, or other provision of law. The requirements of this Title should be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this Title imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule or regulation, or other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose higher protective standards for human health or the environment shall be considered to take precedence. Attachment D — Title 28 Chapter 28.02 STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW DESIGN MANUAL Sec. 28.02.010. Adoption of Urban Runoff Management Plan. Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those regulations contained in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual), as may be amended from time to time by the City Engineer. At least one (1) copy of the aforementioned Manual shall be available for public inspection at the Community Development Department and Engineering Department. Sec. 28.02.020 Use of Urban Runoff Management Plan The City of Aspen shall use the policies, criteria and information including specifications and standards in the latest edition of the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) for the proper implementation of the requirements of this Title. The Manual may be updated and expanded periodically, based on improvements in science, engineering, monitoring, and local maintenance experience. The Manual shall include a list of acceptable stormwater treatment practices, including the specific design criteria for each stormwater practice. The Manual also includes criteria for managing mudflows. The Manual may be updated and expanded from time to time, at the discretion of the local review authority, based on improvements in engineering, science, monitoring and local maintenance experience. Stormwater treatment practices that are designed and constructed in accordance with these design and sizing criteria shall be presumed to meet the minimum water quality performance standards. Sec.28.02.030. Applicability. The Urban Runoff Management Plan, as adopted pursuant to Section 28.02.010, shall apply to all construction, development or redevelopment activity within the City; provided, however, that the City Engineer may waive one (1) or more specific provisions of the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Requests for waivers and any waivers granted by the City Engineers shall be in writing. Section 2. That Section 26.580.020(3)(6)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Attachment D — Title 28 a. Drainage Plan. The drainage plan for the proposed subdivision shall comply with the criteria in the City's "Urban Runoff Management Plan" set forth in Title 28. Section 3. Every property located in the blue and yellow zone of the City of Aspen's Mudplain Map must have the following language included on the deed of their property: "Any improvements on the Property shall be in accordance with proper mudplain management policies and practices. Structures built on the Property shall manage mudflow, to the maximum extent practicable as outlined the City of Aspen's Urban Runoff Management Plan." Section 4. 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. 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. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved, this day of Attachment D — Title 28 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk L,vr% !-c 5 4-0 C C, - will��, k�90 V J April 15, 2010 Mayor Ireland and City Council Members City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen Colorado 81611 RE: Urban Runoff Management Plan/Stormwater System Development Fee Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of multiple clients, we are submitting this letter to provide comment on the proposed update to the Urban Runoff Management Plan and the stormwater system development fee. We find the draft manual to be an excellent resource and look forward to its adoption. However, there are aspects of the proposed updates that cause us and our clients concern and should be reviewed carefully. Retroactive Approach The stormwater system development fee is applied retroactively to existing development. If an owner wants to add an impervious patio to their residence, the fee is applied not only to the area of the new patio but also to the existing impervious area of the property. A simple 200 square foot patio could result in a $10,000 fee when the fee is applied retroactively. We believe this is excessive. A more reasonable approach would be to only require mitigation for the net new impacts. This would be consistent with other city policies for mitigating impacts. Lack of Incentives Property owners should be incentivized to reduce their area of impervious surfaces. The code penalizes a property owner for removing impervious surface because disturbing any area greater than 200 square feet (even lawn areas) triggers the heightened review and fee, and the fee is applied retroactively. Paving Twice The manual requires the capture of stormwater on -site through a variety of methods. This is a responsible and fair approach for a property owner to mitigate their project's impacts. However, in addition to designing and constructing a system to prevent stormwater from the leaving the site, property owners must also pay the impact fee. We believe this is unfair. Overall, we agree with the manual's objectives and believe it will be an effective tool for designers to address stormwater impacts responsibly. Thank you for your consideration. rely Sheri an ,rICP ASLA I LeedAP