HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20110314 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 14, 2011
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
Swearing in Council member Ruth Kruger
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT
on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Termination of Ord. #48 Negotiations for The Given Institute
b) Resolution #21, 2011 — Assignment of Lease 38005 Hwy 82 — Harbert Lumber
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #2, 2011 — Amending Municipal Code — Elections
b) Ordinance #7, 2011 — Code Amendment — Historic Lot Split
c) Ordinance #3, 2011 — Engineering Fees
d) Ordinance #4, 2011 — Community Development Fees
e) Ordinance #9, 2011 — 500 W Hopkins (Boomerang) PUD Amendment (continue
to June 13
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting March 28, 2011
COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
✓ Stick to top priorities
✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk -
taking
✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes. Demonstrate and invite
active listening
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
MEMORANDUM Nt 1 a
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director QY 'rl
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, Terminating the Ordinance #48
Negotiation Period
DATE: March 14, 2011
SUMMARY: On February 14, 2011, City Council ended consideration of Ordinance #1, Series
of 2011, which was intended to be a negotiation for preservation of The Given Institute property.
The ordinance died because Council was informed that the applicant had withdrawn.
Council did vote on February 14 to extend the negotiation period that had begun in June 2010.
At one time the negotiation period was important because the University of Colorado had applied
for a demolition permit while Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was in place. That ordinance
required a mandatory "cooling off period" before demolition could proceed. CU agreed several
times to extend the timeframe for exploring other options to demolition. The City did issue the
demolition permit as a condition of CU's cooperation, but expected the University to hold off at
least until all discussions had ended.
In January 2011, City Council adopted a new historic preservation ordinance which still allows a
case by case evaluation of incentives for voluntary designations. As a result, there is no
significant reason to keep extending the official negotiation period and the City has not received
authorization from CU to do so. Council cannot continue the negotiation any longer without the
property owner's permission. No further action is necessary.
Any applicant who wishes to come forward with a new plan to preserve The Given Institute can
do so within the AspenModern process. Staff is hopeful that this is still a possible outcome. The
Aspen Medical Foundation has publically stated their interest in acquiring the property and
continuing the type of programming that has benefitted the community, and far beyond, for
almost 40 years.
The demolition permit can be used at any time, once the Building Department is satisfied that all
permitting issues are fully addressed.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
MEMORANDUM b
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Steve Barwick, City Manager
FROM: Scott Miller, City Capital Asset Director
DATE: March 7. 2011
MEETING DATE: March 14, 2011
RE: Assignment and Assumption of Lease for 38005
Highway 82
Summary: Capital Asset staff has negotiated an Assignment and Assumption of Lease
agreement with Probuild Company LLC for 38005 Highway 82. Probuild has entered into a
purchase agreement with the current lessee, Western Building Solutions, Inc. (the parent
company for Harbert Lumber). Staff recommends the approval of the Assignment and
Assumption of Lease with Probuild.
Background: On August 9, 2010 Council approved a Lease Agreement with Western Building
Solutions for the property at 38005 Highway 82. The current term of this lease is from August 1,
2010 through July 31, 2013, with automatic one -year extensions until the lease is cancelled by
either party. The minimum monthly rent for this lease is the greater of thirty -five thousand
dollars ($35,000) or one - twelfth (1 /12` of 4.61% of gross sales.
Discussion: The Assignment and Assumption of Lease allows Probuild to assume the lease
agreement from Western Building Solutions with the following major changes:
• Grant the City of Aspen a license for storage of certain equipment on site.
• Grant Probuild the option to renew the lease for an additional five (5) years, extending the
term of the lease until July 31, 2018.
• Grant the City of Aspen access to property the city owns adjacent to this site.
• Require Probuild to pay the city a deposit of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000).
While this property was purchased for the ultimate use of affordable housing, staff does not foresee
the need to start construction of any housing before 2018, and could conceivably start the first phase
of that construction while the lumber yard continues operations.
Financial Implications: Extending the lease for an additional five years will bring an additional
minimum amount of $2.1 million dollars into the housing development fund (150 Fund).
1
Request of Council: Staff requests that Council approve the Assignment and Assumption of Lease
agreement for 38005 Highway 82.
City Manager Comments
Attachment:
• Assignment and Assumption of Lease agreement
2
RESOLUTION #
(Series of 2011)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND PROBUILD COMPANY LLC SETTING FORTH
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING ASSIGNMENT AND
ASSUMPTION OF LEASE FOR 38005 HIGHWAY 82 AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Probuild Company LLC, a copy of
which agreement is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Probuild Company LLC regarding the
assignment and assumption of lease for 38005 Highway 82 for the city of Aspen, a
copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby
authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf
of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, March 14, 2011
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE (this "Agreement ") is made and
entered into as of March _, 2011, by and among WESTERN BUILDING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a Colorado corporation ( "Assignor "), PROBUILD COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ( "Assignee "), and the CITY OF ASPEN ( "Lessor ").
A. Assignor is the lessee under that certain Lease Agreement by and between
Assignor and Lessor, dated August 1, 2010, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the
"Lease "), pursuant to which Assignor leases the property located at 38005 Highway 82, Aspen,
Colorado (the "Leased Premises "). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this
Agreement shall have the meanings set forth in the Lease.
B. Assignor and Assignee intend to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement pursuant
to which, among other things, Assignor, as seller, will sell to Assignee, as buyer, certain assets
associated with the business operated by Assignor on the Leased Premises and, in connection
therewith, Assignor will assign its interest under the Lease to Assignee (the "Asset Purchase ").
C. In connection with and contingent upon the closing of the Asset Purchase,
Assignor has agreed to assign to Assignee all of Assignor's right, title, and interest in, to, and
under the Lease, and Assignee has agreed to accept such assignment and to assume the liabilities
and obligations of Assignor under the Lease arising on or after the Effective Date (as defined in
Section 15 of this Agreement).
D. Lessor desires to approve and consent to the assignment and assumption of the
Lease, and to effect such other obligations of Lessor set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, covenants, and
agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy,
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as
follows:
1. Assignment. Effective as of the Effective Date, Assignor hereby assigns and
transfers to Assignee all of its right, title, and interest in and to the Lease and Assignor's rights
thereunder.
2. Assumption. Effective as of the Effective Date, Assignee hereby accepts the
foregoing assignment and assumes the performance of all the obligations of Assignor arising on
and after the Effective Date under the terms of the Lease and agrees, as of the Effective Date, to
be bound by all the terms, covenants, and conditions of the lessee under the Lease.
3. Lessor's Consent. Lessor consents to the foregoing assignment of the Lease
by Assignor to Assignee.
4. Minimum Monthly Rent. For purposes of clarification the parties agree that
Section 3.1 of the Lease shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
The obligation to pay rent under the terms of this Lease shall begin on the
Commencement Date. The minimum monthly rent for the Lease term
shall be the greater of thirty -five thousand dollars ($35,000) or one - twelfth
(1/12) of 4.61% of the prior year's annual gross sales. Annual gross sales
shall include income (not including sales tax) from sales by Lessee at the
Aspen location and the sale of any associated facility shipping into the city
of Aspen. The term "annual" shall refer the fiscal year of Lessee. Rent
will be prorated for any partial month.
5. Security Deposit. On or before the date that is five (5) business days following
the Effective Date, Assignee shall pay to Lessor a security deposit (the "Security Deposit ") in an
amount equal to $70,000. If Assignee defaults with respect to any covenant or condition of the
Lease, Lessor may apply the whole or any part of the Security Deposit to the payment of any
sum in default or any sum that Lessor may spend by reason of Assignee's default. The Security
Deposit or any balance thereof shall be returned to Assignee within thirty (30) days after the
earlier of the expiration of the term or termination of the Lease.
6. Lessor Agreement. Lessor waives, releases, and relinquishes any right of
distraint, lien or levy Lessor may have by statute or otherwise with respect to any and all
personal property and fixtures, including, without limitation, any inventory, which are now
owned or hereafter acquired by Assignee, in or upon the Leased Premises. In connection with
the execution of this Agreement and from time to time upon Assignee's reasonable request,
Lessor agrees to promptly execute and deliver from time to time a landlord consent and waiver,
in favor of Assignee's lender, substantially in the form of Exhibit B attached hereto.
7. Estoppel Certificate. Lessor and Assignor each represent to Assignee that the
Lease is in full force and effect as of the date hereof, and has not been modified, amended or
supplemented in any way prior to the date hereof, and constitutes the entire agreement between
Lessor and Assignee thereunder with respect to the Premises. Lessor and Assignee each agree to
execute such estoppel certificates as may be reasonably be requested by the other party from
time to time upon not less than ten business days notice certifying (a) that the Lease is
unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there shall have been modifications that the same is
in full force and effect as modified and stating the modifications), (b) the dates to which the rent
and other charges have been paid in advance, if any, and (c) whether or not such signing party is
or, to the best knowledge of such signing party, such other party to the Lease is, in default in the
performance of any covenant, agreement or condition contained in the Lease and, if so,
specifying each such default of which the signing party is aware, it being intended that any such
certificate delivered pursuant to this paragraph may be relied upon by such requesting party or
any prospective lender or assignee of such requesting party.
8. No Default. To the best of Lessor's knowledge, there exists no default of
Lessor or Assignor under the Lease or any state of facts which, with the passage of time or the
2
Project Powder — Assignment and Assumption of Lease (Aspen) DOC
giving of notice or both, could result in a default on the part of Lessor or Assignor under the
Lease.
9. Assignor Improvements. Lessor acknowledges and agrees that Lessee shall not
be required to remove any alternations, additions, or other improvements to the Leased Premises
and existing as of the Effective Date.
10. Subleases. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Lease, Lessee shall
have the right to sublease all or any portion of (a) the residential apartments on the Leased
Premises to such parties, and on such terms and conditions, as Lessee, as sublandlord, deems
necessary or convenient (the "Residential Subleases "), and (b) such other portions of the Leased
Premises as Lessee may desire, provided Lessee obtains Lessor's prior written approval which
shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in subparagraph (b) of this Section 10, Lessor acknowledges and approves the existing
sublease between Lessee, as sublandlord, and City Market, as subtenant, covering a portion of
the surplus warehouse (the "Warehouse ") situated on the Leased Premises, which is depicted on
Exhibit C attached hereto (the "Warehouse Sublease "), pursuant to which City Market also parks
trucks and other vehicles on a portion of the Leased Premises. All rights and obligations of
Lessee, as sublandlord, arising under the Residential Subleases, the Warehouse Sublease, and
any other sublease, shall accrue to the benefit and obligation of Lessee, and Lessor shall have no
rights or obligations arising under the Residential Subleases or the Warehouse Sublease.
11. Affiliate Assignments /Subleases. Lessor acknowledges and agrees that
notwithstanding Section 18.1 of the Lease, Lessee may assign this Lease or sublet all or part of
the Leased Premises to an "Affiliate" which, for purposes of the Lease, shall mean any entity that
controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Lessee provided that Lessee shall
furnish Lessor with notice of such assignment or sublease promptly following any such
assignment or sublease and no such assignment or sublease shall release or otherwise affect
Lessee's obligations under the Lease.
12. Lessor's Access. During the term of the Lease, Lessor shall have the right to
reasonably use such driveways and paved portions as may exist from time to time on the Leased
Premises and which are generally located in the areas depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto (the
"Lessor Access Space "), for the purposes of accessing the property owned by Lessor directly south
of the Leased Premises, provided however, such use and access shall not interfere with Assignee's
operations on the Leased Premises.
13. Lessor's Storage. Lessor and Assignor acknowledge, and Assignee agrees that
Lessor has a license to use a certain portion of the Leased Premises, which is depicted on Exhibit
C attached hereto (the "Lessor Storage Space"), for the storage of Lessor's personal property in
exchange for payment to Assignee of $1 per month for the remaining term of the Lease, provided
however, either party may terminate the license upon sixty (60) days prior written notice. The
parties further acknowledge and agree that Lessee shall have no liability for any loss or damage
to such personal property of Lessor from any cause whatsoever and that the waiver of
subrogation contemplated by Section 6.5 of the Lease applies to any insurance that Lessor
maintains with respect to such personal property.
3
Project Powder — Assignment and Assumption of Lease (Aspen) DOC
14. Option to Renew. Lessee shall have the right, at its option, to extend the term of the
Lease for a single five (5) year period beginning August 1, 2013 and ending at 11:59 p.m. on July
31, 2018 (the "Renewal Term "), on the same conditions and terms in the Lease; provided however,
that effective as of the first day of the Renewal Term, the minimum monthly rent payable pursuant
to Section 3.1 of the Lease shall be an amount equal to the minimum monthly rent payable in the
month immediately preceding the Renewal Term increased by $2,500. To exercise its option to
renew, Lessee shall give Lessor notice of such election at least sixty (60) days before July 31, 2013.
15. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date on which the
Assignor and Assignee consummate the Asset Purchase (the "Effective Date "); provided,
however, if the Asset Purchase is not consummated by April 30, 2011, this Agreement shall be
of no further force and effect.
16. Notices. As of the Effective Date, Assignee's address to which notices shall be
sent pursuant to Section 20.1 of the Lease is 7595 Technology Way, Suite 500, Denver,
Colorado 80237, Attention: Real Estate Manager.
17. Authorization of Signatories. Each person executing this Agreement individually
and personally represents and warrants that he is duly authorized to execute and deliver the same
on behalf of the entity or municipality for which he is signing (whether it be a corporation,
partnership, limited liability company, municipality or otherwise) and that this Agreement is
binding upon said entity or municipality in accordance with its terms.
18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of
which shall constitute one document. Signatures sent by facsimile transmission or in PDF
format shall be deemed to be originals for all purposes of this Agreement.
[Signature Page Follows]
4
Project Powder -- Assignment and Assumption of Lease (Aspen) DOC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, all parties hereto have caused this Assignment and
Assumption of Lease Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.
ASSIGNOR: WESTERN BUILDING SOLUTIONS,
INC., a Colorado corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
ASSIGNEE: PROBUILD COMPANY LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
By:
Name:
Title:
LESSOR: CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Name:
Title:
5
Project Powder — Assignment and Assumption of Lease (Aspen) DOC
Exhibit A
Lease
[attached]
Exhibit C
Depiction of the Warehouse, the Lessor Access Space, and the Lessor Storage Space
I/ i
II
'
a s ,4. se
e.
1 L
w
II _ t
: 4 1 r ,
1 # i
..... ti
. k
Exhibit B
Lessor Agreement
Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, in its capacity as agent pursuant to the Loan
Agreement (as hereinafter defined) acting for and on behalf of the financial institutions which are
parties thereto as lenders (together with its successors and assigns in such capacity, "Agent "),
and the financial institutions which are parties to the Loan Agreement as lenders (collectively,
"Lenders ") have entered into financing arrangements with PROBUILD COMPANY LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ( "Debtor ") and certain of its affiliates pursuant to which
Agent has been granted a security interest in all of the personal property of Debtor and such
affiliates, including, but not limited to, inventory and equipment (hereinafter "Personal
Property"). For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Personal Property" does not include
plumbing and electrical fixtures, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, wall and floor
coverings, walls or ceilings and other fixtures not constituting trade fixtures. Some of the
Personal Property has or may from time to time become affixed to or be located on, wholly or in
part, the real property leased by Debtor or its affiliates located at 38005 Highway 82, Aspen,
Colorado (the "Premises "). The undersigned is the owner or lessor of the Premises. The term
"Loan Agreement" as used herein shall mean the Loan and Security Agreement, dated August 3,
2007, by and among Debtor, certain of its affiliates, Agent and Lenders, as the same now exists
or may hereafter be amended, modified, supplemented, extended, renewed, restated or replaced.
In order for Agent and Lenders to consider making loans or providing other financial
accommodations to Debtor or its affiliates in reliance upon the Personal Property as collateral,
the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. The undersigned waives and relinquishes any landlord's lien, rights of levy or
distraint, claim, security interest or other interest the undersigned may now or hereafter have in
or with respect to any of the Personal Property, whether for rent or otherwise.
2. The Personal Property may be installed in or located on the Premises and is not
and shall not be deemed a fixture or part of the real property but shall at all times be considered
personal property.
3. Agent, at its option, for itself and for the benefit of Lenders, may enter and use the
Premises for the purpose of repossessing, removing, selling or otherwise dealing with any of the
Personal Property, and such license shall be irrevocable and shall continue from the date Agent
enters the Premises pursuant to the rights granted to it herein for a period not to exceed one
hundred twenty (120) days or if later, until the receipt by Agent of written notice from the
undersigned directing removal of the Personal Property; provided, that, (a) for each day that
Agent uses the Premises pursuant to the rights granted to it herein, unless the undersigned has
otherwise been paid rent in respect of any of such period, Agent shall pay the regularly
scheduled rent provided under the lease relating to the Premises between the undersigned and
Debtor (the "Lease "), prorated on a per diem basis to be determined on a thirty (30) day month,
without thereby assuming the Lease or incurring any other obligations of Debtor, (b) any
extensions of the foregoing period shall be with the written consent of the undersigned and at the
same rate and (c) any damage to the Premises caused by Agent or its representatives will be
repaired by Agent.
4. The undersigned agrees to send notice in writing of any termination of, or default,
abandonment or surrender under the Lease to:
Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC, as Agent
One Post Office Square
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Attention: Portfolio Manager
Upon receipt of such notice, Agent shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure such
default within twenty (20) days thereafter. Any payment made or act done by Agent to cure any
such default shall not constitute an assumption of the Lease or any obligations of Debtor.
5. This Agreement may not be changed or terminated orally or by course of conduct.
The undersigned shall notify any purchaser of the Premises or of its business of this Agreement
and its terms and this Agreement is binding upon the undersigned and the heirs, personal
representatives, successors and assigns of the undersigned and inures to the benefit of Agent,
Lenders and their respective successors and assigns.
Dated this day of , 2011.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Name:
Title:
8
Project Powder — Assignment and Assumption of Lease (Aspen). DOC
MEMORANDUM VI *1 efte
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City of Aspen Election Commission
Kathryn Koch, Bob Leatherman, Ward Hauenstein
DATE: March 8, 2011
RE: Ordinance #2, 2011 — Amendments to the Municipal Election Code —
Second reading and public hearing.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: - The Election Commission requests Council adopt Ordinance #2,
Series of 2011, as amended on second reading
DISCUSSION: The Election Commission has met 8 times since December 2, 2010 to discuss
and refine the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Since Council reviewed this on
first reading January 24 changes have been made as a result of input from the public, the
election commission and from the city's election consultant. The Absentee Voting section
clarifies procedures that are allowed in the Municipal Election Code. Requiring identification,
provisional ballot, verification of signatures and post - election audit sections are new and not
covered under the Municipal Election Code.
9.10.060 Absentee Voting
We recommend that the city opt out of permanent mail -in voting in 9.10.060(b). Dwight
Sheliman, election consultant, said this is one of the larger reasons for provisional balloting on
election day; voters are signed up to be a permanent mail -in voter without knowing what that
means. We suggest mailing postcards to all city registered voters who qualify as a permanent
mail -in voter informing them of ways they can get a ballot mailed to them, come into the city
clerk's office and cast an absentee ballot, or vote on election day.
The other change in absentee voting is 9.10.060(e) that the city clerk shall not make available
voting machines in the office but shall make available privacy booths for any eligible elector to
mark his or her ballot and to deposit it in a secured ballot box. Sheliman recommends this as a
more secure way to conduct absentee voting. The voters will sign their envelopes and these will
be locked in ballot boxes and will be reviewed, opened and cast by a panel of absentee voter
ballot judges. Sheliman has also gotten the secretary of state to agree that he can extend the
voter verification to this process so the judges will be verifying signatures on the envelopes
before opening them.
9.10.070 Special Absentee Voter Ballot
At the recommendation of the election consultant, Shellman, the last sentence was added to
allow for FAX or email transactions and that the election commission will review and approve
procedures for casting these types of ballots. The city clerk's office does not think this will be
needed and if it is, it will be in place.
9.10.080 Verification of Identification
The section allowing an election judge to verify he or she knows a voter has been eliminated.
There was concern that this would put pressure on election judges. The election commission
also felt it could be perceived to be partisan. Also the list of acceptable identification has been
deleted from the ordinance and changes to state acceptable forms of identification are listed in
title 1 of the Colorado Election Code. This list will be part of the judge's manual to be used on
election day and also reviewed with them in election judge training.
9.10.090 Provisional Balloting
This section has been added to to make the process and the verification of provisional voters
more clear.
9.10.110 Post - election Audit
This section is new. The Municipal Election Code does not require a post election audit. Public
input noted an audit would add public assurance to the process. This section requires a publicly
conducted manual random audit of at least one contest on at least one audit unit in accordance
with procedures written and approved by the election commission. (b) outlines what happens if
the post - election audit reveals a discrepancy with the published initial tabulation of votes for an
audit unit when extrapolated to the total number of ballots cast in an election would be sufficient
to change the outcome of any contest.
9.10.120 Recount
This modifies the requirement for a recount to require a manual recount of the votes cast if it
appears that the outcome of a contest turns on a number of votes less than or equal to one -half of
one percent of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the election. The Municipal
Election Code states a recount would be held if the difference between the highest number of
votes cast in the election and the next highest number of votes cast in the election is less than or
equal to one -half of one percent of the total number of votes cast in the election. This change
makes the city's recount requirement more likely to be triggered.
One discussion is a policy issue and revolves around "confidentiality" and "anonymity ". The
election commission is meeting Thursday March 10 in the afternoon to discuss that issue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Election Commission recommends Council adopt
Ordinance #2, 2011 on second reading as amended. Whatever amendments you are inclined to
adopt need to be done at this meeting in order to be effective for the May 3, 2011 election.
ALTERNATIVES: Council must adopt at least Section 1 to repeal the IRV procedures.
Council could adopt some or all of the recommendations in the ordinance.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #2, 2011, as amended, on second reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 2
Series of 2011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY REPEALING
CHAPTER 2.26 AND AMENDING TITLE 9 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW
CHAPTER 9.10, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF MUNICPAL ELECTIONS.
WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 6(d) of the Colorado State Constitution grants to Home
Rule municipalities the power to legislate in "all matters pertaining to municipal elections;" and,
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen is a Home Rule municipality having adopted a home
rule in accordance with the Colorado Constitution; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter states that all "City
elections shall be governed by the Colorado Municipal Election Laws as now existing or
hereafter amended or modified except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, or by ordinance
hereafter enacted;" and,
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, the electorate of the City of Aspen did approve
Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, to amend the City of Aspen City Charter by repealing instant
run -off voting procedures and adopting run -off election procedures for the election of Mayor and
members of City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt election procedures as approved by the
electorate and to make improvements to those procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Chapter 2.26 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
1
ord22011.docx
•
Section 2.
That Title 9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Chapter 9.10 which Chapter shall read as follows:
Chapter 9.10
Conduct of Municipal Elections
Sec. 9.10.010. Applicability.
This Chapter shall apply to all municipal elections conducted by the City of Aspen. All other
provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code, Sections 31 -10 -101, et seq., C.R.S., shall
apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with this Chapter. The Uniform Election Code of
1992, as amended from time to time, Sections 1 -1 -101, et seq., C.R.S., shall apply to all elections
coordinated with Pitkin County, Colorado
Sec. 9.10.020. Definitions.
As used in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
Audit unit. Counted ballots that are separately tabulated as part of the initial tabulation of votes.
Electronic vote - tabulating equipment or electronic vote - counting equipment. Any apparatus that
examines and records votes automatically and tabulates the result, including but not limited to
optical scanning equipment. The term includes any apparatus that counts votes electronically
and tabulates the results simultaneously on a paper tape within the apparatus, that uses an
electronic device to store the tabulation results, and that has the capability to transmit the votes
into a central processing unit for purposes of a printout and an official count.
Over vote. For each contest on a ballot, when the number of actual votes exceeds the maximum
number of allowable votes, the number of allowable votes on the contest, otherwise no over vote
is present.
Target area. The oval, rectangle, square or arrow printed on official municipal election ballots
that are adjacent to each choice in a ballot contest, which electors are instructed to complete or
fill to indicate their votes.
Under vote. For each contest on a ballot, the numerical difference between the number of
allowable votes and the number of actual votes, resulting from an elector's intentional failure to
vote for the maximum number of allowable choices;except that an under vote does not exist if
2
ord22011.docx
there are fewer candidates than offices to be filled and the elector designates as many votes as
there are candidates.
Unverified ballot means any provisional ballot, absentee ballot or special absentee ballot other
than a verified absentee ballot or verified provisional ballot.
Verified absentee ballot means an absentee ballot or special absentee ballot returned by an
elector whose signature on the self - affirmation reply envelope or coversheet for electronic
transmission of special absentee ballot has been confirmed and verified by a panel of election
judges, or who has timely cured a missing signature or signature discrepancy, in accordance with
rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
Verified provisional ballot means a provisional ballot submitted by an elector whose signature on
the self - affirmation on the provisional ballot envelope has been confirmed and verified by a
panel of election judges, who has presented an acceptable form of identification when submitting
a provisional ballot or has timely cured his or her failure to do so, and whose voter registration
and eligibility to vote in the election being conducted has been verified by the clerk and
confirmed by a panel of election judges, all in accordance with rules and procedures adopted by
the Election Commission.
Sec. 9.10.030. Write - in Affidavit Required — When Election May be Cancelled
Pursuant to §31 -10 -306, C.R.S., and except as set forth below, no write -in vote for any
municipal office shall be counted unless an affidavit of intent has been filed with the clerk by the
person whose name is to be written in prior to twenty (20) days before the day of the election
indicating that such person desires the office and is qualified to assume the duties of that office if
elected. Pursuant to §31 -10 -507, C.R.S., if the only matter before the voters is the election of
persons to office and if, at the close of business on the nineteenth day before the election, there
are not more candidates than offices to be filled at such election, including eligible write -in
candidates who timely filed affidavits of intent, the clerk, if instructed by resolution by the City
Council, may cancel the election and declare the candidates elected.
Sec. 9.10.040. Counting Votes
(a) On Election Day, all votes shall be counted pursuant to the Colorado Municipal Election
Code, as amended by this Chapter or rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
(b) Counting Write -in Votes.
(1) Write -in votes for a candidate who has timely filed an affidavit of intent
pursuant to Section 9.10.030 of this Chapter shall be counted in the initial
tabulation if the voter properly marks the target area adjacent to the write -in line
and adequately indentifies the write -in candidate by printing or writing the name
of the eligible write -in candidate on the write -in line for the race or office
3
ord22011.docx
designated in the candidate's affidavit of intent. A voter must, at a minimum,
write or print the last name of an eligible write -in candidate in order for the vote
to count for such candidate. If the voter incorrectly spells the write -in candidate's
name, the vote may still count if the voter's intent to vote for an eligible write -in
candidate is clear. A voter that writes only the first name or nickname of an
eligible write -in candidate has failed to cast a valid write -in vote.
(2) In the event that there is at least one eligible write -in candidate pursuant to
Section 9.10.030 in a ballot contest, and the number of under votes recorded by
electronic vote - counting equipment in the initial tabulation of votes in such
contest is great enough to affect the outcome of the election if all under votes
were awarded to one candidate, then all ballots containing all such under votes
shall be examined by one or more panels of election judges appointed by the clerk
for such purpose. If upon such examination, and in any post - election audit or
recount conducted pursuant to this Chapter, it is determined that a voter printed or
wrote the name of an eligible write -in candidate on the write -in line in any contest
but did not mark the target area for a write -in candidate for such contest, the vote
shall be counted for the eligible write -in candidate.
Sec. 9.10.050. Determination of voter intent.
Election officials shall consider voter intent in the situations that follow. Election
officials required to determine voter intent shall use guidelines issued by the Colorado Secretary
of State for this purpose including the most current version of the publication entitled "Voter
Intent - A Guide to the Determination of Voter Intent for Colorado Elections," to the extent not
inconsistent with the remaining provisions of this Section and except as otherwise ordered by the
Election Commission.
(a) During a post - election audit pursuant to 9.10.110 of this Chapter, and any recount ordered by
the Election Commission as a result thereof;
(b) During a recount pursuant to Section 9.10.120 of this Chapter;
(c) In duplicating ballots pursuant to rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
Sec. 9.10.060. Absentee Voting
(a) The clerk shall provide absentee voting pursuant to Sections 31 -10 -1001 through 31 -10-
1010, C.R.S., to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter.
(b) Permanent Mail -in Voters Must Apply for Municipal Absentee Ballots. Notwithstanding
any provision to the contrary of Section 31 -10 -1002 (2.5), C.R.S., the clerk shall not deliver to
any municipal elector whose status as a permanent mail -in voter is indicated on the voter
registration records of the county clerk and recorder any voting materials, including an official
absentee ballot, but instead shall deliver to all such persons a notice by U.S. mail to the effect
4
ord22011.docx
that an absentee ballot will not be delivered unless application for the same is made to the clerk
as provided in subsection (c) of this Section.
(c) Applications for Absentee Ballots. Electors shall apply for absentee ballots in the manner
provided by Section 31 -10 -1002 (1), C.R.S., by filing an application in a form approved by the
clerk. In addition to all other information required of an applicant for absentee ballot under the
Municipal Election Code, the application form approved by the clerk shall also require the
applicant to provide all information reasonably necessary to enable, and designate the most
expeditious manner for, the clerk to contact and advise the applicant that he or she must cure a
missing signature or signature discrepancy in order for the elector's returned absentee ballot to
be counted, pursuant to rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
(d) Issuance of Absentee Ballots. The clerk shall issue all absentee ballots, security sleeves,
reply envelopes and voter instructions in the manner provided by Section 31 -10 -1002 (2), C.R.S.,
and shall record the issuance of all absentee ballots on an absentee ballot issuance log as
provided by Section 31 -10 -1002 (3), C.R.S.
(e) Casting and Receipt of Absentee Ballots in Clerk's Office. Notwithstanding any provision to
the contrary of Sections 31 -10 -1005 and 31- 10- 1002(3), C.R.S., voting machines and electronic
voting systems shall not be made available in the clerk's office for the use of electors to cast
absentee ballots. Instead, a sufficient number of privacy booths shall be made available in the
clerk's office to enable electors to mark absentee ballots in privacy and secrecy, whether such
absentee ballots were delivered to the elector by mail or in person at the clerk's office.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Section 31 -10- 1104(1), C.R.S., any registered
elector applying for and receiving an absentee ballot, including electors who mark their ballots in
the clerk's office, shall make and subscribe to the self - affirmation on the absentee ballot reply
envelope, insert the folded marked ballot in the security sleeve, insert the security sleeve
containing the marked ballot into the reply envelope provided to the elector by the clerk when
the ballot was issued, and seal the reply envelope securely. Upon receiving an absentee ballot
returned by an elector, the clerk shall write or stamp the date and time such envelope was
received in the clerk's office and, if the ballot was delivered in person, the name and address of
the person delivering the same, on the reply envelope and in the absentee ballot issuance log
maintained by the clerk pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section. All absentee ballots returned
by electors to the clerk shall be deposited into a sealed ballot box located in the clerk's office for
such purpose. The clerk shall maintain all such ballot boxes in a sealed state until all ballot
boxes containing all such returned absentee ballots are delivered by the clerk to one or more
panels of absentee ballot judges, whereupon such sealed ballot boxes shall be unsealed and the
absentee ballots contained therein shall be processed and counted or rejected pursuant to rules
and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
(f) Absentee Ballot Judges. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of Section 31 -10-
1006, C.R.S., on Election Day or on such other date and time as the clerk may designate, a
5
ord22011.docx
sufficient number of panels of election judges shall be convened to process and count all verified
absentee ballots and reject and preserve all unverified absentee ballots, pursuant to rules and
procedures adopted by the Election Commission. The clerk shall provide the appropriate
panel(s) of election judges convened pursuant to this subsection with a complete and accurate
copy of the absentee ballot issuance log on which all information regarding the issuance and
receipt of absentee ballots was recorded as required by subsections (d) and (e) of this Section.
Sec. 9.10.070. Special Absentee Ballot.
Once the clerk is able to provide official sample ballots for public inspection, any
registered and eligible elector who will be outside the United States on Election Day and during
the period of time for absentee voting in accordance with Section 9.10.060 of this Chapter may
apply to the clerk for a special absentee ballot to vote at a regular municipal or runoff election,
regardless of whether the elector has previously submitted an absentee ballot application for the
election. In no event shall a special absentee ballot be issued to electors after expiration of the
deadline for issuing absentee ballots as set forth in Section 31 -10- 1002(1), C.R.S. An
application for a special absentee ballot shall contain a statement by the registered elector that
the elector will be out of the United States on Election Day and the elector believes that he or she
cannot receive or return an absentee ballot during the normal absentee voting period provided by
§31 -10 -1002, C.R.S., or otherwise participate in absentee voting as set forth in Section 9.10.060
of this Chapter. Voters using a special absentee ballot shall be advised and acknowledge in
writing that their ballot will be duplicated onto an official absentee ballot and processed by
absentee ballot election judges in the same manner as absentee ballots regularly issued and
returned by electors. The Election Commission may adopt procedures authorizing the clerk to
electronically transmit and receive special absentee ballots by email or facsimile transmission,
provided that such procedures shall include provisions requiring electors to sign self -
affirmations on a coversheet to accompany the electronic transmission to the clerk of the special
absentee ballot marked by the voter, which self - affirmation shall be identical to those required of
electors returning regular absentee ballots, notifying voters how their electronically transmitted
ballots will be duplicated and processed, for tracking the receipt, duplication and casting of
electronically transmitted ballots by election officials or election judges, and for maintaining
voter confidentiality and ballot anonymity.
Sec. 9.10.080. Verification of Identification of Polling Place Electors
Any registered elector desiring to vote at a precinct polling place or vote center shall be
required to present an acceptable form of identification as defined by C.R.S. § 1 -1- 104(19.5), as
amended from time to time and in effect for the municipal election being conducted. When the
voter presents such identification, the election judge shall verify that the elector's name on the
identification matches the name in the elector's voter registration record as set forth in the
registration list or poll book, provided, however, that common variants of given names and
nicknames shall be acceptable. In addition, the election judge shall further verify that the
elector's residence address as set forth in the identification, if listed, is in the State of Colorado.
6
ord22011.docx
Sec. 9.10.090. Provisional Balloting
(a) At any election conducted pursuant to this Chapter, a voter claiming to be properly registered
but whose qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be immediately established upon
examination of the poll book or registration list for the precinct or upon confirmation of the voter
registration records on file with the county clerk and recorder shall be entitled to cast a
provisional ballot in accordance with this Section.
(b) An elector who desires to vote but does not show identification in accordance with Section
9.10.080 of this Chapter may cast a provisional ballot.
(c) An elector who desires to vote at a polling place for a precinct other than the precinct of his
or her residence address as reflected in the poll book or registration list may cast a provisional
ballot in such polling place in accordance with this Section, or may proceed to the correct polling
place for the precinct of his or her residence address and cast a regular ballot, as such elector
may decide.
(d) If the poll book or registration list for a polling place or vote center reflects that an elector
has been issued an absentee or special absentee ballot, the elector shall not be permitted to cast a
regular ballot but may cast a provisional ballot at the polling place or vote center if the elector
affirms under oath that the elector has not and will not cast the absentee or special absentee
ballot. The provisional ballot shall be counted if the provisional ballot judges verify that the
elector is registered and eligible to vote and did not cast the absentee or special absentee ballot.
In the event it is determined that the elector's representation on the provisional ballot affidavit is
erroneous and the elector both returned an absentee ballot to the clerk and submitted a
provisional ballot at a polling place or vote center, then the provisional ballot submitted by the
elector shall be rejected and the elector's absentee ballot shall be processed in the manner set in
Section 9.10.060 of this Chapter.
(e) A provisional ballot shall contain text or bear a legend clearly identifying it as a provisional
ballot.
(1) An elector casting a provisional ballot shall complete an affidavit and receive information
and instructions on the voting and handling of provisional ballots. The provisional ballot
affidavit and instructions shall be printed on the outside of provisional ballot envelopes, which
shall have adhesive seals and detachable stubs. Each provisional ballot envelope and stub shall
be printed with the same unique and anonymous identifying number. The detachable stub shall
also contain instructions advising the elector submitting the provisional ballot to contact the
clerk's office or visit the city's website on or after a date certain in order to determine whether
his or her provisional ballot was counted or not counted. and the reason(s) it was not counted, if
applicable.
7
ord22011.docx
(g) Each polling place using paper provisional ballots shall have on hand a sufficient number of
provisional ballots and provisional ballot envelopes.
(h) Submission of Provisional Ballots by Electors.
(1) An elector desiring to submit a provisional ballot shall be issued a provisional
ballot by a polling place or vote center election judge. The election judge shall
write the word "Provisional" on the ballot stub, detach the ballot from the ballot
stub prior to issuance to the elector and note the style of provisional ballot, if any,
issued to the elector in the space provided on the provisional ballot. The issuance
of provisional ballots shall also be noted on a provisional ballot log in a form
approved by the clerk. The elector shall mark the provisional ballot in private,
insert the marked provisional ballot in the provisional ballot envelope provided by
the election judge, seal the provisional ballot envelope, and complete the
provisional ballot affidavit and sign the self - affirmation printed on the provisional
ballot envelope. A polling place or vote center election judge shall examine the
provisional ballot affidavit to ensure that it is complete and signed by the elector,
detach the stub from the envelope and deliver the same to the elector, and return
the sealed provisional ballot envelope to the elector, who shall deposit the same
into a separate ballot box or bin maintained at the polling place or vote center for
that purpose. All sealed provisional ballot envelopes deposited into the
designated ballot box or bin shall be gathered by the polling place election judges
at the end of voting on Election Day and delivered to the clerk in a segregated,
sealed and unopened state, together with the provisional ballot log and other
ballots, supplies and equipment from the polling place.
(2) The fact that an elector has submitted a provisional ballot shall be indicated
on the elector's signature card and next to the elector's name on the polling place
or vote center poll book or registration list.
(3) If an elector who submits a provisional ballot does not show identification as
required by Section 9.10.080 of this Chapter, the election official shall note such
fact in the space provided on the provisional ballot envelope.
(4) Once a provisional ballot has been deposited into the designated ballot box or
bin, it may not be changed, retrieved, or nullified by the elector.
Sec. 9.10.100. Electronic Vote Counting Equipment Testing
Pursuant to Section 31 -10 -801, C.R.S., the clerk is authorized to use the AccuVote
Optical Scan ( "AVOS ") electronic vote counting equipment, version 1.94w, and related Global
Election Management Software ( "GEMS ") ballot layout and tabulation software, for all
municipal elections. Prior to an election in which such electronic vote counting equipment is to
8
ord22011.docx
be used, the clerk shall have all system components prepared for voting and shall inspect and
determine that each vote recorder or voting device is in proper working order and shall conduct
testing in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Election Commission, provided that
such testing shall be no less rigorous than the testing for such electronic vote counting equipment
required by the Election Code of 1992, Section 1 -1 -101, et. seq., C.R.S., and the applicable
Election Rules promulgated by the Colorado Secretary of State. The Election Commission may
promulgate such other security protocols and procedures as it deems appropriate for any
municipal election, which protocols and procedures shall be implemented by election officials
and judges during the conduct of any municipal election. The clerk shall cause a sufficient
number of recorders or devices to be delivered to each election precinct in which an electronic
voting system is to be used.
Sec. 9.10.110. Post - election Audit.
(a) Not later than seven (7) days after each election, including run -off elections, the clerk shall
publicly conduct a manual random audit of at least one contest on at least one audit unit in
accordance with procedures adopted by the Election Commission, or such greater number of
races and audit units as the Election Commission may determine. The audit shall be conducted
for the purpose of comparing the published initial tabulation of votes with the tabulation of votes
resulting from the audit.
(b) Upon completion of the audit required by subsection (a) of this Section, if there is any
discrepancy between the published initial tabulation of votes for the audit unit and the tabulation
of votes for the audit unit resulting from the post - election audit, the clerk, in consultation with
the Election Commission, shall investigate the discrepancy and shall take such remedial action as
the Election Commission deems necessary. In the event that the post - election audit reveals a
discrepancy with the published initial tabulation of votes for an audit unit that, when extrapolated
in the manner determined by the Election Commission to the total number of ballots cast in the
election, is sufficient to change the outcome of any ballot contest, then the term "remedial
action" as used in this subsection shall include the authority to order a recount of all ballots cast
in the election pursuant to Section 9.10.120 of this Chapter, without regard to the threshold for
such a recount set forth in Section 9.10.120(b) or § 31 -10 -1207, C.R.S.
(c) Upon receiving any written complaint from a registered elector from within the City of
Aspen containing credible evidence concerning a problem with the initial tabulation process, the
clerk, in consultation with the Election Commission, shall investigate the complaint and take
such remedial action as necessary.
(d) The clerk shall promptly make available for public inspection on the City of Aspen website
a report containing a description of the audit process undertaken, including any initial, interim,
and final results of any completed audit or investigation conducted pursuant to this Section.
9
ord22011.docx
(e) Any procedures adopted by the Election Commission for the conduct of an audit shall
ensure that at least two members of the Election Commission are present during the audit and for
the confidentiality of electors and the anonymity of the ballots cast.
Sec. 9.10.120. Recount.
(a) All recounts of municipal elections, including run -off elections, shall be conducted pursuant
to § 31 -10 -1027, C.R.S., except as modified by subsection (b) of this Section.
(b) The clerk shall appoint and convene a panel of election judges to conduct a manual recount
of the votes cast in any election, including run -off elections, if it appears, as evidenced by the
survey of returns, that the outcome of a contest turns on a number of votes less than or equal to
one -half of one percent of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the election.
Sec. 9.10.130. Preservation of Ballots and Election Records.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in § 31 -10 -616, C.R.S., the ballots, when not
required to be taken from the ballot box for purposes of conducting post - election audits, recounts
or election contests, shall remain in sealed ballot boxes or transfer cases in the custody of the
clerk until six months after the election at which such ballots were cast, or until the time has
expired for which the ballots would be needed in any contest proceedings, whichever last occurs,
at which time the ballot box shall be opened by the clerk and the ballots destroyed by fire,
shredding, or burial, or by any other method approved by the executive director of the
department of personnel. If the ballot boxes are needed for a special election before the legal
time for commencing any proceeding in the way of contests has elapsed or in case the clerk, at
the time of holding such special election, has knowledge of the pendency of any contests in
which the ballots would be needed, the clerk shall preserve the ballots in some secure manner
and provide for their being kept so that no one can ascertain how any voter may have voted.
(b) The clerk shall preserve all other official election records and forms for at least six months
following a regular or special election, or until the time has expired for which the official
election records would be needed in any contest proceedings, whichever last occurs.
Section 9.10.140. Reporting of Results.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Municipal Election Code to the contrary, all
preliminary, interim and final election results shall be reported by precinct for each manner of
voting other than provisional ballots, which may be reported cumulatively or in another manner
that, in the judgment of the Election Commission, best ensures voter confidentiality and ballot
anonymity.
Section 9.10.150. Election Commission to Adopt Rules and Procedures.
10
ord22011.docx
The Election Commission shall adopt such rules, policies and procedures as it deems
appropriate to implement the provisions of this Chapter and effectuate the integrity, security,
verifiability, purity and transparency of all municipal elections of the City of Aspen.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 28 day of February, 2011, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 14 day of February, 2011.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2011.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C.Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
11
ord22011.docx
MEMORANDUM V lit 17
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer J l
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #7, Series of 2011, Proposed Amendments to
Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision
DATE: March 14, 2011
APPLICANT: SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen Community The Community Development Department proposes
Development Department amendments to land use regulations related to historic
landmark lot splits. While this form of subdivision
exemption was initially created to benefit residential
rn li properties, it was extended to the Mixed Use, MU
Zone district ten years ago. The proposed code
—Ili F414
: amendment would remove some existing disincentives
for historic landmark lot splits in the Mixed Use zone
district, and would permit this historic preservation
= ' strategy to be applied in the Commercial, C -1 zone
o �_ �L Al district.
J ere -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff, HPC and P &Z recommend Council approval of
m 4, a the attached code amendments.
H I S T O R I C
PRESERVATION
BACKGROUND: There are two changes proposed.
1. To remove language that requires the purpose of the lot split to be for the creation of a
new single family house.
The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners of landmark
properties since 1987. Among the original provisions was the ability to develop a second free
market residential unit on a landmarked property, exempt from the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS.) In 1995, the concept of allowing more than one home on a landmark parcel
-1-
morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, whereby two units on a designated, residentially
zoned site could be on individual, fee simple lots, rather than limited to a condominium form of
ownership. This was allowed in the R -6 and R -15A zone districts.
In 2001, the Historic Landmark Lot Split was extended to the "0, Office" zone district (since
renamed "MU, Mixed Use, ") the bulk of which is located on Main Street. In 2002, R -15 and
RMF were added. There have been 21 Historic Landmark Lot Splits approved over the last 16
years.
According to the subdivision review criteria, a Historic Landmark Lot Split is to be for the
purpose of developing one new single - family dwelling. This has proven to be an awkward goal
relative to the "Mixed Use" zone district because in 2005 a number of disincentives for the
creation of new single family homes in the neighborhood were adopted, such as a reduction in
allowable floor area. As a result, if a home is the only use that can be developed in this zone on
a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split, it has become much less desirable from an
owner's perspective than exercising the rights allowed for mixed use buildings, plus confining
the lot split to residential uses eliminates potentially desirable commercial use options. Two lot
splits approved on Main Street in 2005 never had a plat recorded because the owners determined
the restrictions were undesirable for them.
The proposed code amendment would allow any permitted use on a Mixed Use lot created
through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Though Community Development is sponsoring the
code amendment, there is an advocate. In 2007, Michael Tullio requested this same code
amendment in order to allow the possibility of subdividing the condominium association
currently in place between Salon Tullio (208 E. Main) and Aspen Home Consignment (202 E.
Main). Each owner might wish to be on a 3,000 square foot fee simple lot. The code
amendment was reviewed in 2007, received the support of P &Z and proceeded to second reading
at City Council. Council decided not to take action because they were in the process of adopting
Ordinance #48, and were envisioning the creation of the Historic Preservation Task Force, who
was to look at all' aspects of the program, including incentives. The Task Force did express
general comments and concerns about the possibility of overdeveloping historic properties
through the award of incentives including the Historic Landmark Lot Split, but did not make any
specific recommendations for changes.
In staff's estimation, there are approximately 6 lots in the Mixed Use Zone District that are
possible candidates for a Historic Landmark Lot Split. One of the goals of the lot split is to offer
an incentive to direct development pressure towards new buildings that are detached from the
adjacent historic resource. This may be more likely if the language requiring the development to
be a single family home is removed.
2. To extend the lot split to the C - 1 zone district.
The Commercial, C -1 zone district is comprised of three and a half city blocks between Hunter
and Spring Streets, and one lot on Main Street. There are four historic properties in this area,
three of which are candidates for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, which is not currently allowed.
Again, Community Development is the applicant for the code amendment to include the C -1
zone district in the program, but advocates are Greg and Jane Hills, who own two of the
properties that might be eligible for the lot split. (The properties are currently occupied by
-2-
Susie's at 623 E. Hopkins, Six 2 Five Salon at 625 E. Hopkins, and the former Adam Walton
house, historically known as the Berg House at 205 S. Spring.) The Historic Landmark Lot Split
may provide more opportunities to separate ownership, diversify uses on these parcels, create
detached buildings on the lots, etc.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the
application. City Council is the final review authority.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the
Standards of Review for amendments to the Municipal Code, as outlined in Exhibit A, and
recommends Council approval.
HPC RECOMMENDATION:
HPC reviewed the proposed code amendments on January 26, 2011 and recommended approval.
P & Z RECOMMENDATION:
P &Z reviewed the proposed code amendments on February 1, 2011 and recommended approval.
The Planning and Zoning Commission requested that, as part of the City Council review, staff
clarify any possible increases in development rights that could result from a Historic Landmark
Lot Split.
No development increases are generated by a lot split. Underlying development rights are not
being amended. Even without a lot split, the range of options in the two affected zone districts,
MU and C -1 already allow numerous different combinations of residential and commercial
space. The more residential units that are built on a given site, the more FAR exemptions are
possible for garage /storage space, but the number of residential units allowed is not directly
increased by a historic landmark lot split. Most historic sites are currently allowed to build one
new free market unit (in addition to what already exists on the site) with a GMQS exemption.
Many properties can receive GMQS exemptions for addition residential units. In some
scenarios, overall development rights may decrease with a lot split.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 2011."
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #7, Series of 2011
Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
Exhibit B — Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision
-3-
Exhibit A
Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
Staff Response: The amendment is not in conflict with other areas of the Municipal Code.
Aspen adopted historic preservation regulations almost 40 years ago and policies that support
preservation can be found throughout the Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Response: The AACP specifically addresses historic preservation and the importance of
incentives. It states as a goal, "Maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in
Aspen, such as the historic landmark lot split." The AACP also encourages efforts that "Create a
more vibrant town with appropriate mixed uses and a variety of building sizes. Allow historic
patterns to inform new development throughout town." Staff believes that restoring some of the
smaller lot sizes that existed historically in town is in keeping with this statement.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Response: The amendments do not change the underlying zoning, allowed uses, or
dimensional requirements on properties where a Historic Landmark Lot Split might occur.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: n/a.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Response: n/a.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: A well used quote within the preservation field is that "The greenest building is
the one that already exists." Staff believes that impacts on the natural environment are generally
reduced by historic preservation efforts.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
-4-
Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods
and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: n/a.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Response: Historic Preservation is a difficult task in Aspen because of high property
values. It is clear that the City must provide a workable historic preservation program and
benefits, which is addressed through these code amendments.
-5-
Ordinance #7
(SERIES OF 2011)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.480,
SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared amendments to Chapter 26.480
of the Aspen Municipal code, affecting historic landmark lot splits in the Mixed Use (MU) and
Commercial(C -1) zone districts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions,
or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented to the Aspen Historic Preservation
Commission on January 26, 2011 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter on February 1, 2011, took and considered
public testimony and the recommendations of the Community Development Director and
Historic Preservation Commission and recommended, by a 4 to 1 vote, City Council adopt
amendments to the land use code as written in Section 1, below, and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
• Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. Text removed loolis li ke
this:
• Text being added is bold and underlined. Text being added Ionics like this.
• Text which is not shown as strikethrough or underlined is not affected.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes
to the Municipal Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified
herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development
1
Director, Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code
meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with
the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1:
Chapter 26.480, Subdivision is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26.480.030. Exemptions.
The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this Chapter:
A. General exemptions.
1. Lot line adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the
following conditions are met:
a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or surveying error in a
recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent
parcels; and
b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the
application; and
c. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this Chapter and conform to the
requirements of this Title, including the dimensional requirements of the Zone
District in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming
lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat
shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder.
Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the
Community Development Director will be required before its acceptance and
recording; and
d. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights,
including any increase in FAR or permitted density of the affected lots by providing
the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. A plat note will be
added to the corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and the
recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the adjustment.
2
2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of
s ingle famil dw°"' ng creating one (1) additional development parcel on a lot
formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the
following conditions are met:
a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County
Commissioners or the City Council or the land is described as a metes and bounds
parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by
the City on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying Zone District. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to .
Chapter 26.470.
c. The lot under consideration or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption
pursuant to • .. Chapter 26.470.
d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter and conforms to the
requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk
and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for
these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter
26.470.
e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the
County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat
within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall
render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be
required for a showing of good cause.
f. In the case where an existing building occupies a site which
is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling building need not be demolished prior to
application for a lot split.
g. Maximum potential residential build -out for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split
shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single -
family home.
3. Approved subdivision. All subdivisions approved prior to the effective date of this
Chapter, except those lots contained within an approved subdivision which are intended
or designed to be resubdivided into smaller lots, condominium units or multi - family
dwellings.
3
4. Historic Landmark lot split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of • Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for • • : • • :: •• • • • : • • • • • •
remit the purpose of creating one (1) additional development parcel. The
Historic Landmark lot split shall meet the requirements of Subsections 26.480.030.A.2
and 4, . Chapter 26.470,
code - and the following standards:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and
be located in the R -6, R -15, R -15A, RMF, C or 0 MU Zone District.
b. The total FAR for both - residencies each lot shall be established by dividing the size
allowable floor area for a duplex or two detached residences on of the fathering
parcel and according to the Zone District where the property is located. The total
FAR for each lot shall be noted on the subdivision exemption plat. When the
property is redeveloped with any allowed uses other than single family or duplex
residential, refer to the Zone District for allowable FAR on each lot.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying
Zone District. The variances provided in • • ,
Chapter 26.415 as benefits for historic preservation are only permitted on the
parcels that will contains an historic structure. The F R s = "' he app - to
• •• • r , •: • .. • • . Only one (1) FAR bonus of un
to 500 square feet may be granted to each historic landmark lot split subdivision
exemption.
5. Exempt timesharing. The creation of time -span estates that comply with the
requirements for exempt timesharing, pursuant to Section 26.590.030 of the Code. This
subdivision exemption shall not be used to create any new lots or dwelling units. (Ord.
4
No. 55 -2000, §11; Ord. No. 1 -2002, §11, 2002; Ord. No. 9 -2002, §9; Ord. No. 21 -2002,
§7; Ord. No. 34 -2003, §1)
Section 2: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof'.
Section 4: Recordation
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this
Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of March, 2011, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of , 2011.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
5
Vl flc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: March 4, 2011
MEETING DATE: March 14, 2011
RE: Continued Second Reading Ordinance #3 -- Proposed Engineering Fees
SUMMARY: Staff is proposing Engineering Permit Review Fees to recover costs for staff time
associated with building permits. This is a continuation of the second reading.
PREVIOUS MEETINGS: At the January 3, 2011 work session, Council directed staff to proceed
with a fee structure that included a subsidy for those services that were associated with activities
related to public service.
The first reading of the proposed engineering fees occurred on February 14, 2011.
The second reading of the proposed engineering fees occurred on February 28, 2011.
DISCUSSION: Currently, fees are not charged for the engineering staff time associated with building
permit review and the related construction mitigation for these permits. By not charging engineering
fees, development is receiving "free" engineering services from the City. These services are subsidized
through a combination of the General Fund and the Stormwater Fund. Often times we will see an
application multiple times through several iterations because we are not charging for this service.
Staff is proposing to recover those costs associated with the staff time used toward building permits.
This represents a 65% subsidy in 2011 and 40% in future years. Those services associated with public
service will continue to be subsidized. Public service examples include pedestrian and transportation
safety, stormwater program activities, right of way (ROW) support and capital projects.
Based on the Department's activities, the costs to deliver development services was analyzed. This is
shown in Exhibit A. The Engineering permit review fee proposed will vary depending on project size,
i.e. the bigger the project the more time to review the application. The fee will not be implemented
until July 1, 2011. All basic and minor permit reviews will only be charged at 50% of the rate shown.
As part of the annual fee ordinance staff will revisit the fees with Council and at that time Council may
decide to fully implement the proposed fees.
A construction mitigation fee of $1 per gross square foot is proposed to cover those services directly
related to development. Fifty percent of this fee would be collected at permit submission and the
remaining upon permit issuance. Additionally a 10% refund of the construction mitigation fee
incentive will be available for clean sites. Furthermore, to help inform contractors and developers of
what it means to have a "clean" site, the Engineering staff will offer training opportunities on the
City's requirements for Construction Mitigation. This incentive will be refunded to qualifying sites at
certificate of occupancy issuance.
Exhibit B shows the proposed fees for engineering staff time for building permits and associated
construction mitigation. Affected Area will be used for the calculation of the Engineering permit
Review Fee. The affected area is the best way to apply an applicable fee to a project, because the
engineering review includes an analysis of the site such as drainage, grading, stabilization. Gross
square footage will be used for the calculation of the construction mitigation fee. Gross square footage
was used because it relates directly to the amount of inspection needed for a project.
Examples of what the fees would look like for a variety of scenarios is presented in Community
development's Memo. Exhibit C includes the estimated revenue of the proposed fees. Since the
activities associated with building permit review is spread across two funds, (General Fund and the
Stormwater Fund) the revenue will be distributed proportionally across these funds, refer to Exhibit D.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: With the adoption of the proposed fees, the costs associated with
building permit and land use review (approx $714,000) would be recovered.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Engineering Development fees as proposed
in the ordinance included in Exhibit E.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # amending the municipal code of
the City of Aspen to increase certain Engineering Fees."
ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fees.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments
Exhibit A - Engineering Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation
Exhibit B - Proposed Fee Structure
Exhibit C - Revenue Estimate
Exhibit D - Fee Ordinance
•
Exhibit A
2011 Engineering Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation
Non
Compensation Recoverable Recoverable
Payroll $596,259 $389,233 $207,025
,.. Operating • rt
Non
Avg. Expense Recoverable Recoverable
Administration (15000) $260,930 5170,330 590,600
Remodel Depreciation $120,000 $78,340 541,660
Total Operating $380,930 $248,670 $132,260
� ... :x �: ®Vi:rhead �:�- _.. r a :' b. ....j.. .. �.
... Non
Expense Recoverable Recoverable
Overhead (IT and GF) $225,540 $147,230 $78,310
q , ti ;
Recoverable Non
Type Total Expense Recoverable
Payroll $596,259 $389,233 $207,025
Operating Expenditures $380,930 $248,670 $132,260
Overhead $225,540 5147,230 578,310
Total $1,202,729 $785,133 $417,595
Billable Hours 2,954
$265.82
Cost /Hour
Exhibit C
Proposed Engineering Development Fee Structure
Engineering Permit Review Fee
Affected Area Fee
Basic review* = 200 - 500 sq.ft. $530.00
Minor Review* = 501 - 1000 sq.ft. $1325.00
Major Review = 1001 — 15,000 sq.ft. $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000
Above 15,000 $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 and up
to 15,000 + .10 per square foot over 15,000
*The Basic and Minor review fees will not be fully implemented at this time, as a result these
fees will be discounted by 50%
Additional plan review required by changes, additions, revisions to plans $265/hr
(Minimum charge %z hr)
Construction Mitigation Fee
400 - 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project.
Above 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project up to 15,000 sq.ft. + $.05
per square foot of project over 15,000 sf.
Note: Fifty percent of the construction mitigation fee will be collected at permit submission and
the remaining upon permit issuance.
Incentive: For those sites that are clean for the duration of construction, a 10% refund of the
Construction Mitigation Fee will be credited to the site when the certificate of occupancy is
issued
. .
Revenue Estimate
"Normal" Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate _ Estimate
ar 4 .
;Engi :. _. S# , ... T „, Jill
Construction Mitigation Fee $0 $78,120 $156,240 $162,500
Land Use Engineering Review $6,000 595,400 $190,800 $198,400
Building Permit Engineering Review $0 $123,150 $246,300 $256,200
ROW & Enc Fees 590,940 $90,940 $90,940 $94,600
Total Engineering $96,940 $387,610 $684,280 $711,700
Revenue
Land Use Engineering Review $0 $10,600 $21,200 $22,048
Building Permit Engineering Review $0 $52,750 $105,500 $109,720
Total Stormwater $0 $63,350 $126,700 $131,768
A
Exhibit D
Ordinance No.
Series of 2011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE
CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES
WHEREAS, The City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of
the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fee that fairly approximate the
costs of providing such programs and services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not
raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO;
Section 1.
That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets forth International Building and Residential Code Permit fees, is hereby amended to include
the following additional section:
2.12.100 (0 Engineering Development Fees
Engineering Permit Review Fee
Affected Area Fee
Basic review* = 200 - 500 sq.ft. $530.00
Minor Review* = 501 - 1000 sq.ft. $1325.00
Major Review = 1001 — 15,000 sq.ft. $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000
Above 15,000 $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 and up
to 15,000 + .10 per square foot over 15,000
*The Basic and Minor review fees will not be fully implemented at this time, as a result these
fees will be discounted by 50%
Additional plan review required by changes, additions, revisions to plans $265/hr
(Minimum charge Yz hr)
Construction Mitigation Fee
400 - 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project.
Above 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project up to 15,000 sq.ft. + $.05
per square foot of project over 15,000 sf.
Note: Fifty percent of the construction mitigation fee will be collected at permit submission and
the remaining upon permit issuance.
Incentive: For those sites that are clean for the duration of construction, a 10% refund of the
Construction Mitigation Fee will be credited to the site when the certificate of occupancy is
issued
Section 2:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action
or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided,
and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4:
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
Mick Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved, this day of
Mick Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
el\---c 1. ___
Original Proposal Scenario 1 — 50% fees — All Permits
15% Subsidy = $620,000 per year 44% Subsidy = $1.77 Million per year
General Fund Subsidy Levels General Fund Subsidy Levels
100% $1,850,000 100% i $1,850,000
80% • 80% ' $2,350,000
6D% 81,420,000 60%.
$1,775,000 $1,775,000
amp $620,000 $620,000 ao% -
20% 20% - -
0% • 0% —
"Normal "Year 2011 Es ti mate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate 'Norma l "Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate
am Community Development ME Engineering •••—ComDu /Engineering r• Community Development ∎Engineering 4—ComDev /Engineering
Scenario 2 — 50% fees — Projects up to $250,000 Scenario 3 — 75% fees — Projects up to $200,000
No "credits" for larger projects No "credits" for larger projects
28% Subsidy = $1.13 Million per year 22% Subsidy = $890,000 per year
General Fund Subsidy Levels
General Fund Subsidy Levels
$1,850,000
100% • $1,850 000
o%
80c _ $1,915,000
$2 030 000 w %'
6oX 6d%. 5890,000 5890,000
$1,130,000 $1,130,000 _ _ _
: J . j j
20% • 20% --
0% 0%
' Normal'Ysar 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate Normal" Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate
W IMC DmdOpme0 NM Engin.ring i— CanlDev/Englnering _ - Community Development ■ Engineering -r- Compev /Engineering
Scenario 4 — 50% fees — Projects up to $100,000 Scenario 5 — 50% fees — Commercial up to 5250,000
75% fees — $100,000 - $250,000 No "credits" for larger projects. No reduction on Residential
"Credit" applies to larger projects 20% Subsidy = $830,000 per year
25% Subsidy = $1 Million per year _ -----
General Fund Subsidy Levels
Moscow
General Fund Subsidy Levels 100%
81,850,000 S0,a85,000
100%
$1,985,000 60% $1130,000 Eaa0.000
80 %• _
60% i $1,030,000 $1,030,000 40%
2D% -
40% I
20% • n • - _,-
"Normal" Year Estimate r 2011maa 20126tlm.te 2019 Estimate v.l
0% ■ community D.opment — --
Enaln..ring •0
"Namur Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Wheat. 2013 Estimate -- .__
— Community Dev lupmnt elm Engineering —II— CernDetiEnsi nesting
1
__ ___ h N^ h 1 0 0- 0 CO M 0 'n 'C) 0 0 0
p N N u) N 1 0 09 `O `O 0 M C 41 M O
7.' a ^ o r, Lo
d, 2 0
a
E oo ° o `.
o 'p O N Z.
N
O a 1.5- N
V u
'O'
o
in
tR AA
8 h CO -o 'n LO - a O co c•, CO M 4- N o 0 0
O ' N N n ' N '0 ' CO ,0 ' 0 .0 . CO_ N (D CO (O
✓ ° E •-•
d o 'o r, u
h o a,
o va.o 2
o o 0.
O O 0
• O .o n •G
N
O eR a NF �
p m c
O 0
w o 3 7.
10 u)• el4 U3
N
in '0 Co N 'n 'n CO 0 00 . 4 . a 01 r` °'''2 °3
0 0
E 0 CO CO 'n N. a) co •O P co CO '0 V 'n N
N a ' ' 'rl K) N N C) •
' O ' ' N 0- ' ' ' ■ h N c0 (0
(.j -- - 00 ,n .- CO
O O a,
a O O
O a
a O 01
E O
Vl N
O V
0
CV 3 (fl
u, 0 vl -LO 'n 0- 0 Co 0) 0 in .■ 'C) o 0 • 0
0 N 04 'n h 'n C7 -O `O 0 M M o co (D
.O
d O - ' ^ N N ' N , 0 ' CO ,0 i ' ' ' 0' ^ ^ O
. O O
al
M 'n
a o
0 a
a O N
E in >
N N =
a O V u
c
m 0N ) o
a H 44 , 3 4A- 40). 64
a
C % O O O
a 0 0) in 'n - 'n 'n P 0 co co 0 'n l C) 0 0 0
0 E li. 0 0 N N 'n N. 'n CO .0 ' ' 0 M C1 O M . - (0
_
Q a . '^ - ' N N N 40 CO .O o 0 N 'n O
• O E
a:: E 0 , ^ .o o — 'C)
O0 c a a.
E a Q >
E m o 0
E m o c
0 0
in
in. (A
p Q T 'v) 0 co 'n 'n 0o 0 V 'n R 0 0 0 o 0 • 0
o -o N 0 'n V 'n N. 0 40 N M CO r (O N O
' ' V N N N ' 'n N U 0) ' ' ' ' ' 00 0• N N
p 0 O• V > - ' M N '- ' ' O •O N cc
- m
- 'Y
0 O
- 0
a
- C
LL w
c 0
a 0 .
c a o 4/1- . w (e
01 `
r _ _
Ts 'n N N h h N .0 o 0 0
O N (0 0 Lo N N N a; !~
d - — C'1 N M
E
O 0
o
. x
W
VY
I U O
di
O M , N i 0 0
N. h cr.- N
d i i
o E
n.
O)
O 0 0 O
O a`
I, m
E v >
E N `c
O w y
V V
0 3
0
Lo an .n. to
'0 .0 v) V N h N N h N o 0 0
0 i N — N ‘.0 N i 0, 0 N O M V'
0 O
O O
0 o E
O O 2
c O "^
V
O
v' 2 a `
M"0 >
. a
't 0
O N
d °. ur v
, e
O 0
• 3
N
N {A. fA
CO V 61 `O N W P. Y) m 1A o 0 e-
el N N wl O• a N O N` V N
0 E
O
o O 01
0. O O
= O O.
O p 0
v E ) ( O >
! '
c
•
0 V r
N
• 3
a uF 69
'0 'O h Q N 0) N N N N o 0 0
N- N � N 0, 0 N 0 N M V
z E
N O
E 0 o
= o n.
O O 0
o .
E a - a c
RS m 0 V e
N
O x 0
p I Lo
C N
N N N N y.. (A
❑. E LL
U
< a •E p un O h V N v) N N .0 N o 0 0
N N N CI O N O <h V ■
Y ,I
a)4 .. E - o
U 0 co E m
T .PI W P
....o o. o.
E 0 a ">
E m c d
0
U h o E
o
■n 3
M N 0)
O 0 O M '0 CO M O CO M 0 M o .. 0
O '0 U) M N •'O M 0 h M (() N 11) N.
O
3
o
Z
m
a
0
E
N (n y, 6s
ac
O N 0) M W) •O ,- 0 0 0
M , (1 N N N Y1 M M '0 0 (O
C . , . . N — . . , i . h )0 . N
v
a
a ,
o: am
0
.%
W
69 M VF co
N V m N V N O m 0 0 0 M m 'O ..0 .- 00 0 o 0 0
N (b 0 0 CO CO N V N V O N 'n O CO M C) Lt) . V'
�) E O N CO O O O •O O N N CO M CO O O n N
r u 0 t\ O V V 00 ^ N
N O 07 N ' C`')
E o 0
E `u
O 4)
O ( 0 j
V ' � .-
' O. ER v
O
\° V a
11)
O
ER ER EA
6 N V CO N N N 0' 0J '0 0 0 CO CO 0 'O M O 'O 0) 0 0 0
O N co 0 0 n N. N V O V 0- 'O LO G V• h N 1 V r N
0 E 'O N co O u) O' O '0 'O N N CO '0 00 0' 'Cr V C .- N
V N d a IN O V V CV m 0 O' cM
O
" di O evf O 0
•o Q , 0 O..
v
' • O N_ O >
- O N C
AA- O. VA N
\° C
LP- u. r
0 13
,) a 3
io
N
in N V CO N V N CA. CO 0 0 O M in CO 'O •0 . - CO O o 0 0
I. CO 0 O M M N C' N V O - N n ' 0. CO M CA 1.0 a- [I'
d a � N CO O 'O 0 'O ' O C ' N CO M ' CO O' ' h 0^ N. N
0 co O V I7 V -- — m ^ N
o. o
O N M
= 0 0
O E o >
N 04 ... C
• F
v
O V ''
0
o
O1
N +A- Vi- EA
w N V CO N V N o CO 0 0 0 CO u) 00 AO 'O - OO O o 0 0
N E N co 0 O M C') N V N V 0.- N u) 0' cO CO O LO - .t
N 00 0 .- 'O 0 'O ' O N ' N CO M ' CO 0' h 0 . N. N
' 'O p 0 0) •— t� 0 V I: -cr
' .- ,- .- 00 ^ N
O N '0 co
Q.
= 0 0.
E. v a d m
of >
E0 N N '
N EA
Q
X O V C
0
0 I 0
C C N h • 3 ER VF EA
Q. LL
a a = N `Cr CO N I. 0' 0' co 'C) O O M M 00 'O N O V) O o 0 0
N E N co o o 'O — N `Al' C) V 0 'O 'C) CT M .0 h CO M t
N .. . O '0 N 00 0 h CO 0 'O ' L) N ' N CO 'O ' m O' ' ' '0 'O V' CO N
.? (U a. E — 0 1' ( ' - — 00 et n
0 0 cm c N .41
M
2-• . `m
-p 0. S
E m Q >
E m c
0 0 o a,
U c c
0
in
AA- ER EA
0 M N V CO N Q h 0' CO ON N O M 'n 00 'O C') 0 O f� 0 0 0
0 0 N. co 0 0 M M N V N N O O N 'O CT et N N LC) Zr
N 0- 'O N CO 0 .- 'O 0 'O ' 0 Cl ' N 0' CO ' CO 0' ' 0' N N CO) N
(T R O V I: V — 0 V' CV
v) N `O CO
N
N
z
4'
O
E
N H4 -401- EA
OC
O N V CO N V O- 0' C 0 0 00 'O 0 M N o 0 0
.= N. m O O 'n N V 0 'C) o' 00 CO N O 0)
N 'O N CO 0 N 'n O 'O N N CO O' AT O'
"a — N. O V N — .— c 0' c7
N O N N
GC G
N
.
W
C U . O
O
MEMORANDUM
\f t
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE: March 14, 2011 �/V �►
RE: Community Development Fees — Continued from 2.28.11
2"" Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2011
SUMMARY:
Community Development is proposing changes to the fees charged to applicants for planning
and building services. City Council reviewed the proposal on February 28 and directed
staff to pursue a few amendments.
Delayed effective date. City Council suggested the implementation of new fees be delayed.
July 1 was suggested. Staff has made this change in the ordinance and has modified the
financial forecasts accordingly.
Incentive program for "model" applications. ComDev is pursuing several changes to the
overall permitting system. One change is expected to bring welcomed time savings to the
Zoning Officer's review of building permits. Applicants currently submit plans for zoning
compliance is many different formats — for every architect or project designer, there is yet
another different way of depicting a building and its floor area, height, net leasable space,
etc. Attempting to be fluent in multiple languages slows the zoning review.
Staff has been working with a few architects to develop a standard zoning submittal. The
architects that have been involved have been very open and adaptable. With a July 1
effective date, staff will be able to finalize this submittal format and have some outreach with
the design community. Staff expects applications submitted in this new format will take less
time to review. Staff recommends a 10% discount of the zoning review fee for projects
submitted in this standard.
Reduced permit fees for "small" projects. The previous proposal provided low flat fees for
projects of $10,000 and less. The fees increased with larger valuations with 100%
recoupment accomplished for projects of $100,000. With this proposal in place, the overall
subsidy of development services was about 15% or $620,000 per year.
Council was interested in reviewing a system with lower fees for projects through
approximately $250,000. It's important to understand that 94% of permits are $250,000 and
less. Even in robust years, these permits represent 90 +% of the total. So, reducing fees for
these projects has a significant impact on the subsidy level.
It is also important to compare lower development fees with other priorities of the general
fund. Some scenarios may not represent an appropriate balance. Staff has provided three
options:
1
Option #1 — Charging 50% of General Fund Subsidy Levels
51.850.000
permit fees for all projects. This
approach results in a future annual 100 :2.350.000
subsidy of approximately 44% or g °" $1,775, 51.775.000
$1,775,000 for development 609
40%
services. 2 0%
0% •
"Norma l " Yea r 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate
Community Development MINI Engineering —•— ComDev/Engi neer i ng
Option #2 — Charging 50% of General Fund Subsidy Levels
permit fees for projects of s'''ue
$250,000 or less. This approach 100% $2,030.000
80%
results in a future annual subsidy of 60%
approximately 28% or $1,130,000 -- $1,130,000 $1,130,000
40%
for development services. 428% ,28%
20%
"Normal" Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Esti mate 2013 Estimate
Community Development ® Engineering • ComDev /Engineering
Option #3 — Charging 75% of General Fund Subsidy Levels
8" 31,830,°00
permit fees (a 25% reduction) for
projects of $200,000 and under. $1,915,000
This approach results in a future 60°h
$890,000
annual subsidy of approximately 40, $e90000
22% or $890,000 for development
20%
services.
"Normal" Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate
Elm Community Development Engineering — — ComDev /Engl neering _.
It is expected that the discount would be reconsidered every year or two to ensure alignment
with City Council policy.
Staff does not support option #1. This option represents a subsidy of development far
beyond what staff believes is appropriate for Aspen. Too many other general fund priorities
of the City would need to be shelved to support this level of development assistance.
Staff recommends adoption of option #3. This level of subsidy is more in -line with
community expectations and previous direction from City Council. It represents a
development subsidy comparable to similar communities staff has researched — Vail,
Boulder, Maui, Laguna Beach, and Marin County. City Council could also consider
• implementing option #2 through 2011 and then implementing option #3 for 2012.
In all of the above options, permit fees for projects of less than $10,000 are lower. These
small projects represent about 50% of the number of permits issued by the City each year.
2
BACKGROUND: (From previous memo)
Community Development is within the General Fund of the City. Any subsidy of the
planning and building functions is essentially a cost to the general public. Currently,
revenues do not cover the expenses and the public is subsidizing these services. This holds
true in future projections promoting the need to address the issue by either accepting the
deficit, ensuring development fees cover the costs of services, or a combination thereof.
City Council reviewed the planning and building functions and how the costs of services
should be allocated as either a public service or a development service. Based on this
direction, staff time for the planning and building divisions is allocated as follows:
Planning Department Activities
Development Service Public
Title Direct Indirect Service
Admin Asst 2% 50% 48%
Administrative Manager 2% 50% 48%
ComDev Director 12% 61% 27%
Deputy Planning Director 26% 49% 25%
Historic Preservation Officer 31% 42% 27%
Long Range Planner 8% 61% 31%
Planner 36% 43% 21%
Senior Planner 37% 44% 19%
Special Projects Planner 6% 55% 39%
Zoning Enforcement Officer 39% 31% 30%
Temp 0% 50% 50%
Total Employees: 1.7 4.6 2.9
Building Department Activities
Development Service Public
Title Direct Indirect Service
Admin Asst. 15% 65% 20%
Admin Asst. 15% 65% 20%
Building Inspector 50% 28% 22%
Chief Building Official 5% 59% 36%
Joint Combo Inspector 30% 24% 46%
Field Inspection Manager 18% 50% 32%
Plans Examination Manager 40% 50% 10%
Plans Examiner 30% 50% 20%
Administrative Manager 0% 42% 58%
ComDev Director 0% 27% 73%
Total Employees: 1.3 4 2.6
Considering the Planning Division's payroll, operating, and overhead expenditures an hourly
rate for time directly associated with a planning case should be $330 per hour. Staff is
proposing an hourly rate of $315 to align with the Pitkin County rate.
3
Planning Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation
- Payroll
2011 Total Recoverable Recoverable Non
Name Compensation Direct Not Direct Recoverable
Total Payroll $935,195 $183,114 $462,518 $289,563
Operating Expenditures
Area Avg. Expense
Joint Administration (13000) $17,500
Planning (13200) $60,850
Historic (13400) $1,500
Code Amend. - 3/4 of average $75,000
AACP - 3/4 of average $115,000
Special Projects - average $25,000
Tech. Services - Average $55,000
Total Operating Expenditures $334,850
Overhead
Expense
2011 Allocation $334,664
Total
Type Expense
Payroll $645,632
Operating Expenditures $334,850
Overhead $334,664
Total Recoverable Costs $1,315,146
Billable Hours 4,027
Cost/Hour $330.27
4
The same calculation method applied to the Building Division results in an hourly rate of $262.
Staff is proposing a fee structure based on an hourly rate of $250 for building services.
Building Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation
Pay/o11
2011 Total Recoverable Recoverable Non
Name Compensation Direct Not Direct Recoverable
Total Payroll $848,388 $158,736 $369,724 $319,928
Operating Expenditures
Area Avg. Expense
Joint Electrical (21100) $2,750
Building (21000) $197,770
Litigation /Arbitration $50,000
Special Projects $25,000
Total Operating Expenditures $275,520
Overhead
Expense
2011 Allocation $189,470
Total
Type Expense
Payroll $528,460
Operating Expenditures $275,520
Overhead $189,470
Total Recoverable Costs $993,450
Billable Hours 3,786
Cost/Hour $262.43
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move the approval of Ordinance No. 4, Series 2011."
5
ORDINANCE NO. 4
Series of 2011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND
CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of
the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the
costs of providing such programs and services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not
raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth certain user fees for Building Permit and Inspection Services, is hereby amended to read as
described in Exhibit A.
Section 2.
That Section 26.104.070 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets forth certain user fees for Land Use Applications for planning or historic preservation
review, is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit B.
Section 3.
That Section 26.104.071 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
did set forth certain fees for historic preservation review, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26.104.071— Reserved.
Section 4.
That Section 26.104.072 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets forth certain fees for zoning review and inspection services of a building permit application,
is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit C.
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 28 day of February, 2011, and the 14 day of
March, 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 14 day of February, 2011.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
1
Sec. 2.12.100 — BUILDING PERMIT FEES Exhibit A
The Chief Building Official may establish policies for estimating permit valuation,
including policies and procedures for accepting applicant- submitted project valuation,
which may include post - project audit and fee reconciliation requirements.
Notwithstanding the building permit fee schedule, City Council may authorize a
reduction or waiver of building permit fees, engineering review fees, or construction
mitigation fees as deemed appropriate. The Community Development Director shall
waive building permit fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen
consistent with City policy.
The Community Development Director may reduce building permit review fees by no
more than 50% for projects with a fee significantly disproportionate to the service
requirements.
The City may not waive or reduce fees collected on behalf of a separate government
agency. The City may not reduce or waive a tax.
This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after July 1, 2011.
Permit Valuation Fee Schedule
Permit Valuation Fee based on Valuation
$0 - $5,000 $25.00 Flat fee
$5,001 to $10,000 $50.00 Flat fee
$10,001 to $100,000 $50 plus 3.5% of permit valuation over $10,000
$100,001 to $250,000 $3,200 plus 2.5% of permit valuation over $100,000
$250,001 to $500,000 $6,950 plus 2.0% of permit valuation over $250,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $11,950 plus 1.65% of permit valuation over $500,000
$1,000,001 to $2,500,000 $20,200 plus 1.25% of permit valuation over
$1,000,000
$2,500,001 to $5,000,000 $38,950 plus 1.0% of permit valuation over
$2,500,000
$63,950 plus .75% of permit valuation over
$Above $5,000,000 $5,000,000 and 0.5% of permit valuation over
$10,000,000
Hourly Buildino Permit Review Fee
$250 per hour
Fees Due Upon Permit Acceptance:
Plan Check Fee
65% of the Permit Valuation Fee. For 2011, projects with valuation between $10,001
and $250,000 shall pay 50% of the plan check fee.
Energy Code Review Fee For 2011, projects with valuation between $10,001 l
15% of the Permit Valuation Fee. land $250,000 shall pay 50% of the energy code fee.
Fire Plan Check
65% of the Permit Valuation Fee.
This fee is based on the valuation of the sprinkler system only
Fees Dues Upon Permit Issuance:
Building Permit Fee
100% of the Permit Valuation Fee. For 2011, projects with valuation between $10,001
and $250,000 shall pay 50% of the building permit fee.
Fire Sprinkler Permit Fee
100% of Permit Valuation Fee.
This fee is based on the valuation of the sprinkler system only
REMP Fees - as applicable
See Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program or Commercial Renewable Energy
Mitigation Program, as applicable.
Use Tax Deposit - City of Aspen
2.1% of value of materials for projects over $100,000
[(Project Valuation - $100,000.00) X .5] X 2.1%
Use Tax Deposit - Pitkin County
0.5% of value of materials
(Project Valuation X .5) X .5%
Geographic Information Systems Fee
Only applies to permits changing the footprint of a building. Interior work is exempt.
$250.00
Fees Dues Upon Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection
Fee Reconciliation
Payment and reconcilliation of all plans review, change order, inspection fees as
applicable. Adjustments in project valuation are subject to department policy.
Use Tax Adjustment - City of Aspen
Final Use Tax calculation minus Original Use Tax calculation
Adjustment and reconcilitation occurs 30 days after issuance of a CO.
Use Tax Adjustment - Pitkin County
Pursuant to Pitkin County Use Tax Policy
Change Order Fees
Applications for change orders shall cause a new project valuation. The change order fees shall
be based on this revised permit valuation. Fees for the previously submitted permit application
shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Not all change orders will require
additional fees in each fee category. A change order fee applies each time a change order is
submitted. A change order may propose multiple changes and applicants are encourage to
"bundle" their change order requests to minimize fees.
Change Order Fee - Plans Examination
Minor Change Order - Projects with a valuation of $500,000 or less.
Greater of 5% of revised Permit Valuation Fee or $250
Major Change Order - Projects with a valuation more than $500,000.
Greater of 10% of revised Permit Valuation Fee or $500
Change Order Fee - Energy Code
10% of original Energy Code fee
Change Order Fee - Fire Sprinkler
Pursuant to Aspen Fire Protection District Policy
Special Services Fees
Expedited/Phased Permit Fee - applies to the issuance of an Excavation/Foundation only
35% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Fee is in addition to fees due upon issuance of a full building
permit.
Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection
$250.00 per reinspection
After Hours Inspection Fee
$250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection.
Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no permit is required or no fee is otherwise established
$250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection.
Building Permit Extension Fee - for each extension
$125.00 Projects with a valuation of $500,000 or less.
$250.00 Projects with a valuation of more than $500,000.
Certificate of Occupancy Fee
No charge
Conditional Certificate of Occupancy - Valid for a limited period
$250.00 for first CCO issued
$500.00 for second CCO issued
$1,000.00 for third and subsequent CCO issued. Issuance is at the
discretion of the Chief Building Official
Enforcement Fees and Penalties
No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full.
Violations of this policy are subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as assigned by the Municipal
Court Judge
Stop Work Order or Correction Notice Fee - Assesment for non - permitted work:
1st Infraction Double Permit Valuation Fee
2nd Infraction Four times the Permit Valuation Fee
3rd Infraction Contractor License subject to suspension or
revocation plus eight times the Permit Valuation Fee.
Enforcement Penalties and Fees
For violations of the adopted building codes other than a stop work order or correction notice,
the Chief Building Official may issue a Municipal Court citation. Fees, fines, and penalties by
citation for violations of the Building Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge
according to the scope and duration of the offense. Penalties may include: revocation of
Contractor License(s); prohibition of any work on the property for a period of time; recovery of
costs to the public for any required remediation of the site; additional Building Permit Review
Fees; fees to recover administrative costs required by City staff to address the violation; and,
other fees, fines, and penalties or assesments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge.
Renewable Energy Mitigation Fees
RREMP (Residential)
Exterior Energy Use Calculations
Snowmelt: $34.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress, or life safety may be snow
melted with the approval of the Chief Building Official.
Outdoor Pool: $136.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Package, or portable self- contained, spas not more that 64 square feet are exempt
Roof and gutter deicing systems:
The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the
roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the
sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation
calculated above.
On -Site Renewable Credits
Photovoltaic Systems: $6,250 per 1 KiloWatt of the system (certain restrictions apply).
Solar Hot Water: $125 per 1 square foot of the system design
Ground Source Heat Pump: $1,400.00 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity
(certain restrictions apply).
CREMP (Commercial)
Exterior Energy Use Calculations
Snowmelt: $60.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress, or life safety may be snow
melted with the approval of the Chief Building Official.
Outdoor Pool: $170.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Package spas not more that 64 square feet are exempt
Roof and gutter deicing systems:
The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the
roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the
sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation
calculated above.
On -Site Renewable Credits
Photovoltaic Systems: $6,250 per 1 KiloWatt of the system (certain restrictions apply).
Solar Hot Water: $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design (certain restrictions apply).
Ground Source Heat Pump: $1,400.00 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity
(certain restrictions apply).
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
Section A: Residential Fees
This fee, based on the enclosed living area only, includes construction of, or remodeling or
addition to a: single family home, duplex, condominium, or townhouse
If you are ONLY changing or providing a service and not wiring any portion of the above, see
section B below for correct permit fee.
LIVING AREA
Not more than 1,000 s.f. $115.00
1,001 to 1,500 s.f $172.50
1,501 to 2,000 s.f $230.00
More than 2,000 s.f Base fee of $230.00 plus
$11.50 per 100 s.f over 2,000
Example:
The home is 2,235 s.f.
The base fee for 2,000 s.f. (of the 2,235 s.f. total) is $230 $230.00
The remaining 235 s.f. is rounded up to 300 s.f. (3 x $11.50 = $34.50) $34.50
Total fee is: $264.50
Section B: All Other Fees
Including some residential installations that are not based on square footage (not in a living
area, i.e. garage, shop, and photovoltaic, etc.). Fees in this section are calculated from the total
cost to customer, including electrical materials, items and labor - whether provided by the
contractor or the property owner. Use this chart for a service connection, a temporary meter,
and all commercial installations. Such fees shall be computed as follows: (See 'C' below for the
permit fees for mobile /modular home and travel trailer parks).
Valuation of Installation: (based on cost to customer of labor, materials, and items):
Not more than $2,000.00 $115.00
$2,001.00 and above $11.50 per thousand OR FRACTION
thereof PLUS $115.00
Example:
The cost of installation is $5,150 (round up to $6,000)
The base fee is calculated as: 6 x $11.50 = $69 PLUS $115
Total fee is: $184.00
Section C: Mobile Homes and Travel parks, per space $115.00
Section D: Reinspections $57.50
Section E: Extra Inspections $57.50
Section F: Temporary Heat Release $57.50
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Permit Issuance and Heaters
1 For the issuance of each mechanical permit $62.50
2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00
canceled or had a final inspection
Unit Fee Schedule (Note: the following does not include permit issuing fee)
1 Furnaces
For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $62.50
including ducts and vents attached to each appliance up to and including 100,000
Btu /h (29.3 kW)
For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $62.50
including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/ h (29.3 kW)
For the installation or relocation of floor furnace, including vent $62.50
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed well heater or $62.50
floor- mounted unit heater
2 Appliance Vents $31.25
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and
not included with unit heater
3 Repairs and Additions $31.25
For the repair of, or addition of each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling
unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling
system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical code
4 Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 $62.50
horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu /h
(29.3 kW)
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower $125.00
(10.6 kW) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW), or each absorption system
over 100,000 Btu /h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW)
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower $166.67
(52.7 kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW) Or each absorption system
over 500,000 Btu /h (146.6 kW) to and Including 1,000,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW)
For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower $250.00
(105.5 kW) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system
over 1,000,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu /h (512.9 kW)
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower $312.50
(176 kW) or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu /h (512.9 kW)
5 Air Handlers
For each air - handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 $31.25
Us), including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does not apply to an air -
handling unit which is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance, cooling unit,
evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the
Mechanical Code.
For each air - handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 L /s) $62.50
6 Evaporative Coolers
For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $31.25
7 Ventilation and Exhaust
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $25.00
For each ventilation system which is a portion of any heating or air cooling system $31.25
authorized by a permit
For the installation of each hood which is served by the mechanical exhaust, $31.25
including the ducts for such hood
8 Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but is $31.25
not classed in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in
the table.
Other Fees - Mechanical
Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection
$250.00 per reinspection
After Hours Inspection Fee
$250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection.
Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established
$250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection.
Change Orders - Mechanical
$250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or
revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour.
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Permit Issuance
1 For the issuance of each plumbing permit $62.50
2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00
cancelled or finaled
Unit Fee Schedule (does not include permit - issuing fee)
1 Fixtures and Vents
For Each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, $25.00
drainage piping and backflow protection thereof)
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $12.50
2 Sewers, Disposal Systems and Interceptors
For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $250.00
For each cesspool $500.00
For each private sewage disposal system $1,000.00
For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, $62.50
excepting kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as traps
Rainwater systems, per drain (inside buildings) $31.25
3 Water Piping and Water Heaters
For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water treating equipment, or $25.00
both. Fee for each.
For each water heater including vent $31.25
4 Gas Piping Systems
For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $12.50
For each additional outlet over five, each $6.25
5 Lawn Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices
For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including Back -flow protection $25.00
devices thereof.
For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers or backflow protection devices not included
in Item 1:
1 to 5 devices $25.00
Over 5 devices, each $6.25
For each backflow- protection device other than atmospheric -type vacuum breakers:
2 inches (50.88 mm) and smaller $31.25
Over 2 inches (50.88 mm) $50.00
6 Swimming Pools
For each swimming pool or spa:
Public pool $1,500.00
Public spa $750.00
Private pool $500.00
Private spa $250.00
7 Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Plumbing Code but not $31.25
classed in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this
code
Other Fees - Plumbing
Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection
$250.00 per reinspection
After Hours Inspection Fee
$250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection.
Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established
$250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection.
Change Orders - Plumbing
$250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or
revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour.
Sec. 26.104.070 - PLANNING & HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW FEES
Exhibit B
Hourlv Review Fee $315 per hour
No Charge Planning and Historic Preservation Services
Applies to:
$0 Pre - Application / Pre - Permit meetings
Call -in, walk -in development questions
GMQS - SF or Dx on Historic Landmark
Historic Designation
Hist. Pres. - Exempt Development
Hist. Pres. - Minor Amendment, HPO Review
Hist. Pres. - Minor Amendment, Monitor Review
Development Order Publication Fee
Note: Applicant meetings with the Zoning Officer or a Planner to discuss prospective planning
applications or prospective building permit applications are a free service and staff time is not
charged to the applicant. However, this service is limited to the time reasonably necessary for
understanding a project's requirements, review procedures, city regulations, etc. An applicant
shall be billed for any pre - application or pre - permit staff time significantly in excess of that which is
reasonably necessary. Billing will be at the Planning /Zoning hourly billing rate. The applicant will
be notified prior to any billing for pre - application or pre - permit service.
Planning Review - Administrative, Flat Fees
Applies to:
Flat Fee 1 $79 GMQS - Temporary Food Vending
Code Interpretation, formal issuance
Historic Pres. - Cert of No Negative Effect
Flat Fee 2 $158 Temporary Use, admin.
Flat Fee 3 $315 GMQS - SF or Dx replacement - cash -in -lieu
GMQS - SF or Dx replacement - ADU, admin.
GMQS - Change -in -use for Historic landmark
GMQS - Minor Enlargement for Historic landmark
GMQS - Alley Store
GMQS - Exemption from MF Housing Replacement
Flat Fee 4 $630 Residential Design Variance, admin.
GMQS - Minor Enlargement, non - historic
Planning Review - Administrative, Hourly Fee
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
2 $630 Review of Condominium plats or amendments. Review
time for City Attorney and other referral departments also
applies and is billed at same hourly rate. Review time for
City Engineer is billed at the rate stated below.
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
3 $945 Recordation Documents Review - review of subdivision
plats, subdivision exemption plats (except condo), PUD
plans, development agreements, subdivision agreements,
PUD or SPA agreements, or amendments to recorded
documents. Review time for City Attorney and other
referral departments also applies and is billed at same
rate. Review time for City Engineer is billed at the rate
stated below.
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
4 $1,260 Admin. Cond. Use or Special Review
Admin. ESA or ESA exemption
Admin. Subdivision - Lot Line Adjustment
Admin. PUD or SPA Amendments
Admin. Commercial Design Review Amendment
Exempt Timesharing
Plus hourly rate $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If
case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be
refunded.
Referal Agency Fees - Admin. reviews, as applicable
$265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case
$630 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee
$630 City Parks Department, flat fee
$630 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee
Planning Review - One -Step, Hourly Fee
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
4 $1,260 Historic Pres. - Minor Development
Historic Pres. - Major Development up to 1,000 s.f.
Temporary Use, City Council
Vested Rights Extension, City Council
Appeals of Administrative or Board Decisions
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
6 $1,890 Historic Pres. - Major Development over 1,000 s.f.
Historic Pres. - Demolitions and Off-Site Relocations
Historic Pres. - Substantial Amendment
Board of Adjustment variance
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
10 $3,150 Growth Management - Minor P &Z (incl. AH certificate)
Conditional Use
Special Review (incl. ADU @ P &Z)
Environmentally Sensitive Area Review
Residential Design Variance - P &Z
Minor Subdivision - Lot Split, Historic Lot Split
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
14 $4,410 PUD Amendment - P &Z only
SPA Amendment - P &Z only
Commercial Design Review, Conceptual or Final
Growth Management - Major P &Z, or City Council
Subdivision "other" review - City Council only
Plus hourly rate $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If
case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be
refunded.
Referal Agency Fees - one -step reviews, as applicable
$265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case
$945 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee
$945 City Parks Department, flat fee
$945 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee
Planning Review - Two -Step, Hourly Fee
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to:
24 $7,560 Subdivision
Land Use Code Amendment
Rezoning or Initial Zoning (Annexations)
Plus hourly rate $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If
case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be
refunded.
Referal Agency Fees - two -step reviews, as applicable
$265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case
$1,260 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee
$1,260 City Parks Department, flat fee
$1,260 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee
Planning Review - PUD and SPA. Hourly Fee
Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: PUD and SPA projects
32 $10,080 Planned Unit Development or PUD Substantial Amend.
Specially Planned Area or SPA Substantial Amend.
per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If
Plus hourly rate $315 case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be
refunded.
Referal Agency Fees - PUD & SPA reviews, as applicable
$265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case
$1,575 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee
$1,575 City Parks Department, flat fee
$1,575 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee
Planning Review - COWOP Review or Joint Applicant
Applications for the City's COWOP process - Convenience or Welfare of the Public -
shall be assessed land use review fees and /or a portion of joint planning costs as
determined appropriate by City Council. If no such determination is made, the
application shall be billed as a PUD.
Special Services - Planning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established
$315 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one special project.
Planning Review Deposit and Billing Administration
The Community Development Department staff shall keep an accurate record of the
actual time required for the processing of each land use application and additional
billings shall be made commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the city when
the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more
time than is covered by the deposit. In the event the processing of an application by the
Community Development Department takes less time than provided for by the deposit,
the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee.
The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the
regular issuance of invoices and collection of amounts due.
The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the
collection of past due invoices, as required, which may include any of the following: 1)
Assessment of additional late fees for accounts at least 90 days past due in an amount
not to exceed 1.75% per month. 2) Cessation of application processing. 3) Review of
past -due accounts with City Council. 4) Withholding the issuance of a Development
Order. 5) Withholding the recordation of development documents. 6) Prohibition of the
acceptance of building permits for the subject property. 7) Cessation of building permit
processing. 8) Revocation of an issued building permit. 9) Other penalties,
assessments, fines, or actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge.
Flat fees for the processing of applications shall be cumulative. Applications for more
than one land use review requiring an hourly deposit on planning time shall require
submission of the larger deposit amount.
The Community Development Director shall bill applicants for any incidental costs of
reviewing an application at direct costs, with no administrative or processing charge.
Land use review fee deposits may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community
Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process
than the deposit indicates. A determination shall be made during the pre - application
conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply.
Review fees for projects requiring conceptual review, final review, and recordation of
approval documents. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing,
all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be
handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all
billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director
accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the
rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing
shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of
recordation documents.
Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director
shall waive planning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen
consistent with City policy.
Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a
reduction or waiver of planning review fees as deemed appropriate.
This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after July 1, 2011.
Sec. 26.104.072 — ZONING REVIEW FEES Exhibit C
General and Applicability
Zoning review fees shall apply to all development requiring a building permit and all
development not requiring a building permit but which requires review by the Community
Development Department. The fee covers the Zoning Officer's review of a permit including
any correspondence with the caseload planner, Historic Preservation Officer, the Deputy
Director, the Director, or other city staff.
A permit, amendment to a permit, or change order which requires a Floor Area, Height, net
leasable, or net livable measurement by the Zoning Officer shall be considered a Major
permit. All other permits are considered Minor permits.
For the purposes of zoning fees, the square footage used to calculate the fee shall be the
greater of the gross square footage affected by the permit or the gross square footage which
must be measured to review the permit. All change orders and amendments to a permit
require additional fees. A change order or amendment to an un- issued permit shall require
payment of both fees (initial and change order).
Official confirmation of existing conditions of a property which requires measurement of Floor
Area, Height, net leasable area, or net livable area of a structure, prior to demolition or for
other purposes, shall be considered a Major permit.
For projects with multiple uses, the zoning review fee for each individual use shall be
calculated based on the gross square footage of the use and added to determine the total
project fee.
Zoning review fees for major permits for properties within a Planned Unit Development shall
be 125% of the fee schedule. This additional charge does not apply to demolition permits.
Zoning referral fees - for official zoning comments on a planning application - shall be
according to the fees policy for planning review.
Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall
waive zoning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with
City policy.
Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or
waiver of zoning review fees as deemed appropriate.
This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after July 1, 2011.
50% of Zoning Review Deposit Required
For any Zoning fee of $500 or more, 50% of the fee is due at permit submittal. This deposit
is non - refundable. The applicant shall pay the remaining 50% at permit issuance, which
shall include any reconciliation of fees due.
Special Services - Zoning Review
Hourly Zoning Review Fee $315 per hour
Pre - Permit or Pre - Application Meetings
Applicant meetings with the Zoning Officer or a Planner to discuss prospective planning
applications or prospective building permit applications are a free service and staff time is
not charged to the applicant. However, this service is limited to the time reasonably
necessary for understanding a project's requirements, review procedures, city regulations,
etc. An applicant shall be billed for any pre - application or pre - permit staff time significantly in
excess of that which is reasonably necessary. Billing will be at the Planning /Zoning hourly
billing rate. The applicant will be notified prior to any billing for pre - application or pre - permit
service.
Zone District Confirmation Letter $315 Formal issuance of a letter confirming
parcel's zoning only. Does not confirm
legality of existing improvements or uses.
Existing Conditions Confirmation Service subject to authorization by Community
Development Director and may not be available. Fee
based on a Major permit review for the type of land use.
Does not confirm legality of existing improvements or
uses. Requires submission of dimensioned drawings.
Expedited Zoning Review Double Applicable Fee. Prioritizes project's zoning review
over all other projects. Service subject to authorization by
Community Development Director considering department
workload, staffing, and effects on other projects.
Change Order Fees - Zoning Review
Applications for change orders shall require an additional Zoning Review Fee. A change
order which does not require a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable, or net
livable shall be considered a Minor change order and assessed the minor fee. A change
order which requires a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable area, or net
livable area shall be assessed the Major zoning fee. Fees for the previously submitted permit
application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees.
Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee - Zoning
No charge
Conditional Certificate of Occupancy - Zoning
$315 for first CCO issued
$630 for second CCO issued
$945 for third or subsequent CCO issued.
Business License Approval - Zoning
No charge. Other fees may be required. Apply to City Finance.
Special Review or Inspection Fee - Zoning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established
$315 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one review or inspection.
Demolition Zoning Review Fees
Minor Zoning Fee - Does not require measurement or confirmation of existing conditions.
Square footage of Project Fee
Up to 500 sq. ft. $63
501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $158
2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $236
Above 5,000 sq. ft. $315
Major Zoning Fee - If demolition requires measurement of the structure or
confirmation of existing conditions, the fee will be the major fee according to the
land use.
Exterior Repair Zoning Review Fees
Applies to Residential, Commercial, Lodging, Arts /Cultural /Civic/Institutional exterior repair
work requiring a building permit or review by the Historic Preservation Officer. Does not
apply to interior work. Does not apply to alteration. Fee is based on wall area or roof area
being repaired. Does not apply to signs or awnings.
Square footage of Repair Fee
Up to 500 sq. ft. $32
501 to 1,000 sq. ft. $63
1,001 to 2,500 sq. ft. $158
Above 2,500 sq. ft. $315
•
Residential Zoning Review Fees
Applies to single - family, duplex, accessory dwelling units, carriage houses, multi - family and
residential units in a mixed -use building
Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order
Projects up to $10,000 in total valuation:
Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32
Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63
Projects over $10,000 in total valuation:
Square footage of Project Fee
Up to 500 sq. ft. $315
501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630
2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945
Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260
Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change
Order
Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size
Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project
501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project
2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.90 per sq. ft. of project
Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $1.00 per sq. ft. of project
Major Residential permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not
apply to demo.)
For 2011, The zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major residential projects
submitted in the format specified in the adopted zoning permit submission guide. Applicants
should see ComDev staff for more information.
Commercial Zoning Review Fees
Applies to commercial projects and commercial portions of a mixed -use project.
Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order
Projects up to $10,000 in total valuation:
Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32
Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63
Projects over $10,000 in total valuation:
Square footage of Project Fee
Up to 500 sq. ft. $315
501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630
2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945
Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260
Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change
Order
Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size
Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project
501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project
2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.90 per sq. ft. of project
Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $1.00 per sq. ft. of project
Major Commercial permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not
apply to demo.)
For 2011, The zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major commercial projects
submitted in the format specified in the adopted zoning permit submission guide. Applicants
should see ComDev staff for more information.
Lodging Zoning Review Fees
Applies to lodging projects and lodging portions of a mixed -use project. All
fractional interest, timeshare, and exempt timeshare projects are considered
Lodging for the purposes of this review fee.
Minor Zoning Fee- Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order
Projects up to $10,000 in total valuation:
Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32
Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63
Projects over $10,000 in total valuation:
Square footage of Project Fee
Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315
1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630
5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945
Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260
Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change
Order
Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size
Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 + $.35 per sq. ft. of project
1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project
5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project
Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project
Major Lodging permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not
apply to demo.)
For 2011, The zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major lodging projects
submitted in the format specified in the adopted zoning permit submission guide. Applicants
should see ComDev staff for more information.
Arts /Cultural /Civic /Institutional Zoning Review Fees
Applies to Arts, Cultural, Civic and Institutional uses or portions of a mixed -use
project with these uses.
Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order
Projects up to $10,000 in total valuation:
Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32
Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63
Projects over $10,000 in total valuation:
Square footage of Project Fee
Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315
1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630
5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945
Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260
Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major
Change Order
Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size
Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 + $.35 per sq. ft. of project
1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project
5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project
Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project
Major Arts /Cultural /Civic /Institutional permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee
schedule. (Does not apply to demo.)
For 2011, The zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major arts /cultural projects
submitted in the format specified in the adopted zoning permit submission guide. Applicants
should see ComDev staff for more information.
Signs and Awnings - Zoning Review Fees
Individual Sign Permit Fee $63 per sign
Multiple Sign Permit Fee $158 per business, unlimited number of signs
Permanent Sandwich Board Sign $63 per sign * Must be in an approved
sandwich board location
Temporary Sandwich Board Sign $32 per one -week permit
$158 for 8 one -week permits
Awning Permit Fee $63 per awning * Includes signage
Multiple Awning Permit Fee $158 per business review fee.
Banner Installation Fee $63 Single banner * Banner fees collected
$158 Double banner by the City Manager's
Office
Fence - Zoning Review Fee
Single - Family and Duplex Residential $63
All other uses $158
Bear - Proof Trash Container - Combined Zoning & Building Review Fee
Single - Family and Duplex Residential $63
All other uses $158
Enforcement Fees, Fines, and Penalties
No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid
in full. Failure to pay applicable fees is subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as
assigned by the Municipal Court Judge.
Non - Permitted Work Fee:
Work done without a zoning approval (when one is required), without a building permit (when
one is required), or work done counter to an issued zoning approval is subject to this
enforcement fee. Non - permitted work fee is per infraction and per project. Additional hourly
fees may be applicable to account for staff time. No other action on the project may occur
until non - permitted work issue has been rectified to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. Any correction requiring a building permit or zoning application shall
also be subject to the Correction Order Fees described below.
First infraction $315 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of
one hour.
Second Infraction $630 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of
one hour.
Third Infraction $945 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of
one hour.
Correction Order Fee:
This fee shall apply to any work required to correct a zoning violation or to permit work that
has been accomplished without a permit or not covered by an issued permit. Infractions are
per project.
First infraction Double Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500
Second Infraction Four times the Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500
Third Infraction Eight times the Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500.
Subject to additional penalties by citation as assigned by
the Municipal Judge.
For any correction requiring a planning review, the planning review fees shall be
increased according to the above schedule.
Municipal Court Enforcement - Zoning
Fees, fines, and penalties by citation for violations of the Land Use Code shall be
established by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of
the offense. Zoning Enforcement Fee may include an assessment for
administrative time required by the Zoning Officer to address the violation.
C Ylk—C11(:)a-- 1.----
Original Proposal Scenario 1 — 50% fees — AII Permits
15% Subsidy = $620,000 per year 44% Subsidy = $1.77 Million per year
General Fund Subsidy Levels General Fund Subsidy Levels
100% 1 81,850,000 100% 81,850,000
80% 80 % 52,350,000
60% 1 $1420,000 60%
$1,775,000 $1,775,000
8620,000 8620,000
40% • 40% - A -- A. . lox 20%
0% ' 0% - -
"Norma I " Yea r 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate "Normal " Yea r 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate
MN Community Development Engineering - -i— ComDav /Engineering r• Community Development ∎Engineering —I—ComDev/Engi need ng
Scenario 2 — 50% fees — Projects up to $250,000 Scenario 3 — 75% fees — Projects up to $200,000
No "credits" for larger projects No "credits" for larger projects
28% Subsidy = $1.13 Million per year 22% Subsidy = $890,000 per year
General Fund Subsidy Levels
General Fund Subsidy levels
81,850,000
100% • $1JII1130F0000 850 000
1 100%
$1,915,000
1 $2 030 000 soy •
60 $6so,aao $eso,000
60%
zo%_
40%
"Normal' Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate "Normal" Veer 2011 Esti mate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate
r■ Community Development IMEn Engineering - --00mDe2 /Engineering r_ Community Development Mai Engineering t[omDev /Engineering
Scenario 4 — 50% fees — Projects up to $100,000 Scenario 5 — 50% fees — Commercial up to $250,000
75% fees — $100,000 - $250,000 No "credits" for larger projects. No reduction on Residential
"Credit" applies to larger projects 20% Subsidy = $830,000 per year
25% Subsidy = $1 Million per year
General Fund Subsidy Levels
S1,850,000
General Fund Subsidy Levels 100% $1,850,000 01,aasp00
8010
l00% $1,985,0011
60% $1130,000 $aao$830,000
80% _
60% $1,030,000 $1,030,000 40% -
20% •
ao% I
20% 1 010
"Normal " Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2013 Estimate
SIM Comm"mty Development «r• Engineering — ar— ComDar/En[I nearing
Normal" Year 2011 Estimate 2012 Estimate 2019 Estimate
Community Development wee Engineering —Si— ComDN/Enginearing
1
1 0 '0 .- v) '0 0• 0 CO CO 0 La . - LO 0 0 0
1 0 N 'A CO -O •O 0 0) CO (T co r (0
O E
0 N N , N CV (V ' N 'o CO ,0 i i ' ' 0' N. LE 0 -
.±1 C -- .- .- '0 C'1 1 )
..
`u
O EL
o • L >
•_
O a +dr v
V u
.o
o
o 3 o
ar 4,,y. 69
- 0 . i • 0
6 v) C) -0 v) v) V' O CO M m M - N
° 0 L N. N. N (V ' (V '0 ' c0 -0 ' ' ' i 0, 00 N CO CO r (O
° E
V o a - .0 03 -- LO
L. 0 CO
G1 0 o 2
o o 0.
d O m o > • O . u'' C
N
o c
O V> 4 u
o 0 O
0
Lei <Pr
N A" 69
N LO CO (V v) 00 O (O V V' CO - 0 I` 0 • 0
`u E O (0 CO 1 0 00 M '0 0• 00 CO .0 V Lo N 00
a v) 'O N 01 -0 CO 0' h N co (0
cu 0 0 `
CV 00 N -- co
a . o °
a O 0)
E o >
'h CV G
).
b
O V ,,
0
ws
v) v) v) v) 0- 0 CO CO 0 I0 444 1n o 0 0
' E O CV N v) N. v) Cl -0 0 0 CO CO 0) M (O
u - . CV (V ' N -0 ' ' CO '0 0' 1 ; N O
01 6 'o M 4- L()
0 O a)
Cr- O 2
o d
E 'n >
N N ._
.4 :43 E 0- O V U
C N o
c
6 X O
0 69
N • N 0 v) '() -- '0 N 04 O co 4-41
0 In o o
N E LL E O N N v) N N(0 40 -0 0 CO CO 0) (0 CO
Q Q « .— V N C ' N 40 ' ' 00 0 ' ' P A 141 0
0 0 E :•-..-, O O 'O (•1 4- Ls.6
TD- d y O
0 O o1 °' a
E a Q >
E (n o 0
o:° o E
U H N —
.4.44- E»
0 t > u) O C0 v) 'n co O V v ) O 0' O o 0 • 0
O -0 4) O h V' v) N — O V) N M 00 ti (0 N O
O 0- > — ' ' ■ ' N CV N ' 10 F ' ' 0• (0 00 0 N N r
O u M CV ^ O 'o N c0
- 0 •-
- ce
0
s 0
C •a
LL 0
C 0 o
0.
0 G 1A V} 69
0 a.
N
C v) N F. v) v) N '0 o 0 0
'v O . . N CO N N ' ' C ' ' . 0' M , O N O CY
N — C0 N c
E
E a)
u
Hi
X
W
G p O
01 (u a
E . o
- U
N
T o a1 0_ O . p
4_ LL 0) 0 01 G p (n
01 O c > O �.
as Q o v= .- m v m g o o v p
us o 0
c 0 y N 0 T H E 6 a o LL -0 N N 6 UI C ._ O L Q d « 'a' V
O p X O u N N c K V O 1-1.- L i 6) 0 -C c in •C C u) a) O
0 L ° F a a) N p ( d N 1 - a 0) d "1 °` N ,_ \ 0 £ o co us N U
m y 0. 1— 0 o ._ [n o E O c C� 0 c) V o Q E Li- E I. U- aa) O
j a y d 0 3 a c - o _ O o (n ` u 0 0: u (n
0 LL D 0 E •C ' S = o T 0 W N •U N .N O < L = o u N > 'L (V
cs- LO t t o O N m • = c ` C =O °- O a h o La_ - N a) L Q)
in m " .Ea = o F• a O c
- U U O LU 0 a N O O E ' 5 w
0 )C 414 1- 0 C
LL 3 O w F--
T;
0 0 0
0 o
1- Q a o 0
0 M 'n CO h 0 N h 0 N. o 0 0
'n M N 'n M 0 V' M '0 1'-
N , . , , , , . , , , , , , , . n - h s _
'o E
a 2
o 0 0
O a
` a y
E ° n
E N G
O �
u v cC
.O ?
O
'A ah w- fig
'n 'O 'n ' N h N N h N 0 ■ 0
0 N N •nO P 0 .D 0 M V'
0 o N '0 N
0 o 2
0 0 2
N O m
n o O:
v o a
• tl y
m v o a
o '^ •_
.-• a 4.-
m
0
..... 0
0 ^9.
3
h N
+h NF E9
' V 'n `J N W N N 60 (f1 O O O
M N N •n P V' ^ P ' V (O
, , , M , , ' '/1 M
2
w E
2 O N
a o 0
0 A
E 0 0 >
'n N '
... N y
•
O v c
0
N 3
- -. '9
• 'n 'O 'n V N 'n N N 'n N o 0 0
N - N 'n -O P 0 'O O M V' . ' ' ' ' ' ' N ('1 N
- E
m
O O a
W
CI. 0 O
= o d
0 0 c m
Ed ' n M . e
r th m o v L
a� 0
O ~ 0 3
C
w '^
a) N N M ..b. Q LL
( E
Q a w h'0 'n V N 'n N N h N o 0 0
O O N N .n - 0 M O N O co V'
T > O E
N O.
U p a' E m
a v
E m Q >
E m 0 c
0 o w
U F 0 t
o
'n
49 k 'n
O 0 0 M .n 40 M O m '0 0 co o ■ 0
O •n 'n M N b M O h M VI N (O r`.. O N h ' IN h
O
3
N
Z
,
9
O
2
UI yf y } E9
K
O N 'n M .n .3 a a o
C , , , M 'n N ' N N 'n C1 CO 'O 0 CO
0
N 'n '0 40
0
ce m
c
X
9 a fA (fl
E U O
m � �
E 'o
„ a (. o ,a,
o o rn
�- 2 N 3 ▪ c O o .o
c E Q a u y T O an d 40 (� a
N O O d u ..- al N y O 3 -� o _ a_ O u c 0 0 0
c a v° a T. E V 0 .... ° 1 -°° m al ° ° S n . a s w . U
O 0 x n u vs 0 X ` u O O N ._ cp > s 6 O_ a > 'C C O N N
• O O X "6 c °. 6 1-- 6 O V u- U- N ' d& y W N to N U
T O < « d ,n
D m o ° o a' rn a m a' f (� c c o Q m 5 'L E I- i i a) °
> • ° N 3 5 O E = c v D v a o W ° - E Y ° E o v . V- c (n
1 ' 4 T 3 w N `u v p L O U al Y> N
c
U Q w u Q 0 o o f ' 0)
V w I l'' SU W I--
- ° 0 0 0
O Q o 0
N C co N V N 0• 03 O O o 7 '0 CO •0 .0 -- m O o 0 0
N� CO O O cn C) N V N V O N h O' 00 C0 a) LO <- V
Ts E 'O N CO O ,- •0 O •0 ' O N ' CV CO c ' CO 0• ' ' h O .- N. N
'u ` - N O V N V 00 7 N N`
E O a) N •0 co
E 0 0 0 -
E `u a
o •p 'A >
N '. E
Et
O. m
O'''` V - I
0
3
0
4A- Vf fR
0 N Q co N N N P co •0 O O C•) M 0 -0 M O .O O o 0 0
0 N. 00 O O N N N V CO y O - •0 41 P v N . N N. V N
O E •O N 00 0 In P O •O ' •O N ' N CO 'O ' 00 0' ' ' 'O' a. V' .- N
V C j o N. O V ' N •- •- CO •O U .- 0 7
.. O rn N CO
a�i O O .
.,..° O N O
0 ..
'- O N O >
o O N C
o IA- 0. -69). u
o C
O O
0
in
N *A- .A. 69
w N V CO N V N O' CO O O O CO u1 CO -0 .0 •- 00 O o 0 0
E N 00 O O CO CO CV •c" t 'V 0 •-- N VC) 0 CO M O In 1- a) a -0 N co O •0 O •0 ' O C ' N CO C ' COO ' ' h O N. N
'q O of n O v t\ v .- 0 - 4 N M
0. g -
0 O-
a p ai
E 0
N 01 'C
W
o V u
0
c
G
� 3
N V} V} 64
w N V 00 N V N Cr CO O O O c I.0 m- .p a0 O O 0 0
CO O O CO C1 N 'R N ' O .- N LO 0 M O L '- Cf
00 O
a ) C 0 ( N 0 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 ' O N ' N CO c) ' OD CT ' ' n 0 N- N
o n O V N 'V ,- ,- [O N r
0. p O N •O CO
= O 0
o a 0 a)
0 N N . �
N if,
0..°3 X O V C
tj N- o
a N N 4.,- .4."- 69
w E LL
Q o' N V 00 N N O• O. CO N O O C) 0) CO •O N O h O o 0 0
N CO O O •0 N V C)' O - •O Le") C •O N CO CO
o
j N + a -0 N CO 0 u) M O •O ' u) N ' N CO -0 ' CO O• O • '7 N
' •0 C)
U ta) [n E ^ N O CV V C) N 0p in r. •-
7 d
O co
�
... a 0. d
E m Q >
o° c
p O a)
U N- o 0
O
1 3
EA
0 CO N V OD N V N O• CO O N O C) N CO •0 0) CO CO N� 0 0 0
O O N CO O O M 0) N V N N O O N N O - •- N N LO V
N O• 0 01 0 0 - - 0 0 ' 0 0 ' O 0) ' N 0- C) ' CO 0- ' ' 01 N N 0) N
0• h 0. V' N -1-' - - co ^ N ti
IC) N •O CO
N
ac
v
z
0
E
a)
OC OF 69- 64
C N V 00 N V U U CO 0 0 CO •0 O 0) N o 0 0
N.. co O O u) - N V •- O V) 0- CO 00 Cr N O CA
a) •O N OO O N 'A O •O ' ' N ' N ' ' ' CO P ' ' R 0• ' CO a-
'a - N. O V CV c0 0• C) N�
N O N d' N
OC C
X
W
49- W- 69
C U O
a) a)
E o eL
,, a 0— oa)
0
«. L.L. N j'' > c p O o
a) .o 8 E t Y 0. 0 o `L m > > _ o m ` 0 0 d
O Q O N .` r a) a) W -i 0 _ 3 = p t L 0 C O O O
0 1 0 0 >- E V o., n 0 a; v c o r C a - U
O O O O -0 N O d O~ 6 6 V '0 ti N L ° U1 Q O- ., W m .• N o
6 IL N F O m N LJ p . N~ Q T to d O N �n N E o o N LL) U
6 d v N 0 ' c a m E 0) c c rn ci Q c 8 u- E N- LL 0 0 0
O y O 3 _ - 0 _ c 0 -0 N O t. O -Y 0 a O '^ - LL
LL O 0 E • c 5 55 >. O W N Ti N O L O V a) > 'C a)
°- p O m 0 P.. C cj n_ a u F O LL a) N N
0 p w u< y O o f 'p 03
V w 0
= 0 W I�
u.
Ts 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
■-• Q o 0
•
� ttt
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 500 W. Hopkins — Amendment to Zone District Map, PUD
Amendment and Subdivision
2 " Reading of Ordinance No. 9 (Series 2011)
MEETING
DATE: March 14, 2011
NOTE: The applicant has requested a continuation of the public hearing on the
application before City Council to fully vet the initial comments raised by City
Council at the first reading of the application on February 28 The applicant is
requesting the hearing be continued to June 13, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council permit the continuation of the hearing to allow both
the applicant and staff to fully research and provide additional information on the
comments and questions raised at first reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to continue the public hearing on Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2011 to June 13,
2011."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: