HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.201905201
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
May 20, 2019
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
IV.CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS
(Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please
limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI.CONSENT CALENDAR
(These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
VI.A.Resolution No. 62, Series of 2019, Water Shortage Stage II
VI.B.Resolution #61, Series of 2019 - Terminating the Management Service Agreement
between the Red Brick Center for the Arts and City
VI.C.Resolution #63, series of 2019 Castle Creek Trail IGA
VI.D.Resolution #64, Series of 2019 - 488 Castle Creek easement with Holy Cross
VI.E.Resolution #65, Series of 2019 - Wheeler Chiller Replacement
VI.F.Minutes - May 13, 2019
VII.NOTICE OF CALL-UP
VIII.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1
2
IX.PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX.A.Ordinance #14, Series of 2019 - Flavored Tobacco Ban
IX.B.Ordinance 12, Series 2019. Land Use Code Amendments for APCHA Referrals.
2nd Reading (Public Hearing)
IX.C.Ordinance #10, Series of 2019 - 119 Neale Avenue, Transferable Development
Rights
IX.D.Ordinance 13, Series of 2019 - Transportation and Parking Land Use Code
Amendments
X.ACTION ITEMS
XI.LONG RANGE COUNCIL SCHEDULE
XI.A.Long Range Council Schedule
XII.ADJOURNMENT
2
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager
THRU:Scott Miller, Director of Public Works;
Tyler Christoff, Deputy Public Works Director;
Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities;
DATE OF MEMO:May 10, 2019
MEETING DATE:May 20, 2019
RE:Water Shortage Conditions
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is requested to consider staff’s recommendation to rescind
the existing water use restrictions and surcharges by adopting Resolution #62, Series of 2019
(See Attachment A).
BACKGROUND: Last year at this time, Aspen was experiencing a critically dry year. In order
to protect our watersheds and ensure reliable water deliveries, Council enacted its water shortage
ordinance to encourage the community to use less water than in a normal year. The City is
currently in Stage II Water Shortage conditions.
At Council’s March 26, 2019 work session, staff presented the current status of Aspen’s
watersheds. Council provided the following direction to staff about the 2019 drought response:
Council supports the City being cautiously optimistic in the approach to drought
declaration for the 2019 irrigation season;
Council supports staying in step with the State’s drought declaration and monitoring
timeline;
Council discussed that some of the restrictions stated under the current drought stage
descriptions in the municipal code should be practices that are encouraged regardless of
drought conditions.
Staff provided an update at the April 22, 2019 Council meeting, and Council directed staff to
continue to monitor watershed conditions and return in May with a recommendation for further
actions.
DISCUSSION: Conditions in our watersheds continue to look favorable. The cool, wet spring
has helped to maintain snowpack and we anticipate above average runoff.
3
Page 2 of 3
Drought Conditions
Snow Water Equivalents currently measure 146% of average at the Independence Pass SNOTEL
Site (See Attachment B). It is anticipated that runoff will increase in the next week as
temperatures rise.
The U.S. Drought Monitor currently shows no drought conditions in Pitkin County. In addition,
the entire State shows drastically improved conditions from this time last year, with only a band
of ‘abnormally dry’ conditions in the south-central portion of the state (See Attachment C).
The Colorado Basin River Forecast Center predicts that flow in the Roaring Fork this runoff
season will be between 110-130% of average.
Drought Response
On May 6, 2019 the State Drought Task Force met to discuss the 2019 drought response. After
reviewing snowpack and other watershed conditions, the Task Force recommended deactivation
of the drought response for the entire state. This recommendation will be presented to the
Governor in the next few days.
In consideration of the favorable local watershed conditions and the findings of the State Drought
Task Force, Aspen’s Drought Task Force (ADTF) recommends that Council remove all water
use restrictions and surcharges.
The ADTF will continue to meet throughout the summer to incorporate ‘Lessons Learned’ into
Aspen’s drought response and provide recommendations for updating Aspen’s Water Shortage
Ordinance. In addition, the ADTF will provide recommendations for incorporating additional
responsible water use measures into the City’s existing Water Waste Ordinance.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Impacts of rescinding the Stage II water surcharges are
included within the current 2019 budget authority.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The City’s efforts to monitor its watersheds and enact its
water shortage ordinance is necessary to ensure the City’s resiliency.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council is requested to adopt Resolution #62, Series of 2019,
thereby rescinding the water shortage conditions and removing all water restrictions and
surcharges.
ALTERNATIVES:If Council chooses not to support this resolution, Stage II water restrictions
and surcharges will remain in effect.
PROPOSED MOTION:I move to approve Resolution #62, Series of 2019.
4
Page 3 of 3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution #62, Series of 2019
Attachment B – Independence Pass SNOTEL site 5-7-2019
Attachment C – US Drought Monitor Map of Colorado
5
RESOLUTION # 62
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT WATER SHORTAGE CONDITIONS
ARE NO LONGER EVIDENT IN ASPEN, COLORADO, AND RESCINDING
WATER USE CONTROLS PUT INTO EFFECT BY RESOLUTION NUMBER
117, SERIES OF 2018.
WHEREAS, Pitkin County is no longer experiencing drought conditions as
determined by the U.S. Drought Monitor; and
WHEREAS, peak snowpack in the Colorado River Basin is 128% of
average; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center forecasts that water
supply in the Roaring Fork Watershed this runoff season will be between 110-
130% of average; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has established procedures to guard against
potential shortages in its water supplies pursuant to Municipal Code Section
25.28.020; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen recognizes the actions of its citizens in both
mandatory water use restrictions and increased water use rates during the recent
water shortage; and
WHEREAS, improved watershed conditions no longer meet the criteria for
water shortage set forth in the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby declares that water
shortage conditions are no longer evident in the City of Aspen, Colorado. It is
further resolved by the City Council that the temporary water rates contained in
Section 25.28.40 of the Municipal Code and water restrictions are hereby
rescinded.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 20th day of May 2019.
6
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 20, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
7
8
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sarah Roy, Director of Red Brick Center for the Arts
THROUGH: Jim Ture, City Attorney
Jeff Woods, Manager of the Parks and Recreation Department
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019
RE: Resolution #61, Series 2019
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: To terminate the management service agreement between
the operating entity known as Red Brick Center for the Arts (Red Brick Center) and the
City of Aspen for management of the Red Brick Arts Center facility.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On November 13th, 2017 through Resolution 155, the
City of Aspen suspended management services for the Red Brick Arts building outlined
in its agreement (Resolution 131-2015) with the Red Brick Center. In a work session on
January 9th, 2018, Council approved ongoing budget authority to manage the facility
and oversee the operations and long-term capital improvements for the Red Brick Arts
Center. In a work session on August 20, 2018 Council approved to make Red Brick
Arts Center a permanent department within the Parks and Recreation Department with
ongoing budget funding.
BACKGROUND: The Red Brick Arts Center provides reduced market pricing for many
Aspen nonprofit organizations to house their office functions. Further the Center
provides creative space for artists, arts programming, performing art space and meeting
room space. The City is the owner of the building and hired the Red Brick Center to
provide building management services for tenants in exchange for 15% of rent
revenues.
Following Resolution 155-2017, the City took over direct management of the facility and
arts programming. City staff moved all financial operations into City systems and began
a thorough assessment of the facility’s maintenance and capital needs. In addition, staff
worked closely with Red Brick tenants and patrons to understand the role of the Red
Brick within our community. The sentiments heard is the Red Brick Arts Center is a
beloved community treasure that offers unique opportunities for engagement and
learning. Upon creating the Red Brick Arts Center as a permanent department, Council
upheld the intent to be a vibrant community center offering affordable rent to nonprofits
and artists and creating venues and offerings for artistic engagement.
10
DISCUSSION: As Council approved to make the Red Brick Arts Center a department
within Parks and Recreation, the Management Agreement and The Amended
Agreement, which suspended parts of the management agreement with the Red Brick
Center are no longer needed. As a department within the City, the Red Brick is on an
exciting trajectory to continue to serve the needs and wants of the community and
promote City values.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The approved 2019 Budget includes a total
operating budget of $529,320 with offsetting revenues totaling $448,260. This requires
a $81,060 subsidy from the General Fund and result in an 85% recovery rate.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #61
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Resolution #61, Series of 2019
11
RESOLUTION # 61
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A TERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND RED BRICK
COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS D/B/A RED BRICK CENTER FOR THE ARTS
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Termination of
Management Agreement between the City of Aspen and Red Brick Council for the
Arts d/b/a Red Brick Center for the Arts, a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that a
Termination of Management Agreement between the City of Aspen and Red Brick
Council for the Arts d/b/a Red Brick Center for the Arts, a copy of which is
annexed hereto and incorporated herein and does hereby authorize the City
Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 20
th day of May 2019.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 20, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
12
TERMINATIONOFMANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS TERMINATION OF THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into
as of this ____ day of May 2019, between City of Aspen (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and
the Red Brick Council for the Arts d/b/a Red Brick Center for the Arts (hereinafter referred
to as "Red Brick Center").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on or about November 9, 2015, the parties entered into a Management Agreement
for the property owned by the City known as the Red Brick Center for the Arts; and,
WHEREAS, due events occurring in 2017, the parties entered into an Amended Agreement on or
about November 17, 2017, which suspended certain aspects of the Management Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City has recently completed a transition of operation of the facility as a
department within Parks and Recreation; thus, the parties agree that neither the Management
Agreement nor the interim changes entered in 2017 are needed for the future manager and
operation of the property and that it is in the best interest of all parties to terminate the Manager
Agreement.
NOW, THERFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree
as follows:
1. The Management Agreement dated November 9, 2015, and the Amendment to
Management Agreement dated November 17, 2017, are hereby terminated in their
entirety. Both parties waive any claims or causes of action either may have against the
other for any matter arising out of either agreement.
2. The City Council has approved the terms of this Agreement and it shall be effective
immediately upon execution of the Agreement by the parties.
3. The signatory for the Red Brick Center below acknowledges that she has authority to
execute this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Red Brick Center have executed this Agreement on the
day and year first above written.
City of Aspen Red Brick Council for the Arts
d/b/a Red Brick Center for the Arts
____________________________ _____________________________
Sara Ott, City Manager Date Jackie Kasabach, President Date
13
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Brian Long, Trails Field Supervisor
THRU:Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager
Austin Weiss, Parks and Open Space Director
DATE OF MEMO:May 13, 2019
MEETING DATE:May 20, 2019
RE:Castle Creek Trail
CC:
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
City of Aspen Parks Department and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails staff have been working
on planning a trail connection and other safety improvements along the Castle Creek Road corridor
from the Music/Aspen Country Day Schools to the Marolt Trail. Staff is seeking City Council
approval of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) ratifying the City’s financial commitment to
the project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff met with City Council in a Work Session on February
6, 2018 to discuss the public scoping for the project and preliminary designs of the trail. City
Council reviewed and approved the 2017 City of Aspen budget which included a request for
$25,000 for planning, the 2018 budget which included a request for $100,000 for the design phase
of the Castle Creek Trail and a request for $750,000 in 2019 for the construction of the City’s
portion of the Castle Creek Trail. Staff met again with City Council at a work session on October
30, 2018 to review design considerations and Council confirmed support moving forward.
BACKGROUND:
At a joint meeting between the County and City Open Space Boards in September 2016, the Castle
Creek Trail was prioritized for planning in 2017 due to numerous requests from the community.
The Castle Creek Trail planning began on July 24, 2017. Staff held numerous outreach meetings
with the public, neighbors, the Aspen Music Festival and School and Aspen Country Day School.
All public comments were included in the Open Space Boards’ packet and are still available online.
The consulting engineers took all the public feedback and analyzed the corridor for what is
feasible.
14
2
At a joint open space and trails board meeting on February 1
st, 2018, a recommendation was made to
design a modified east-side alignment to reduce widths and impacts where possible, but still provide
a significantly safer trail with increased width on the climbing shoulder for road cyclists. The
BOCC and City Council agreed with that direction and staff worked with our consultants to update
the plans. A modified east-side alignment significantly reduces the original cost estimate of $3.8
million, limits the impacts to aesthetics and vegetation, and provides a much safer corridor for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
At the third joint meeting between the Pitkin County and City of Aspen Open Space and Trails
Boards on August 2, 2018 the boards discussed the modified east side alignment and recommended
the BOCC and City Council include this project into the 2019 budget. The BOCC reviewed this
latest design at a September 25
th, 2018 work session and gave unanimous support for the project.
City Council reviewed the project at an October 30th, 2018 work session and gave its consideration
and support.
DISCUSSION:
The Castle Creek Trail project has progressed thus far with valuable public input and thorough
consideration by the City and County Open Space Boards and elected bodies. Management of the
project by Pitkin County has been careful to include all stakeholders in the process, presenting
alternatives and making all aware of challenges along the way. A contract for the construction of the
trail has been awarded to Gould Construction, whom staff recently worked with on the Castle Creek
Bridge project.
The IGA before Council commits the City to a contribution to the project reflective of the cost
required to complete improvements in the portion that is within City limits, not to exceed $875,000.
This cost will include design and construction elements yet to be quantified, but is estimated at
$700,000.
The latest project design of the corridor incorporates public and board feedback to reduce impacts
throughout the length of the project, while maintaining significant safety improvements for all users.
The project will construct a trail on the east side of Castle Creek Road, create a wider shoulder along
the west side to create a safer corridor for road cyclists and provide safety improvements to Castle
Creek Road by slowing motorized vehicular traffic.
The design includes a 6-foot-wide, east-side trail that will be separated from the road with removable
delineators and a 3 to 4 foot shoulder on the uphill vehicular travel lane to improve safety for road
cyclists. Staff will work with the contractor to maximize the width of this shoulder yet maintain a
consistent width through the corridor. Most of the required retaining walls will be located on the
west side of the road, with the exception of that portion of the trail which runs in front of the
proposed affordable housing at 488 Castle Creek Road. A wall will be required through this portion
to both separate the trail from the proposed parking lot, and to allow enough space to plant trees and
other vegetative screening between the housing and the trail. The project also incorporates speed
tables before and after the school entrance with increased signage along the entire length of the trail
in order to slow traffic through the corridor.
15
3
These modifications to the original design alternatives have reduced the estimated cost of the
overall project from $3,800,000, to under $3,000,000. The City portion of the project is estimated
at $700,000 and the County’s is $2,300,000. The modified East Side alternative will also
significantly reduce impacts to the aesthetics and vegetation of the corridor while providing a much
safer corridor for pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If City Council approves the IGA, the City will contribute to
the Castle Creek Trail project in an amount that compensates for its share of design and for
construction of the portion of the trail within City limits, total not to exceed $875,000. Staff will
work with the County to ensure completion of the project. The Parks Department has previously
contributed $125,000 toward planning and design and the 2019 budget has $750,000 for its share
of the remaining design and build work.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the
intergovernmental agreement with Pitkin County to formalize its commitment to the Castle Creek
Trail project.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to approve the IGA with the County. Without
this agreement in place Pitkin County may be forced to cancel contracts for the design and
construction of the trail. This direction could delay any significant safety improvements for the
corridor.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Intergovernmental Agreement with Pitkin County
B - Resolution
16
RESOLUTION #63
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY REGARDING THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CASTLE CREEK TRAIL.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an
intergovernmental agreement for the design and construction of the Castle Creek
Trail between the City of Aspen and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the
intergovernmental agreement for the design and construction of the Castle
Creek Trail between the City of Aspen and the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute
said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 20
th day of May 2019.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held May 20, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
17
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
CREEK TRAIL FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this
______ day of ______________, 2019 by and between the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, whose address is 530 East Main Street, Suite
302, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ("County") and the City of Aspen ("City"), whose address is
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The County and City are sometimes
collectively referred to as the “Governments.”
RECITALS
1.This Agreement is entered into pursuant to, inter alia, C.R.S. §29-1-201, et
seq. and Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution.
2.The Governments are duly constituted governmental entities, governed by
Boards or Councils elected by qualified electors of the County and City mentioned above,
both of which are located in Colorado.
3.The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the respective responsibilities
and obligations of the Governments relating to the funding of the final design and
construction of the Castle Creek Trail.
4.The County has duly authorized expenditures of $1,843,000 and the City
has duly authorized expenditures of $875,000 from their respective parks and open space
funds.
5.The Governments are authorized to enter into this Agreement, and have
determined it is in the best interests of the citizens of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen
to enter into this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and
agreements of the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.The County shall manage the project and the contracts for the design and
construction of the Castle Creek Trail. The City shall reimburse the County for the cost
of the portion of the trail within City limits, total not to exceed $875,000.
18
2
2.The Governments agree to work cooperatively together after project
completion to develop a maintenance and snow removal plan for the trail and adjacent
roadway.
3.Assignability. This agreement is not assignable by either party.
4.Modification. This Agreement may be changed or modified only in
writing by an agreement approved by the respective Boards of the Governments and
signed by authorized officers of each party.
5.Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement
between the parties and all other promises and agreements relating to the subject of this
Agreement, whether oral or written, are merged herein.
6.Severability. Should any one or more sections or provisions of this
Agreement be judicially adjudged invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not
affect, impair, or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement, the intention
being that the various sections and provisions hereof are severable.
7.Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. Any party has the right to
terminate or withdraw from this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving written
notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof.
Such notice shall be given at least ten (10) days before the effective date of such
termination. Termination of the Agreement relieves the cancelling or withdrawing party
of any further responsibility under this Agreement except for specifically identified
obligations of a continuing nature based upon pass performance under the Agreement.
6. Notice. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in
writing and shall be provided by electronic delivery to the e-mail addresses set forth
below and by one of the following methods 1) hand-delivery or 2) registered or certified
mail, postage pre-paid to the mailing addresses set forth below. Each party by notice sent
under this paragraph may change the address to which future notices should be sent.
Electronic delivery of notices shall be considered delivered upon receipt of confirmation
of delivery on the part of the sender. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to
preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for personal service of a
summons or other legal process.
To: Pitkin County With copies to:
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County Attorney’s Office
c/o Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director 530 E. Main St. Suite 301
530 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, Colorado 81611 attorney@pitkincounty.com
Gary.Tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com
19
3
TO: City of Aspen With copies to:
City of Aspen City Attorney
c/o Parks and Open Space Director 130 S. Galena St.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, Colorado 81611 jim.true@cityofaspen.com
austin.weiss@cityofaspen.com
7.Government Immunity. The parties agree and understand that both parties
are relying on and do not waive, by any provisions of this Agreement, the monetary
limitations or terms or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101, et seq., as from time to time
amended or otherwise available to the parties or any of their officers, agents, or
employees.
8.Current Year Obligations. The parties acknowledge and agree that any
payments provided for hereunder or requirements for future appropriations shall
constitute only currently budgeted expenditures of the parties. The parties’ obligations
under this Agreement are subject to each individual party’s annual right to budget and
appropriate the sums necessary to provide the services set forth herein. No provision of
this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as creating a multiple fiscal year direct or
indirect debt or other financial obligation of either or both parties within the meaning of
any constitutional or statutory debt limitation. This Agreement shall not be construed to
pledge or create a lien on any class or source of either parties’ bonds or any obligations
payable from any class or source of each individual party’s money.
9.Binding Rights and Obligations. The rights and obligations of the parties
under this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
and their respective successors and assigns.
10.Agreement made in Colorado.This Agreement shall be construed
according to the laws of the State of Colorado, and venue for any action shall be in the
District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado.
11.Attorney Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of
the provisions of this Agreement, the substantially prevailing party, whether by final
judgment or out of court settlement, shall recover from the other party all costs and
expenses of such action or suit including reasonable attorney fees.
12. No Waiver. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term or
condition of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any
subsequent breach by any party.
13. Authority. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that
said person is fully authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement and to bind the
party it represents to the terms and conditions hereof.
20
4
14.This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, the sum of which shall
constitute the whole of this Agreement.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,ATTEST:
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By:______________________________________________________________
Greg Poschman, Chair Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk
___________________________________ ______________________________
John Ely, County Attorney Jon Peacock, County Manager
CITY OF ASPEN ATTEST:
By:_____________________________________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor Linda Manning, City Clerk
__________________________________ ______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Sara Ott, City Manager
21
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
THRU:Jim True, City Attorney
DATE OF MEMO:May 16, 2019
MEETING DATE:May 20, 2019
RE:Resolution #64 (Series of 2019)
Holy Cross Easement at Marolt
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Staff is requesting approval of the attached Holy Cross electrical
easements and a Trench, Conduit, and Vault Agreement at or over the City property at Marolt and
at 488 Castle Creek Road for the construction of the housing development at 488 Castle Creek
Road.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:The City has approved the construction of a housing project
at 488 Castle Creek Road and this action is in furtherance of that project.
DISCUSSION:The City of Aspen’s housing development partner, Aspen Housing Partners –who
are developing affordable housing at the City-owned property located at 488 Castle Creek Road,
received a letter last year from Holy Cross electric which stated that the electric feed for the
facilities to be built at the site was available from an existing transformer on the Marolt property.
It turns out that the existing transformer does need to be modified by Holy Cross, and there is no
existing Holy Cross easement on the ground under the existing transformer. These types of
agreements are standard for projects such as this and it is unknown why previous agreements or
easements have not been entered.
The attached agreements would put appropriate easements and agreements in place for existing
infrastructure and for new service to and for the affordable housing development and is necessary
for the current work to move forward.
In addition, Holy Cross Energy requires the signature of the Mayor of the City of Aspen in order
to put the agreements in place, hence this requires Council direction and authorization for the
Mayor to sign.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:n/a
RECOMMENDED ACTION:Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution #64 (Series of 2019)
2.Holy Cross Easements
3.Trench, Conduit, and Vault Agreement
22
RESOLUTION #64
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A TRENCH, CONDUIT, AND VAULT
AGREEMENT AND TWO SEPARATE EASEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY
OF ASPEN AND HOLY CROSS ENERGY AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there have been submitted to the City Council a Trench,
Conduit, and Vault Agreement, and two separate Easements across properties
owned by the City between the City of Aspen and Holy Cross Energy, true and
accurate copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Trench,
Conduit, and Vault Agreement, and two separate Easements across properties
owned by the City between the City of Aspen and Holy Cross Energy, copies of
which are annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the
Mayor of the City of Aspen to execute said agreements on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 20
th day of May 2019.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 20, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
23
HOLY CROSS ENERGY
UNDERGROUND RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned,
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
(hereinafter called "Grantor"), for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does
hereby grant unto Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation whose post office address is P. O. Box 2150, Glenwood
Springs, Colorado (hereinafter called "Grantee") and to its successors and assigns, the right of ingress and egress across
lands of Grantor, situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows:
A parcel of land situate in Sections 12 & 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., as
more fully described at Plat Book 122, Pages 91-107 in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder’s Office, Aspen, Colorado.
And, to construct, reconstruct, repair, change, enlarge, re-phase, operate, and maintain an underground electric
transmission or distribution line, or both, with the underground vaults, conduit, fixtures and equipment used or useable in
connection therewith, together with associated equipment required above ground, within the above mentioned lands, upon
an easement described as follows:
An easement ten (10) feet in width, the centerline for said easement being an underground power line as constructed, the
approximate location of which upon the above described property is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
The rights herein granted specifically allow Grantee to install additional underground and/or pad-mounted facilities within
the easement described herein.
It shall be the Grantor’s responsibility to ensure that splice vaults, switchgear vaults and transformer vaults installed
hereunder on said real property are accessible by Grantee’s boom trucks and other necessary equipment and personnel at
all times. The use of such access by Grantee shall not require removal or alteration of any improvements, landscaping, or
other obstructions. The ground surface grade shall not be altered within ten (10) feet of said splice, switchgear and
transformer vaults, nor along the power line route between the vaults. The ground surface grade at said transformer and
switchgear vaults shall be six (6) inches below the top of the pad. The ground surface grade at said splice vaults shall be
even with the top of the pad. The manhole opening of said splice vaults shall be uncovered (excluding snow) and
accessible at all times. Improvements, landscaping or any other objects placed in the vicinity of said transformers and
switchgear shall be located so as not to hinder complete opening of the equipment doors. The ground surface within ten
(10) feet of said transformer and switchgear doors shall be flat, level and free of improvements, landscaping, and other
obstructions. Improvements, landscaping and other objects will be kept a minimum of four (4) feet from non-opening
sides and backs of said transformers and switchgear. Grantor hereby agrees to maintain the requirements of this
paragraph and further agrees to correct any violations which may occur as soon as notified by Grantee. Said corrections
will be made at the sole cost and expense of Grantor.
Together with the right to remove any and all trees, brush, vegetation and obstructions within said easement and the right
to pile spoils outside said easement during construction and maintenance, when such is reasonably necessary for the
implementation and use of the rights hereinabove granted. In areas where vegetation is disturbed by the above described
use of the easement, the ground surface shall be seeded using a standard native mix by Grantee. Grantor agrees that
landscaping or other surface improvements added on said easement after the date of execution hereof will be minimized
and that Grantee will not be responsible for damage to said additional landscaping or surface improvements caused by
exercise of its rights granted by this easement.
Grantor agrees that all facilities installed by Grantee on the above described lands, shall remain the property of Grantee,
and shall be removable at the option of Grantee.
Grantor covenants that they are the owner of the above described lands and that the said lands are free and clear of
encumbrances and liens of whatsoever character, except those held by the following: All those of Record.
W/O#19-23481: 90-75: Castle Creek Rd 488 5/6/19 19-23481KH Page 1 of 2 Revised 12/18/15
24
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said right-of-way and easement, together with all and singular, the rights and privileges
appertaining thereto, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused these presents to be duly executed on this day of
, 20 .
The individual signing this Holy Cross Energy Underground Right-of-Way Easement hereby represents that he has full
power and authority to sign, execute, and deliver this instrument.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By:
Steven Skadron as Mayor
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20 , by Steven Skadron as Mayor of CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO .
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address:
W/O#19-23481: 90-75: Castle Creek Rd 488 5/6/19 19-23481KH Page 2 of 2 Revised 12/18/15
25
26
HOLY CROSS ENERGY
UNDERGROUND RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned,
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
(hereinafter called "Grantor"), for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does
hereby grant unto Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation whose post office address is P. O. Box 2150, Glenwood
Springs, Colorado (hereinafter called "Grantee") and to its successors and assigns, the right of ingress and egress across
lands of Grantor, situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows:
Lot 3, Marolt Ranch Subdivision situate in Sections 12 & 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West
of the 6th P.M.,as more fully described at Plat Book 33, Pages 51-55 in the records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder’s Office, Aspen, Colorado.
And, to construct, reconstruct, repair, change, enlarge, re-phase, operate, and maintain an underground electric
transmission or distribution line, or both, with the underground vaults, conduit, fixtures and equipment used or useable in
connection therewith, together with associated equipment required above ground, within the above mentioned lands, upon
an easement described as follows:
An easement ten (10) feet in width, the centerline for said easement being an underground power line as constructed, the
approximate location of which upon the above described property is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
The rights herein granted specifically allow Grantee to install additional underground and/or pad-mounted facilities within
the easement described herein.
It shall be the Grantor’s responsibility to ensure that splice vaults, switchgear vaults and transformer vaults installed
hereunder on said real property are accessible by Grantee’s boom trucks and other necessary equipment and personnel at
all times. The use of such access by Grantee shall not require removal or alteration of any improvements, landscaping, or
other obstructions. The ground surface grade shall not be altered within ten (10) feet of said splice, switchgear and
transformer vaults, nor along the power line route between the vaults. The ground surface grade at said transformer and
switchgear vaults shall be six (6) inches below the top of the pad. The ground surface grade at said splice vaults shall be
even with the top of the pad. The manhole opening of said splice vaults shall be uncovered (excluding snow) and
accessible at all times. Improvements, landscaping or any other objects placed in the vicinity of said transformers and
switchgear shall be located so as not to hinder complete opening of the equipment doors. The ground surface within ten
(10) feet of said transformer and switchgear doors shall be flat, level and free of improvements, landscaping, and other
obstructions. Improvements, landscaping and other objects will be kept a minimum of four (4) feet from non-opening
sides and backs of said transformers and switchgear. Grantor hereby agrees to maintain the requirements of this
paragraph and further agrees to correct any violations which may occur as soon as notified by Grantee. Said corrections
will be made at the sole cost and expense of Grantor.
Together with the right to remove any and all trees, brush, vegetation and obstructions within said easement and the right
to pile spoils outside said easement during construction and maintenance, when such is reasonably necessary for the
implementation and use of the rights hereinabove granted. In areas where vegetation is disturbed by the above described
use of the easement, the ground surface shall be seeded using a standard native mix by Grantee. Grantor agrees that
landscaping or other surface improvements added on said easement after the date of execution hereof will be minimized
and that Grantee will not be responsible for damage to said additional landscaping or surface improvements caused by
exercise of its rights granted by this easement.
Grantor agrees that all facilities installed by Grantee on the above described lands, shall remain the property of Grantee,
and shall be removable at the option of Grantee.
Grantor covenants that they are the owner of the above described lands and that the said lands are free and clear of
encumbrances and liens of whatsoever character, except those held by the following: All those of Record.
W/O#19-23481: 90-75: Castle Creek Rd 488 5/6/19 19-23481KH Page 1 of 2 Revised 12/18/15
27
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said right-of-way and easement, together with all and singular, the rights and privileges
appertaining thereto, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused these presents to be duly executed on this day of
, 20 .
The individual signing this Holy Cross Energy Underground Right-of-Way Easement hereby represents that he has full
power and authority to sign, execute, and deliver this instrument.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By:
Steven Skadron as Mayor
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20 , by Steven Skadron as Mayor of CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO .
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address:
W/O#19-23481: 90-75: Castle Creek Rd 488 5/6/19 19-23481KH Page 2 of 2 Revised 12/18/15
28
29
TRENCH, CONDUIT, AND VAULT AGREEMENT
This agreement is made and entered into this day of , 20 ,
between CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, whose mailing address is 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611, hereinafter called
"Owner", and Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation whose mailing address is P. O. Box 2150, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado 81602, hereafter called "Holy Cross".
WHEREAS, Holy Cross has been requested by Owner to provide underground electric facilities, hereinafter called “Facilities”,
to serve a project known as Castle Creek Rd 488, hereinafter called “Project”; and,
WHEREAS, Owner is required to provide all excavation, conduit and vault installation, backfill, compaction and cleanup
needed to construct said requested Facilities; and,
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property described as follows: A parcel of land situate in Sections 12 & 13, Township 10 South,
Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., as more fully described at Plat Book 122, Pages 91-107 in the records of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder’s Office, Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter called “Property”, which Property is the real property where the
Project is being developed; and,
WHEREAS, installation of Facilities to serve the Project may require trenching or other excavation on certain real property
adjacent to the Project described as follows: Lot 3, Marolt Ranch Subdivision situate in Sections 12 & 13, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., as more fully described at Plat Book 33, Pages 51-55 in the records of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder’s Office, Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter called “Adjacent Land”.
NOW, THEREFORE, Owner and Holy Cross agree as follows:
1. Owner shall provide all excavation, conduit and vault installation, backfill, compaction and cleanup necessary for
installation of Facilities to serve the Project. Such excavation shall be located as shown on the construction plans
approved by Holy Cross, and performed in accordance with Holy Cross Vault Installation Specifications, Construction
Specifications and inspector requirements. Any deviation from the approved construction plans will not be made unless
approved by Holy Cross in advance. All Facilities installed hereunder shall be inspected during construction by Holy
Cross and shall meet all Holy Cross requirements prior to acceptance of such Facilities by Holy Cross.
a. Prior to commencement of any work hereunder, Holy Cross shall furnish to Owner its Vault Installation Specifications
and Construction Specifications and such specifications are made a part hereof by reference.
b. All Facilities installed within the Property and Adjacent Land shall be within dedicated or conveyed and recorded
utility easements.
c. The top of all conduits installed hereunder shall be located a minimum of 48” below the final grade of the ground
surface.
d. A twelve-inch (12”) minimum separation will be maintained between conduits installed for the Facilities and all other
new or existing underground utilities. Wherever possible, this separation will be horizontal. The Facilities conduit
separation from plastic gas lines shall be greater than this minimum wherever practicable.
e. Holy Cross will supply the necessary conduit and vaults for installation by the Owner upon completion of contractual
arrangements. Owner assumes responsibility for all material lost or damaged after such material has been issued
to and signed for by Owner or by an agent of Owner. Alternatively, Owner may provide its own conduit and vaults
meeting Holy Cross specifications for use on the Project and convey such provided material to Holy Cross with an
acceptable Bill of Sale. After installation by the Owner and acceptance by Holy Cross, Holy Cross shall continue as
the owner of the conduit, vaults and related structures and facilities.
f. If conduit and/or vault installation provided by Owner for the Project are found to be unusable or improperly
constructed, irrespective of whether such discovery is made during or after installation, Owner will be responsible
for correcting said problems at its expense as specified by Holy Cross and Owner shall reimburse Holy Cross for all
additional costs resulting from conduit and/or vault installation being unusable or improperly constructed.
2. Despite the fact that Holy Cross reserves the right to specify acceptable work performed hereunder, Owner shall perform
work hereunder as an independent contractor, including, but not limited to, the hiring and firing of its own employees,
providing its own tools and equipment, payment of all wages, taxes, insurance, employee withholdings, and fees
connected with its work on the Project.
3. Owner shall obtain all necessary digging permits and utility locations prior to excavation for work performed hereunder.
Owner shall repair all damage caused during excavation promptly and at its expense. No excavation will be undertaken
within five (5) feet of existing underground electric facilities except under the on site supervision of a Holy Cross
employee.
W/O#19-23481: 90-75: Castle Creek Rd 488 5/6/19 19-23481KH Page 1 of 3 Revised 12/18/15
30
4. Owner shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless Holy Cross, its employees and agents, against any and all loss, liability,
claims, expense, suits, causes of action, or judgments for damages to property or injury or death to persons that may
arise out of work performed hereunder, or because of a breach of any of the promises, covenants and agreements herein
made by the Owner. Owner shall promptly defend Holy Cross whenever legal proceedings of any kind are brought
against it arising out of work performed hereunder by the Owner and/or work performed at the direction of the Owner.
In the event Owner shall fail to promptly defend Holy Cross, it shall be liable to Holy Cross, and shall reimburse it, for
all costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred in defending any such legal proceeding. Owner agrees to satisfy, pay,
and discharge any and all judgments and fines rendered against Holy Cross arising out of any such proceedings. Owner
also agrees to promptly satisfy and pay any monetary settlements of disputes that arise hereunder, provided Owner has
been given the opportunity to join in such settlement agreements. The above indemnification clause shall not apply to
state and local governments or local service districts. In lieu thereof, whenever Owner is a government or district it shall
procure and maintain in effect at least $1,000,000 of public liability insurance covering the acts, damages and expenses
described in the above indemnification clause. Upon Holy Cross’ request, such an Owner shall furnish a Certificate of
Insurance verifying the existence of such insurance coverage.
5. Owner shall repair, at its expense, any excavation settlement and damage to asphalt paving or other surface
improvements caused by such settlement resulting from work performed hereunder within the Property and Adjacent
Land for a period of two (2) years beginning on the date backfill and cleanup are completed.
6. Owner, at its expense, shall stop the growth of thistles and/or other noxious weeds in all areas disturbed by excavation
performed hereunder for a period of two (2) years beginning on the date backfill and cleanup are completed.
7. In the event Owner shall not promptly complete all of the obligations hereinabove agreed to be performed by Owner,
Holy Cross may give written notice by registered or certified mail demanding Owner to complete the work and obligations
undertaken by Owner herein, and if such is not completed within 30 days after receipt of such notice by Owner, Holy
Cross may complete the work and obligations hereof. If Holy Cross shall be required to complete the work, all costs of
completion shall be chargeable to and collectible from Owner.
8. As set forth in paragraph 1 above, Owner covenants that the trench, and all Facilities within the trench installed hereunder
shall be located within dedicated or conveyed and recorded utility easements and at the proper depth below finished
grade. It shall be the obligation of Owner to properly locate and construct the Facilities within the easement. Should it
ever be discovered that such Facilities have not been properly located within dedicated or conveyed and recorded utility
easements, or at the proper depth, it shall be the obligation of Owner to provide new easements for the actual location
of the Facilities, or to relocate the Facilities within the easement, all of which shall be at the sole cost and expense of
Owner.
9. It shall be Owner’s responsibility to ensure that splice vaults, switchgear vaults and transformer vaults installed
hereunder on the Property are accessible by Holy Cross boom trucks and other necessary equipment and personnel at
all times. The use of such access by Holy Cross shall not require removal or alteration of any improvements, landscaping,
or other obstructions. The ground surface grade shall not be altered within ten (10) feet of said splice, switchgear and
transformer vaults, nor along the power line route between the vaults. The ground surface grade at said transformer
and switchgear vaults shall be six (6) inches below the top of the pad. The ground surface grade at said splice vaults
shall be even with the top of the pad. The manhole opening of said splice vaults shall be uncovered (excluding snow)
and accessible at all times. Improvements, landscaping or any other objects placed in the vicinity of said transformers
and switchgear shall be located so as not to hinder complete opening of the equipment doors. The ground surface
within ten (10) feet of said transformer and switchgear doors shall be flat, level and free of improvements, landscaping,
and other obstructions. Improvements, landscaping and other objects will be kept a minimum of four (4) feet from non-
opening sides and backs of said transformers and switchgear. Owner hereby agrees to maintain the requirements of
this paragraph and further agrees to correct any violations that may occur as soon as notified by Holy Cross. Said
corrections will be made at the sole cost and expense of Owner.
10. All Holy Cross meter locations must be approved in advance. Notwithstanding such advance approval, it shall be the
Owner’s responsibility to maintain acceptable access, as determined solely by Holy Cross, to all Holy Cross meters at all
times. At any time in the future, should access to any Holy Cross meters be determined by Holy Cross to be unacceptable,
then it shall be the Owner’s responsibility, at the Owner’s sole cost, to correct the access and make it acceptable, as
determined solely by Holy Cross.
11. Owner covenants that it is the owner of the above described Property and that said Property is free and clear of
encumbrances and liens of any character, except those held by the following: All those of Record.
The promises, agreements and representations made by Owner herein shall be covenants that run with the Property and
shall be binding upon the successors in interest, and assigns, of the Property.
W/O#19-23481: 90-75: Castle Creek Rd 488 5/6/19 19-23481KH Page 2 of 3 Revised 12/18/15
31
The individual signing this Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement hereby represents that he/she has full power and
authority to sign, execute, and deliver this instrument.
Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By: By:
David Bleakley – Vice President, Engineering Steven Skadron as Mayor
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 ,
by Steven Skadron as Mayor of CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address:
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 ,
by David Bleakley – Vice President, Engineering, Holy Cross Energy, a Colorado corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address:
W/O#19-23481: 90-75: Castle Creek Rd 488 5/6/19 19-23481KH Page 3 of 3 Revised 12/18/15
Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement
Holy Cross Energy 32
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Robert Schober, Project Manager
THROUGH:Gena Buhler, Executive Director Wheeler Opera House
DATE OF MEMO:May 16, 2019
MEETING DATE:May 20, 2019
RE:Wheeler Chiller Replacement
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Staff is requesting funding in the amount of $100,000 for the
replacement of the mechanical chiller unit at the Wheeler Opera House.
DISCUSSION: The Wheeler Opera House mechanical systems are scheduled to be
recommissioned as a part of the larger project in spring of 2020.It was discovered that the existing
chiller which is a piece of the HVAC system,will require extensive repairs this spring it was
determined that a replacement at this time is appropriate and responsible when looking at the larger
mechanical system and past performance history. With a full event schedule starting June 1, it is
imperative that the chiller be in working condition for the Wheeler to host summer events.
Due to Wheeler’s performance and event schedule the window to install this component of the
mechanical system and make the necessary repairs was extremely limited. An emergency
procurement process was initiated to get equipment ordered and contractors on site to perform the
repair.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Falcon Plumbing & Heating of Colorado Inc. has a contract in place
in the amount of $94,465.00 (Exhibit A) to install a new Chiller unit along with the ancillary pumps
and valving. We are carrying an additional allowance of $5,535 for electrical, controls and any
required testing and balancing. The total repair cost of $100,000 is to be funded from the 2019
approved budget authority for Project #51041 -Wheeler Building and Site Improvements. A
portion of this would have been scope required for the original project. A portion is capital
maintenance and repair.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:Staff recommends that council approve Resolution No. 65 Series
of 2019.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibit A –Falcon Plumbing & Heating Contract
33
RESOLUTION #65
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND FALCON PLUMBING & HEATING OF COLORADO INC
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
HVAC System Repairs at the Wheeler Opera House between the City of Aspen
and Falcon Plumbing & Heating of Colorado Inc a true and accurate copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for HVAC System Repairs at the Wheeler Opera House between the City of Aspen
and Falcon Plumbing & Heating of Colorado Inc a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to
execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 20
th day of May, 2019.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held May 20, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
34
Exhibit A: Falcon Plumbing & Heating Contract
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
1
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES..........................................................................................................2
CITIZEN COMMENTS...............................................................................................................................2
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS...................................................................................................................3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS................................................................................................................4
AGENDA AMENDMENTS ........................................................................................................................4
BOARD REPORTS......................................................................................................................................4
CONSENT CALENDAR.............................................................................................................................4
Resolution #57, Series of 2019 – Boiler Maintenance Work at Red Brick ..........................................7
Resolution #58, Series of 2019 – New City Offices Building – Shaw Construction GMP Contract
and Resolution #59, Series of 2019 425/455 Rio Budget Update and Budget Authority............................7
Resolution #56, Series of 2019 – Building Permit Software System....................................................7
Resolution #48, Series of 2019 – Wagner Park Turf Restoration Contract..........................................7
Resolution #55, Series of 2019 – As Needed Excavation Contract......................................................7
Resolution #60, Series of 2019 – Revised Intergovernmental Agreement for Governance of the
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority......................................................................................................7
Minutes – April 22 and 24, 2019..........................................................................................................7
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development Review,
Relocation and Setback Variation at 105 E. Hallam Street ..........................................................................8
RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2019 & ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2019 – Land use Code
Amendment and APCHA Referrals..............................................................................................................8
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2019 – Transportation and Parking Management....................................9
ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2019 – Flavored Tobacco Ban...............................................................10
RESOLUTION #54, SERIES OF 2019 – 411 E. Hyman Avenue Extension of Vested Rights.................13
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2019 – 119 Neale Avenue, Transferable Development Rights..............13
ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2019 – Spring Supplemental Budget........................................................14
ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2019 – Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments......................15
46
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Myrin,
Hauenstein and Mullins present.
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Proclamation – month of the young child. Mayor Skadron read the proclamation proclaiming May as
month of the young child. Megan Monahan, Kids First, said thanks to council for your support and
making May month of the young child. The 29th annual children’s parade is next Tuesday at 10am.
Mayor Skadron said next in line to kids are trees. Mayor Skadron read the proclamation proclaiming
Arbor Day as May 18th. Ben Carlson, parks, introduced the new city forester David Coon. This is the
27th year we have been a tree city USA. This Saturday at Paepcke park will be a tree raffle, bucket truck
rides, hot dogs and kids activities, 10 to 12 at the park
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Peter Grenney asked questions on the GMP contract for city offices. He said it includes the
remainder of the building scope. Is that correct. Administrative oversite of change orders, how
often will that be shared with the public since they are not coming to council. There is an
additional 6,000 square feet of community space per council direction, when was it added. The
10% contingency by my math is less then 10 %. Who is ultimately accountable for the project.
Mayor Skadron replied city council. Mr. Grenney said the exhibits show a bid plan dated 3-28
the program changes were not part of ordinance 4, why are they not on the website. Since
February 11 about 3.4 million dollars in Shaw change orders. The overall contingency is 2.9
million. Do we feel 2.9 million is enough contingency based on all the changes to date. What
happens. We are $850,000 away from the voter approved budget. On the armory, last summer
the city manager quoted it at 15 million now it is 13. The armory budget is going down while the
city offices one is going up. Will this building be remodeled or will costs be shifted to the
offices. Are there allowances for cost escalation or will they be additional change orders. Is the
waste all going to the landfill.
2. Chris Counsel, member of APCHA. I’ve sent council an email and want to follow up.
Commenting on Reso 60. Everyone agrees the current system needs changes. The current call up
process makes changes take too long. The proposed changes eliminate the board as a citizens
board. It is reverting to a structure we had before that was determined to be ineffective. I don’t
understand why we are going back to something we had 20 years ago. Independent counsel
suggested the board be independent. There are a lot of good options out there including an
elected citizens board. The county and city can still control the budget. I’m disappointed in the
entire process. It has not been transparent. The board has not been engaged on the process. We
appreciate the meetings from the county. Council and commissioners have failed to listen to the
boards concerns. We asked that this wait until the new council is seated. I feel it has been
disrespectful to the citizen boards. It is scheduled to be implemented on August 1st and the details
of the citizen appointees have not been finalized. There has been no discussion regarding board
members who have remaining time in their terms. He asked that this be postponed until it can be
looked at holistically.
3. Peter Fornell spoke about APCHA governance, for a very long time we have been proud of our
citizen boards that have been voluntary in nature. It gives an open minded opinion to you what
an outside opinion is regarding the housing authority. I’m fearful what will go on with a board
consisting of elected officials and a minority of citizens who might be fearful of saying what they
think. He would like to see the board remain an advisory group of citizens. There are potential
unintended consequence where land use applications could be decided on by the board. Take a
step back in what you are doing with the APCHA governance. We wanted to have citizen
advisory groups giving recommendations to the elected boards. 47
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
3
4. George Newman, Pitkin county commissioner. The sky is not falling down. We started a process
with a subcommittee 2 years ago. The idea was to look at ways to address the capital reserve
issues. Thorough those discussions we came up with 2 different alternatives. We could not come
to an agreement. We gave it to the APCHA board to make a recommendation. That never
occurred. The subcommittee reconvened and those discussions turned to governance. We even
looked at breaking up the IGA. We felt that 90% of APCHA was working well. We decided
what was needed to make it more effective was a new governance structure. After another year
of discussion, we had a joint meeting and what was decided was since certain policies were not
moving forward, including capital reserves, what was missing was the board making ultimate
decisions and be accountable. Where is the accountability with a voluntary board. We felt it was
appropriate to have elected officials back on the board. The majority is still citizens. In the long
run if we want APCHA to make policy decisions and not deal with call ups, this new model is the
way to go. There are still outstanding issues including accountability and who the director will
report to. That will happen with the new council. The model is to create a more effective
accountable board. BOCC approved the IGA unanimously last week. I urge you to approve it as
well.
5. Toni Kronberg said the airport advisory group is moving along well. I want to give credit to the
county. When I was in Glenwood one of the gas station attendants said all the kids here are
driving there to get their tobacco. On city offices, when Harry and Bill came here it was reported
that the city was reopening design. Mayor Skadron said that was regarding the plaza. Ms.
Kronberg said on consent tonight is approval for the Shaw contract. I don’t understand why it is
not a public hearing. I can’t understand why Rio Grande street is narrower. Hoping we would
have a safer street with this project. Where will parents drop their kids off. She asked if there
will be more check ins with the public regarding offices. Councilman Hauenstein said both Bill
and Harry stated they did not want to open ordinance 4.
6. Bob Morris said Ruth Harrison wrote a letter to the editor the other day regarding the study about
the arts. She said without the arts and institute we are just another ski town. We are so busy
during the music festival. Without it we would be empty. Is the goal to try to quantify dollars
spent for the arts. What’s the return. I don’t know if you will get the information you want and
the expense will result in the correct product. Sara Ott, city manager, said this study is organized
by ACRA. Our commitment is $10,000 as participants. The core team was assembled by ACRA
to represent the arts. The last time a study was done was 16 years ago. I wanted to understand
the employment component. The non profits want a better understanding of sales tax dollars
generated from events. We have nothing to track the collected impact of the arts on our
community. Many partners have come together for funding. Councilman Hauenstein said Alan,
Heidi and Jim were all here asking for funds from the city. Originally, I said we know it is
important, why do we need to do a study. They argued it has been so long since one was done
and we need to actually quantify the impact of arts on the community.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Hauenstein said I’m wearing a Colorado Avalanche jersey. It came in late. I’m celebrating
the Avs. They made it to the 7th game of the 2nd round. On work force housing, I look forward to
building more. We have a revenue stream to pay for financing so I would like to move forward sooner
rather than later in providing work force housing.
Councilman Myrin said one more meeting than this council is over. Sara mentioned wanting to
understand the non-profit employee generation. We removed the affordable housing exemption for
historic properties. There is another exemption for non profits. If it is discovered there is employment in
that sector and the non profits are relying on the housing that exemption should be phased out. This
council has done some things on housing including raising the mitigation by 5%. If each council does the
same the gap between what we have now and 100% will eventually be closed.
48
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
4
Councilwoman Mullins said on continuing to celebrate the kids. Colorado state passed legislation that
now funds full day kindergarten. That is something to celebrate. On the city manager recruitment
process we are having meetings with the recruiter. Thank you Ward and Bert for recognizing what this
council has done for housing. People have recognized that arts and culture are economic drivers. It is
important because currently the non profits use to get 80% of donations from 20% of donors. Now it is
95% form 5%. They are becoming dependent on a very small pool of donors. It is a great study and I’m
glad ACRA is doing it. It will be worth wile for the city. In terms of APCHA and city office comments,
I assume they will be pulled from consent.
Councilman Frisch said thanks for the comments. Everyone agrees subjectively how important arts and
culture are. I’m fully supportive of using community dollars for it. Happy spring.
Mayor Skadron said the ride for the pass is on Saturday. It benefits the independence pass foundation.
Also on Saturday from 10 to 12 is the arbor day celebration at Paepcke park. Tuesday 10am is the kids
parade downtown. This is also police week. Thank you to our law enforcement at all levels. On funding
full day kindergarten, what we hope to accomplish is free up funds for families to pay for other programs.
We hope we close the achievement gap that falls within racial and geographic lines. We believe Aspen
was the only municipality to pass an endorsement for the legislation that was signed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Ms. Ott said we reported that we anticipated to do the pavement repair on the bridge. It will be
postponed. We don’t not know the date of the permanent fix. We are still working through some things
with CDOT. We are going to recommend delaying the 2019 asphalt overlay program. Staff is
recommending that for 2020. Regarding emergency procurement for the Wheeler, it will come back on
Monday.
AGENDA AMENDMENTS
Jim True, city attorney, said 2 of the last 3 public hearings staff will request be continued. Resolution 54
had a noticing error by the applicant. Ordinance 10, 119 Neale Ave, we are going to request a
continuance until next Monday. There is a gentleman who cannot be here next week to comment.
BOARD REPORTS
RFTA – Mayor Skadron said we talked about CO and encroachment matters. The supplemental budget
including bus replacement and Glenwood maintenance facility. We talked about battery electric busses
this fall. The plan is to have 30% of fleet electric, 30% compressed natural gas and 30% other things.
That was my final RFTA meeting after 12 years. I’m really proud of the work we did there.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Mullins said on 58 there were good questions brought up. One of the things I emailed
about was where is the 6900 square feet was added on. What use is it for.
Jeff Pendarvis, asset, said that was over the course of design as it flushed out from one roof to two roofs.
There were discussions about Tasters, ACRA and replacing sister cities and the rio grand meeting rooms.
They were all included as part of ordinance 4. Councilwoman Mullins asked how would Tasters add to it.
Mr. Pendarvis replied we would need to replace the space.
Councilman Frisch said despite the looks, Tasters is open for business. Mr. Pendarvis asked how staff
should respond to Peter’s questions. Councilwoman Mullins said some are things that can’t be
determined until we are in to construction. Mr. Pendarvis said Jack is here today to talk about the GMP.
Jack Wheeler, owner’s rep, said the exhibits included what the number is for as well as a scope. I’m
happy to meet with Peter and address his questions. The GMP is a guaranteed maximum price. There is
a scope that goes with it. Shaw has been in business over 50 years and been involved in complex
projects. Councilwoman Mullins asked does the GMP accommodate any changes. Mr. Wheeler said 49
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
5
currently the design accounts for LEED gold. That has always been the criteria and continues to be. The
design far exceeds that. We are working with climate action to see what is important for the city. 85% of
the recommendations had already been taken in to account. We will be back in front of you if there is a
cost impact related to energy. Councilwoman Mullins asked for a comment about the voter approved
budget. Ms. Ott stated the ballot question was regarding location not budget. The estimate from the fact
sheet is 46 to 49 million. The GMP is within that. The 15 million was a number that was part of the
negotiations for the Hopkins property. Councilwoman Mullins said we are still working on finalizing the
interior. Ms. Ott replied correct. We will come back once a month to address the final issues including
net zero, plaza and a review of programming. Those are the three major decision packages. Some of
them have no price tag as they are included in the GMP. Net zero will have an increased cost.
Councilman Hauenstein said LEED gold, we have to pay for. It may be we get close to net zero for
cheaper than LEED gold. Mr. Pendarvis replied we are still weighing that. Councilman Hauenstein said
we still need natural gas as a back up. Mr. Pendarvis replied correct. Councilman Hauenstein said Peter
brought up a few things including the three million in change orders. Mr. Wheeler said the Shaw contract
was initially executed 4 years ago. The first piece was pre construction services, the APD, then the
housing, then the utility project. They were all change orders but were all anticipated in the overall
project. Councilman Hauenstein asked about the city manager executing change orders to keep the
project moving. As I understand it will be transparent and open to the public. You will be reporting back
and council will be approving after the fact. Ms. Ott stated the resolution tonight authorizes me to
administer the contingency. My expectation is to report to you and post to the project website at least
monthly. One of the things that came up is fluctuation and pricing of goods. It is absolutely a timing
reason. We will administer it to the detail you will like. There is not the need for council action on every
change order. Councilman Hauenstein said Peter asked if we will be taking from the armory for the
office project. I think the GMP covers everything. Mr. Wheeler stated the budget for the armory has
moved up and down over the last 5 years. It is back up to 13.9 million from what we know. The actual
construction cost has remained the same. It has never been higher than 15.8 or lower than 13.8. It is
based on the current market and what we plan to do for this building. We feel it is an adequate budget.
Councilman Hauenstein said the Shaw contract for tonight is for 24 million but that is not the total cost
for the project. It may be misleading to some that 24.8 for Shaw is to cover all the construction. That is
not the case. Mr. Wheeler said that is just to construct the building. Mr. Pendarvis said regarding waste,
we successfully diverted waste from the deconstruction.
Councilman Frisch said I assume there will be this conversation after the building is constructed. I
suggest questions should be presented in writing. I don’t think verbalizing 27 questions every week is the
best way to get answers. If the real goal is to get the answers my suggestion would be to email staff. Mr.
Greeney said getting a packet on Friday and answers by Monday is not realistic. Councilman Frisch said
not every question that council asks is able to be answered by staff on Monday either. I think staff will do
a good job getting back in a reasonable manner. It is better to submit everything. Scott Miller, assistant
city manager, said we have been meeting with Peter since February. Every time he asked we have met
with him. We have also met with other members of the public. Mayor Skadron said Toni, all you care
about is stopping this project. I don’t know what more we can do. Ms. Ott said from a procurement
standpoint, council has always done it by resolution not ordinance. That is why it qualifies to be on the
consent. If council wants to handle the consent differently we can.
Councilman Frisch said we should vote on everything so far and pull 60.
Councilman Myrin said I will vote no on 48 as I have for the past several years.
Reso 60 – APCHA IGA
Councilman Frisch said from a technical standpoint there are items about the land use. If resolution 60
goes forward then we need to bring in the amendment to discuss the land use code review. Mr. True said
that is consistent with how other referrals happen. I think staff would still recommend ordinance 12
moves forward. If you adopt Reso 60 the IGA goes to the county for second reading.
Councilman Frisch said there has been a lot of home health issues at home for me since December so I
have not been able to respond as quickly as I like. I’m not sure at any point any APCHA member that has 50
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
6
reached out wanting to talk has been turned down. There is no doubt that a bunch of great work has been
done. As George said, I think we all agree there are some governance stumbling blocks at the board level
that has kept them from being as effective as they can be. There are times when out reach has not been
what it could be. There has been some push bask we are talking these governance issues at the end of a
term. I’m pretty sure if we were up here backing what the folks on APCHA wanted we would be cheered.
Instead you don’t like our decision and want to kick it down the road. I think that is unfair and
unbecoming of the APCHA board. Not including the board has been discussed often. The board chair of
APCHA has been involved in every step of the process. At the December 11th meeting we dove in to the
governance issue. Your chair Ron Erickson was sitting there at the table for the entire part of the
conversation. A few months ago we had a conversation of fine structure and Mr. Erickson was at the
table. I don’t buy that all of a sudden we are springing this on to the community and board. Any time 10
elected officials don’t go to an APCHA meeting you are being slighted. I don’t know of a time where a
board member raised their hand and said I want to speak and they were turned down. A lot of things I’ve
read about is elected officials causing problems. I don’t see that happening up here. Currently there are
10 elected officials in the model. We are trying to narrow it down to 2 and get them involved sooner.
The new board will be made up of 3 community members and 2 elected officials. One of the things that
has been written about is some APCHA folks want 100% elected officials. To me it is not elected or not
but you don’t like some version of the 5 of us and 10 county making decisions. The other thing that came
up is don’t make the decision now while we have to tackle the staff issue. Nothing on the administration
staff level should affect how the board is composed. The whole frustration comes down to that the
members of the board and staff are looking at a traditional housing authority. APCHA was set up for a
different reason and revenue source. I think it would be a derelict of duty to hand over the money to an
independent board. The vast majority of money comes from RETT money. I think a lot of the angst is
coming form APCHA and why can’t we be like a traditional housing authority. To this point, I think it is
a huge upgrade from a lot of common frustrations we have shared. When an issue can’t be agreed on like
capital reserves one side can walk away which is not helpful. I think this is a brilliant compromise. If I
am a board person or staff member I would be thrilled we will have a more nimble board. As far as
reporting structure, it is up for discussion but I don’t think there is agreement as to what the problem is.
There is a pot of money and we all need to realize where it comes from. The most important thing is the
current residents of the program, future ones and housing stock. I’m supportive of the resolution and will
show up at the meetings and happy to continue the conversation. I’m glad the board will be jointly
appointed. There has been a lot of good work but sad the frustration has spun out of control.
Councilman Myrin said 3 of the council members here tonight received a vote of no confidence at the last
election. This council needs to give the next one accountability for the IGA. It is difficult for the
community to communicate and maybe that is why 3 of us who ran received a vote of no confidence.
Mayor Skadron replied that is not true, you are the only one who ran and was not elected. I think the next
council should have accountability for this.
Councilman Hauenstein said I think it is totally appropriate for the sitting council to make this decision.
It was this council that for over a year have been involved in the conversation how to fix something that is
broken. This resolution will streamline and give the board authority to make decisions. I believe in the
last few months the animosity that has serviced, I don’t feel it is a contentious relationships from the
elected bodies. I’m at a bit of a loss to understand where it is coming from. There has been numerous
work sessions where these issues have been discussed. The people sitting at the table now should be the
ones making the decision. Council didn’t ignore a resolution, there was no resolution. It failed for a lack
of a second. When a resolution fails it is not ignored. I take exception to the characterization that council
ignored a resolution that never passed. It is honestly not in the boards responsibility to advise on the
construct of the board. I advocated for an elected board but there was no traction for it. It has been
presented when elected are at a meeting it intimidates people from making honest open comments. If that
was the case how would an all elected body be less intimidating. If the board is dissatisfied with the
irregularity of elected showing up at the meetings yet say it is intimidating when they do, that is flawed
logic. 51
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
7
Councilwoman Mullins said the question of if this council should make the decision or pass it off. We
have been working really hard on this for years. As a group we participated in the BOCC meetings. A lot
of effort has been put in to this. I don’t think it is at all inappropriate for this council to start the first of
these changes. Elected officials didn’t work 20 years ago but things are different now. We have a model
for a strategic plan. 20 years ago the new board may have worked better. We need to make a change. If
it doesn’t work we revisit it. I think we have put together a really good IGA to move forward. As far as
APCHA participation I think Adam outlined it well. Last, the appointment process, we still don’t have it
ironed out exactly what will happen. I think everyone is hoping the current board members will reapply.
Mr. Counsel said clearly there is a lot of emotion in the room. I don’t live in affordable housing and don’t
have a dog in this fight. I’ve been involved in housing issues for the past 20 years. I believe in housing
and our community. During the election cycle Ron wrote a letter that was inappropriate. I called him on
it at the next meeting. I contacted Adam that that letter was not reflective of the entire board. I sat
through all the work sessions. We were never given the opportunity to speak or were asked to speak. We
have not had the opportunity to speak publicly. It is a process point but we feel we have not been
engaged with in a public setting. I am not calling the process flawed as a function of not getting what we
want. All of us have the best interest of our community at heart. We have a disagreement of how to get
there. You seem to believe we have been involved. The APCHA board was not made aware of this until
August. There is animosity because we have been berated, cursed at and belittled. This will probably
pass and that is fine. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I think the context is important to
understand where the frustration is coming from. The entire board has not been involved in the process.
From the time we found out we repeatedly brought our issues to the floor and have not been responded to
in a public forum.
Mr. Fornell said I’m concerned about the width of the new boards decision making abilities. I don’t want
the county making decisions on city property.
Councilman Frisch replied the board will not be making final decisions on land use. Mr. Fornell said that
is a misunderstanding of mine.
Resolution #57, Series of 2019 – Boiler Maintenance Work at Red Brick
Resolution #58, Series of 2019 – New City Offices Building – Shaw Construction GMP
Contract and Resolution #59, Series of 2019 425/455 Rio Budget Update and Budget
Authority
Resolution #56, Series of 2019 – Building Permit Software System
Resolution #48, Series of 2019 – Wagner Park Turf Restoration Contract
Resolution #55, Series of 2019 – As Needed Excavation Contract
Resolution #60, Series of 2019 – Revised Intergovernmental Agreement for Governance
of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Minutes – April 22 and 24, 2019
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt all but Resolutions #60 and 48; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution
#48; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #60; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried.
52
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
8
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development Review,
Relocation and Setback Variation at 105 E. Hallam Street
Amy Simon, community development, said April 10th was the HPC decision. This is a 3,000 square foot
lot with an unusual brick miners cottage on it. The application is to demo a small non historic addition,
lift the historic structure and move it forward and construct a new addition. There was no floor area
bonus request. It is also under the maximum floor area. The set back variations only had to do with the
historic house is wider than the setback in inches. It was a 4 to 2 vote. 2 had strong opinions about the
relocation and roof form.
Councilwoman Mullins asked what are the conditions. Ms. Simon replied HPC has been trying to reach
out to referral depts earlier. Some conditions deal with building code compliance. We want to make sure
parks is satisfied with the excavation. The basement will be a bit larger than the footprint with a green
roof. There are also details of the foundation treatment.
Councilman Myrin said the question about the relocation forward, what was the issues. Ms. Simon said
this block is all historic buildings. Relocation needs to be considered carefully. Would this place the
building differently than its neighbors. The historic buildings are not in perfect alignment. Moving this
forward would maintain the condition.
Councilman Hauenstein said this house is back from its neighbors. Why is it raised. Historically it
doesn’t have a step up. Staff was recommending a step up. Ms. Simon said we are trying to make sure
there is no change. The front porch is settling and almost flush. It is important the house stays the same
relationship to grade. We don’t want to change the existing design. Councilman Hauenstein asked if
there was a sidewalk it would be another one to no where. What is the health of the cottonwoods. Ms.
Simon said engineering had requested a sidewalk. After they met with parks they decided it would affect
the trees. Parks is trying to preserve the trees.
Mayor Skadron said this will not be called up.
RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2019 & ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2019 – Land use Code
Amendment and APCHA Referrals
Mr. True said you can discuss this in coordination with ordinance 12. The resolution is a public hearing.
Mike Kraemer, community development, said the policy conversation dictates how the land use
conversation goes. This is the 2nd step in a 3 step land use code amendment. The first is public outreach.
That has been done through the various work sessions. With the IGA change, staff has picked up on code
amendments that need to happen with a council member on that board. The code states APCHA review.
The text is not that complicated but there are 15 different sections that need amended to remove the
APCHA referral. It is being replaced to be compliant with APCHA guidelines. The executive director
will now be providing land use referrals. We are recommending 2nd reading for May 20th. Jessica
Garrow, community development, said Peter Fornell made some comments during the IGA discussion. I
want to make it clear that these amendments will address the issue he raised. This will also make all the
land use referrals consistent across the board. This amendment has needed to happen and would have
regardless of the IGA.
Councilman Hauenstein asked is there precedent that a policy resolution are held back to back. Ms.
Garrow replied yes it has happened a few times before on the more technical amendments. Councilman
Hauenstein said this makes sure an appointed board does not have authority over land use cases. Mr.
Kraemer said the make up of the board includes elected officials. We are trying to eliminate the referral
in the code. All referrals will be from staff. Ms. Garrow said a parallel example of this is parks. Trees
go to parks staff not the open space and trails board. It is not taking away the APCHA review. It is
handled more administratively. Mr. True said this is why I said earlier in the meeting we would
recommend this anyway to make it consistent with other recommending bodies.
53
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
9
Councilman Frisch said I’m supportive of this. In the past APCHA has been reviewing land use
applications. I think on their own volition and made some recommendations. Don’t be surprised if there
is pushback that the board is losing power by reviewing this. Open space has never looked at them.
APCHA has for many years. It has been done more on an informal basis. Ms. Ott said the board
discussed this 2 meetings ago and were inquiring as to what the council is looking for from them. They
questioned if this was the best use of their time as a board since council questioned their
recommendations.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Myrin said during the application for Lift One the board wrote an extensive memo. How
will that content be conveyed to council. MS. Garrow said Gorsuch and Lift One were unique in
timeframe and review process. In the IGA if there is a request from council for the board to weigh in, it is
there. This amendment does not address the one off more complex cases. Councilman Myrin said I don’t
recall if the letter was signed by the board or the director. Mr. Kraemer replied I don’t know either. The
final reviews for those projects are with P&Z and HPC. Councilman Myrin said the content of the letter
was specific to housing. I think it was valuable for that content to be pushed on to council. Ms. Ott said
the executive director is to provide comment on proposals, if requested. It does not prevent them from
commenting but obligates it when asked.
Councilman Frisch said if the board wants to get involved or is asked, what do the elected officials do.
Mr. True said there is a recent case as long as the elected official is disclosing and can represent they are
reviewing the land use hearing that comes before them they do not need to recuse. I do believe those
issues may arise and the simple solution is the elected official recuses from the APCHA board or later
from the council or commission decision. It is something you have to weigh as it plays out. The recent
case would indicate it is not necessary.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #52, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #12, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 12
(SERIES OF 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
CODE RELATED APCHA BOARD REFERRALS AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes;
Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2019 –Transportation and Parking Management
Ms. Garrow stated this is minor clean up to transportation and parking management requirements. For
background, we had extensive meetings during the moratorium in 2015 and 2016. Parking amendments
were adopted and integrated parking and mobility requirements. We expected at that time there would be
cleanup. The ordinance maintains current development rights and regulations but provide clarification.
This is the first of what will be 2 or 3 ordinances over the next year. More substantive ordinances will
come in late 2019 and early 2020. We have been working with a focus group of architects and planners
as well as check ins with P&Z and HPC. This is improving formatting and eliminating confusing
technology. There is no change to development requirements, just adding and clarifying some terms. She 54
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
10
gave the example of accessory spaces. Typically, they are associated with a larger commercial business or
lodge where guests not there for a full day can load or unload. The moratorium changes described
parking requirements with metrics that will be updated. With shared parking we wanted it to coordinate
with the off street standards. It allows off site parking to be located off site. It is included in the mobility
plan process. We want to ensure the code delivers the council goals of the moratorium. Originally, this
included removing or reconfiguring parking where there is no clear process. We are going to take it out.
That seems like it is more policy change than code clean up.
Councilman Frisch said I’m fully supportive of the true clean up. The bigger stuff can be tackled at a
later date.
Councilman Hauenstein said anything that makes the regulations less confusing I’m for.
Mayor Skadron said on the shared parking, what are we hoping to see as far as change. What will parking
look like. Ms. Garrow said when we created the model if there was a larger redevelopment that provided
more parking than required it could be public parking or shared parking. Mayor Skadron said is this built
on the principle that a restaurant and office tower where the office needs the parking from 8-5 and the
restaurant from 5 on, one parking lot could satisfy both. Ms. Garrow replied yes, you may see that in a lot
of communities. There are enough parcels particularly in the lodging sector where you may see this. A
real world example is the benedict commons parking.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #13, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO 13
(SERIES OF 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO LAND
USE CODE CHAPTER 26.515, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes;
Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2019 –Flavored Tobacco Ban
CJ Oliver, environmental health, said if passed this ordinance would ban the sale of flavored tobacco
products in the city. It bans the flavor of all tobacco and nicotine products. The ordinance includes
menthol cigarettes, chewing tobacco and vaping liquids. Council heard from a number of health and
school officials requesting a full ban. There were also questions about what impact a full ban would have
on local retailers.
Councilman Hauenstein said we received one or two emails saying there is no credible evidence that
vaping is safer or less harmful than smoking. I would like to have a comment on that.
Councilman Frisch said to Wards follow up, whether it is Dr. Levin or the health department it would be
helpful to have that. We received 5 or 6 emails from someone saying they own a retail store in Aspen and
their sales would be affected 35%. One person responded back that they own a store in Portland Oregon
and the trade association asked them to reach out. We should not be surprised to see similar
conversations. We are definitely on the radar across the country.
Councilwoman Mullins said thank you for putting this together in a week.
55
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
11
Councilman Hauenstein said I still have concerns and trepidation telling someone over 21 what they can
do with their life. I understand it is our charge to look after the public health of the community. It is
something I’m struggling with. I will approve this on first reading. I also struggle with people who can
vote or die for their country, but we say can’t smoke menthol cigarettes. I don’t know where
overstepping the bounds is. I’m sensitive to the loss of revenue that consenting adults have for something
that is legal across the country. I do want to bring it forward for a public hearing.
Councilman Myrin said over 21 people should be able to decide what they want to do as long as it doesn’t
affect others.
Councilman Frisch said there is the do nothing, ban vaping or all menthol products. Do you not want to
get into the vaping discussion. We have been talking about youth and that is where the focus has been. I
argued last time if we want to switch from a youth discussion to a health discussion, we have 7 or 8
marijuana shops Aspen and multiple liquor stores.
Councilman Myrin said the over 21 should be able to do what they want as long as they are not impacting
others.
Mike Haisfield, owner of the Aspen Store, said I feel like the issue we are talking about is once 21 make
your own decision. I’ve been the owner of the Aspen store since 1996. I have 20 full time and part time
employees. I have talked to council and the general public and feel this was started to protect our youth.
Based on my first hand experience, vaping and E cigs are the issue with young adults not the other
tobacco products. The ban is imposing restrictions on grown adults who are, despite assumptions to the
contrary, the primary users of flavored tobacco products and should be allowed to make their own
decisions. In December of 2018 we voluntarily eliminated all vape and e cigarettes products from all our
stores. We took the initiative and were hoping to set an example. I believe we must educate our youth.
As of now there has not ever been a class or seminar to Aspen students on the effects of tobacco. The city
has raised over $300,000 on tobacco sales but has not taken any steps on trying to curb a young adult
through informative classes or seminars from even wanting to try it. A ban won’t stop a young adult for
wanting to try it, but education will. I ask that this ban is reconsidered and for the attention to be
redirected to other forms of support, not personal taste. Flavored tobacco and chew are options that a 21
year old adult has. There are seven dispensaries within walking distance that offer all type of flavors,
candy or other packages. If this is about youth lets focus on them. Mike introduced his sons John and
Brady, both who attend the high school. They are some what where I get my information from a school
level. Education would be more supportive than a ban. If it is not county and city wide, education is
more important. John said from a student perspective as far as tobacco products go is students using e
cigarettes or vape products. You never see them dipping. It is only e cigarettes. Brady said I’ve seen
people use the vape products but never a cigarette or tobacco. Mike said even if it was starting with the
vape and e cigarettes, get education involved so kids don’t even start would be much more effective. I’m
in the school system for quite some time. If we see kids using the other products I will pull them off my
shelves. Mayor Skadron asked what is the financial impact. Mike said from 2018 we were down 35% in
tobacco sales. This proposal would be another 25 %. Because of the age change and the tax. The tax has
been a major deterrent. Mayor Skadron said we talked about this at the work session and I referred to the
AACP and health of the community. The compelling argument you are making is the availability of the
product at nearby retailers. What we haven’t done is work in conjunction with the county, Basalt and
Glenwood making it unavailable. We are working on a plan to apply the 300K toward education. Mr.
Oliver replied that is the plan. A lot of it is the peer to peer piece that matters not a person my age saying
don’t do that. We’ve had a lot of conversations from kids at the high school addicted to vaping products.
That will be one of our focal points. Mayor Skadron asked what is the tine frame. Mr. Oliver said I will
be presenting recommendations later this summer. It will be incorporated in the 2020 budget. By all
accounts these programs work. The conversation aligning more closely with the county. The county is
about to embark on the same steps we have with licensing, tax and age restriction.
56
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
12
Karen Kenneman, Pitkin county health director, said we have been following your lead on this. We are
waiting for HB 1033 to pass which will allow counties to do the same thing. We have the board of health
recommendation to do retail licensing, tobacco 21 and the tax. We totally feel your pain Mike and have a
consistent policy across the county. We commend you for taking vape products off your shelves
voluntarily. If you pass this ordinance you will be the biggest leader across Colorado. Whether you go
for a full or partial ban we are here to support you. Mayor Skadron said the issue around proximity and
availability will be addressed in the near future. Karen replied exactly. Mike said my thinking was to get
more people in line down the valley.
Councilman Hauenstein said thank you John and Brady for coming in tonight. After our meeting I went
to city market and John was on vacation. I would like to include him. I’m curious about the peer group
and if we can start a peer group advisory group to come up with ideas of what would be effective.
Although it is contrary to my personal belief, during prohibition it spanned organized crime. If adults
want to do something they will do it. I’m struggling with telling someone 21 they can’t do something.
Tobacco is a nicotine delivery system. Vaping is a gateway drug to tobacco addiction.
Councilwoman Mullins said for second reading it would be good to talk about the valley wide efforts.
Ward you make a good point. If there is some way to summarize the dangers of flavors tobacco. What is
the risk of keeping it on the shelf and the middle road of leaving menthol untouched to unrestricted.
Mayor Skadron said what is the effectiveness of us banning it when our neighbors don’t. Mike said for
me banning everything is getting away from what you want to do. If it is the youth you are concerned
with it is just vaping. The other ban is just talking to adults.
Councilman Frisch said the reason I’ll be voting no on first reading is the same as what I’ve been talking
about. Focusing on youth is a long term reduction of tobacco use. 95% of the people who smoke started
at 16 or 17. As Mike said a lot of the reason the community go behind T21 and the tax was because we
had a discussion about youth. I think we have a lot of great discussion on youth not what legal product
might not be healthy for everyone. I think we should focus on vaping. Snowmass has put in some type of
plan. It would be nice if we could square up the municipalities and the county. Tobacco is one aspect to
being healthy but not the end of it.
Mayor Skadron said the reason I support it is the community plan talks about community health. They
are hopes and dreams of the community. One of the chapters talks about health and well being and
encouraging healthy lifestyles. I’m not looking to burden your small business but to honor the aspirations
for the community. What is a compelling argument is the proximity. It is encouraging to hear our fellow
political bodies are getting behind this. I’m open to the discussion on a partial ban. My preference would
to be aggressive.
Councilman Myrin said the other issue on this is the tax has a fixed dollar amt for tobacco and a % for the
other products. The % will increase with inflation the fixed dollar will not. The incentive over time will
be to switch from vaping to tobacco.
Councilman Frisch said for a couple years we are ok then it is fixed.
Mayor Skadron said there is potentially 3 council members desirous of an option that was not presented.
Will there be 2 ordinances coming back. Mr. True said I would suggest you do pass something tonight.
Whether this as written with direction to bring back language for a partial ban. You could vote to amend
it right now. I believe that would be harder to back up to a full ban if you chose.
Councilman Frisch said as much as I would like to get to the partial ban right away I don’t want to rewrite
it now at the table. I think I’ve voted no a few times on first reading. I will vote yes but be clear I want
the partial ban.
Mr. True said I want to make certain there is direction to prepare a partial ban ordinance.
Councilman Myrin and Frisch replied yes.
57
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
13
Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #14, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 14
(SERIES OF 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN – HEALTH AND QUALITY OF
ENVIRONMENT – TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 13.26 ENTITLED: RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE
OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS, INCLUDING MENTHOL, IN TOBACCO PRODUCT
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes;
Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #54, SERIES OF 2019 – 411 E. Hyman Avenue Extension of Vested Rights
Councilman Myrin moved to continue to June 24, 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2019 – 119 Neale Avenue, Transferable Development Rights
George Bnninghoff said I live at the corner of Neale and Gibson in Urban Blight in unit 2. My co owner
is Darleen Vehr. His has been before council several times. At the last conversation there was a title
report commissioned by David Fluente. I’m trying to build evidence as to why you should not act
tonight. He entered negotiations to buy the property. It fell apart on fraudulent negotiations by Shoaf.
The title report concluded the urban blight condo association owns this small strip of property. I had my
attorney go over the same title work. He concludes the title is vested in urban blight. David Harris
purchased the benedict cabin subdivision. He needed an easement to park his vehicle. Shoaf drafted it on
our property. I couldn’t give it to Harris. He entered negotiations with Shoaf that are not privy to me. I
concluded that the result is he accomplished moving the easement. Darleen Vehr signed a quick claim. I
spoke with her and she feels deceived by Mr. Shoaf. I went back to Ann Marshall, former owner of my
unit, and said did anyone approach you. I am asking you to not take action to underwrite the transfer of
TDRs. They will be an encumbrance of a property I clearly own. I ask that Mr. Shoaf clean his hands
and go back and acquire proof he owns this property. The survey he has is inclusive of my property. He
acknowledged he was deceiving the city for many years. I believe he built a cabin on the riparian rights.
I don’t think it was built for anything than to antagonize the residents of urban blight. I ask you to have
Mr. Shoaf prove that he owns the property. I would like to come back in late July or August.
Mr. True said I believe there are some points and he did present to me a letter from Lenny Oats. I
understand his points but do believe there may be other ways to resolve this. I do not think it is
appropriate to continue this to July. I think it is appropriate to continue this to next week and try to
resolve this. I think there is another way to resolve it. What his question is, is the encumbrance of the
disputed property.
To act in good faith of the settlement agreement I would try to resolve this next week.
Councilman Hauenstein asked does the settlement agreement have a timeline. Mr. True replied it does
not but I think we should move prudently to avoid abandoning the agreement. Mr. Benninghoff said it
does have a timeframe for Mr. Shoaf in regards to the demolition of the shed. I ask the timeline be
extended to have Lenny go through all the paperwork. Maybe Mr. Shoaf and I can find a way to resolve
it.
Councilman Myrin said on the demo permit, is there a way to extend issuing the TDRs until the demo has
occurred. Mr. True said I’m trying to address that with Mr. Shoaf and his attorney. Councilman Myrin
58
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
14
said I would support that. I don’t understand us giving someone something until they do what they
promise.
Councilman Frisch said we are under settlement agreement discussions. Is someone saying there is a
settlement agreement with inaccurate information that the city has been provided. Mr. True said we are
aware of the disputed property. I do believe the disputed property does not need to affect our ability to
close this. We are asking this be continued. You may end up not passing it next week. We need to have
the opportunity to follow up on some of the issues that have been raised.
Councilman Myrin asked can I ask for a continuance until the shed has been demolished. Councilman
Frisch said I had the exact discussion with Jim this week. I think it is important for us the community
gets our side of the bargain. Councilman Myrin said why don’t we continue it until the shed is
demolished. Mr. True said I think there is a better way to handle it. We advised the attorney for Shoaf
we were going to request a continuance. You have options, but I think we need some more time.
Councilman Myrin asked is having too much time a problem. Mr. True replied it could be considered a
breach. Ms. Garrow said Mr. Shoaf has applied for a demo permit and it is ready for pick up today. He
made the application he was required to do and paid the outstanding fees. Mr. True said under the
agreement he has a period of time to take the shed down.
Mayor Skadron said we are sensitive to your comments. We have no desire to have this move forward
until the shed has come down. Mr. True said we will address the shed and the issue of the disputed
property. I can’t promise we won’t continue it again. I would like to negotiate in good faith to see if we
can resolve all of the issues. I do not think we will resolve the underlying property but how the TDRs
affect the property.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #10, series of 2019 to May 20, 2019; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2019 – Spring Supplemental Budget
Councilman Hauenstein left the meeting.
Ben Sachdeva, finance, said the numbers have changed a bit since first reading, going down. Capital
carry forward decreased by 3.5 million.
Councilman Myrin said page 479 mentions the space rented at obermeyer. What is the square footage.
Ms. Ott replied it is the same footprint the police department was utilizing. Councilman Myrin asked is it
smaller than what county com dev moved out of. Ms. Ott stated the 3rd floor is not empty but very full.
There is not a way to put the entire team without dividing them. Councilman Myrin said the 7,000 square
foot old art museum or the mill building. Ms. Ott replied I don’t believe so but am happy to take you on a
tour. I put them through a lot to try to avoid it. We are not in a place to provide reasonable office space.
Councilman Myrin asked about Mail Trail. It is in desperate need of landscaping. I know it took longer.
Trish Aragon, engineering, said the landscaping is part of the project. It will happen soon. Councilman
Myrin said thanks for the continuation of the scanning project. Ms. Garrow said we have a lot of paper
and it has taken longer than we expected. Councilman Myrin said I think it is worth the investment.
Councilwoman Mullins asked where is the reduction. Mr. Sachdeva replied in carry forward related to the
AHP projects. Some of the costs were moved in to 2018.
Mayor opened the public comment.
1. Toni Kronberg said I don’t see where the fitness center and outside pool have been included in
these numbers. The spark group has been working on it for a few years. Mayor Skadron said it
has not been part of our discussion and either has a rocket ship to the moon. Ms. Kronberg said
the decrease in transportation, is that because of the cancellation of the Lift contract. The
increases for electric, water, stormwater and parks and open spaces. Are they for a specific
projects. With the city offices the interest that will be incurred for the borrowing is 30 million. 59
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
15
Where will that come from. Where are the funds for parking and housing mitigation. Mr.
Sachdeva said the details on the funds is all outlined in the packet and available on the website.
The interest will be serviced by the debt service fund. Mr. True asked did she ask any questions
you want answered by staff. Councilman Frisch said I would continue to reach out to staff.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #8, series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2019 – Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments
Ms. Simon said this is follow up on some revisions from April 8. It will amend benefits available to
historic properties. The concern with potential gutting of homes and enlarging something already
oversized. We had a citizen ask if instead of prohibiting it to sterilize the floor area. We were interested
in the idea, but it would require filing a deed restriction. It would involve tracking and we are not as
excited about it than the original proposal. The second item is how to handle the floor area bonus. We
are trying to reduce the bonus so smaller lots have a smaller bonus. A suggestion was made to do a
sliding scale. Staffs recommendation is based on lot size. We wanted it to be more straight forward. In
the proposed scenario a 4500 sq ft lot would receive a 250 bonus the sliding scale would be 75 feet more.
We would like to stick with the staff recommendation. Third is growth management amendments. The
direction was no special treatment for historic properties. We have removed all of that from the code.
Councilman Frisch said I think the problem on the demo is people were tearing out a 2nd floor then
increasing the mass of the property. That was the concern not the technical aspects. Someone is trying to
say I want to take away the 2nd floor but not earn back the space. We said it seems fine to us. You can’t
figure out a simple way to do it. Ms. Simon said we can do it but it is complex with deed restrictions and
tracking. Councilwoman Mullins asked which is most effective in lesser mass. Ms. Simon replied
option 1. People will be less likely to underutilize a historic building. Either would be a disincentive of a
total gut. Councilman Frisch said option one doesn’t allow it to be taken out. Councilwoman Mullins
said the simpler ones are more effective and enforceable. Councilman Frisch asked does staff have a
problem with option 2 if it could be executed in a reasonable way. Ms. Garrow replied we do not regulate
interiors thought the HP process. We were excited by this idea. We have found any time you introduce
another set of paperwork there can be more likelihood of error. The simpler path tends to make the most
sense. If council is interested in the deed restriction we can add it. If it is too complicated we can come
back for amendments in the future.
Councilman Myrin said it makes sense. Executing it does not seem like too much of a challenge. I don t
think the quantity of these will be too many. Ms. Garrow replied we can set up a process. If you are
interested in this flexibility it is fine, but our recommendation is option 1. Councilwoman Mullins said I
support the simpler solution. The other is what is the applicant anticipating. The revisions are partly to
make it clearer to the applicant what they can and can’t do. Councilman Myrin asked does one say you
can’t take out the 2nd floor. Ms. Simon said it is related to floor area. You can’t remove more than half.
Councilman Myrin said then they can move the floor area. While it is harder to manage, option 2 results
in a smaller project. 2 will result is a smaller bubble if you aren’t able to use any of the FAR. Ms.
Garrow said both result in less. One is a prohibition, 2 is a deed restriction. Councilman Frisch said only
option 1 can be larger than the physical structure. My original conversation was the bubble doesn’t get
any larger. That is what I want to support. Neither options gets us there. Ms. Garrow said right now you
can make interior changes and magically find floor area and add it anywhere on the property. We are
adding a restriction that is more strict for historic resources than a non historic. If you are removing more
than half the floor area you can’t do it. Option 2 is if you are removing more than half you can but it will
permanently deed restrict it. We are trying to be more strict. We are adding something that is stricter for
historic than non. Councilman Myrin asked why is it too complicated to make option two more simple. 60
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 13, 2019
16
Whatever you remove you don’t get credit for. If you take out 10, 49 or 60 it doesn’t credit. Ms. Simon
said we said you can go up to 49% and it is ok. I don’t think Bill was looking to make it more restrictive.
Councilman Frisch said that is a whole different discussion that Bert and I thought we were having. Ms.
Garrow said based off of all the feedback we are making it a lot better than it is today. Ms. Simon said
there use to be a volume calculation but we got rid of it. This is a step forward while trying to limit
relocation of floor area. Councilwoman Mullins said I think we made some significant changes. We can
always look at them again. I support the more incremental approach. There is a danger putting
everything in at once. Ms. Simon said we have design guidelines that don’t let you more than double the
mass. Councilman Frisch said what is the reason we should think about doing 2. It allows someone to
still get 50% larger. Ms. Simon said option 2 lets you go past the 50% demo but only recoup 50%.
Councilman Myrin said I’m leaning towards option 2. Ms. Simon said they would be better off selling a
TDR than sterilizing the floor area. Councilman Frisch said option 1 is simpler but we lose some
creativity for an owner as to how they want to configure their house.
Mayor Skadron said I have to stay with staff recommendation on this. Councilman Myrin said I’m
leaning towards option 2. Councilman Frisch said this was recommended for creativity. Mayor Skadron
said I’m not opposed to option 2 but sensitive to how we manage the program. Ms. Simon said I am
concerned with tightening this up too much. Councilman Frisch said that is where option 2 allows for
more flexibility. Ms. Simon said option 1 is able to accomplish much more than we are now while
allowing us to manage it. Councilman Myrin said in Bill’s email it said allow removable on an interior
floor as long as the floor area is not available. Ms. Simon said that is how we go to the deed restriction.
Councilwoman Mullins said one of the challenges is these properties are not redeveloped once. What I’m
hearing is it could get really messy trying to track these deed restrictions. Councilman Myrin said we
have a program where we take away square footage with the TDR program and manage that. We must
have some tracking program. Why can we track that and not this. Councilwoman Mullins said with
TDRs you are talking 250 sq ft increments and it is a fairly simple program. Ms. Garrow said the
tracking is in our office. We track TDRs, AH credits, demolition by parcel and building. We are creating
something else that is very complicated to track. Councilman Frisch said I’m fine with option one for
now.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #6, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn at 9:50 pm; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
61
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
THROUGH:Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE:May 20, 2019, 5PM
RE:Ordinance #14 Series of 2019- Banning the Sale of Flavored Tobacco
and Nicotine Productsin Aspen
UPDATES FROM FIRST READING:
Ordinance #14, Series 2019 passed on First Reading at the regular City Council meeting on
May 13th. Staff were directed to bring two versions of the ordinance back for consideration at
the Public Hearing on May 20th, the existing version and a second which would ban only vaping
liquids which contain a characterizing flavor. Staff will also present information related to the
safety comparison between vaping and smoking along with information on what other
jurisdictions in the valley are currently doing related to restrictions on tobacco and nicotine
products during the May 20th meeting.
SUMMARY:
Youth tobacco and e-cigarette users are particularly attracted to flavored nicotine products.
From the packaging and marketing of the products to the flavors themselves, they are geared
towards youth and adolescents and they are the preferred product among younger users.
Candy and fruit flavored cigarettes were banned by the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act in 2009 but menthol cigarettes, flavored chewing tobacco and e-cigarette
cartridges/pods were not included in the ban and are available for purchase today. Restricting
the sale of flavored nicotine products in Aspen would create an additional barrier for all users
trying to obtain these products and couldplay a preventative role in youth picking up a tobacco
or vaping habit. Aspen’s existing regulations, particularly raising the age to purchase
tobacco/nicotine products to 21, along with a significant tax on tobacco and nicotine are also
significant measures to decrease local accessibility to these items to our youth.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance, at the Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND: During the March 12th, 2019 work session with Aspen City Council, direction
was providedto craft an ordinance that banned the sale of all flavored nicotine products in Aspen
including vaping liquids, flavored cigarettes and cigars as well as flavored chewing tobacco. 62
Page 2 of 3
Additionally, Council directed staff to reach out to flavored tobacco retailers to let them know
about the proposed ban on flavored products. Staff returned to Aspen City Council on May 6
th
to update City Council on the results of the outreach efforts and request direction on how to
move ahead based on the additional information. Several public health officials from state and
local governments, local physicians, and school administrators spoke at the meeting in favor of
a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco and nicotine products.
Tobacco retailers in Aspen were resistant to the notion of a full flavored tobacco product ban
due to the impact that it would have on their sales. The retailers did indicate that that they
would support a vaping liquid ban. One of the retailers has proactively pulled vaping products
from their shelves as a measure to protect youth health and another indicated that since the
passing of Tobacco 21 in Aspen their sales of vaping products are low.
DISCUSSION:Public health officials at the county and state levels encourage implementing a
ban on all flavored nicotine products as it would provide the greatest level of public health
protection. Officials from both Pitkin County and CDPHE have indicated that they support
moving forward with a fullban because it also offers a stronger model for other communities to
implement and it more thoroughly considers broader equity issues. Written comments from
various interested parties who support a full ban on flavored nicotine products are provided as
attachments to this memo.
In brief, the information available on youth usage rates for e-cigarettes and tobacco use in the
Aspen area show a concerning trend, and public health professionals want to take steps to get
in front of this trend as soon as possible. Anecdotally, the change to Tobacco 21 has resulted in
far fewer youths purchasing tobacco products in Aspen stores. This was a change that will have
lasting positive results for the community, particularly youth. An additional action that could
also make a difference is to restrict the sale of the items that are most desirable to youth
consumers, the products that a significant majority of youth and young adult tobacco users
report was their first tobacco or e-cigarette product -flavored tobacco and nicotine.
There are still significant challenges related to restricting youth access to these products as they
can be easily purchased online as well as being available in unincorporated areas of Pitkin County
outside of the Aspen city limits. Pitkin County has indicated that they will begin to pursue similar
restrictions to what Aspen currently has in place including Tobacco 21, retail tobacco licenses as
well as potentially looking into a tobacco tax. A flavor ban in not currently on Pitkin County’s list
for future actions.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A full ban on all flavored tobacco will likely have a significant
impact on tobacco sales at the retail level as described by the retailers that staff spoke with.
That would also have a likely impact on tobacco sales tax dollars collected in Aspen, which will
be used to help fund efforts for substance use and cessation programs along with mental health
systems.
63
Page 3 of 3
NEXT STEPS: If Ordinance #14, Series 2019 enacting a ban on some or all flavored tobacco
products, the ban will go into effect on 1/1/2020. Staff will work to ensure the community and
businesses understands the ban and its implementation. Additionally, staff will return to council
in the Summer of 2019 to present recommendations for the best uses for the tobacco tax dollars
that have been collected through the City tax on tobacco and nicotine products. The
recommendations will fit into the buckets that Aspen City Council identified as targets for these
dollars when the local tax was passed. Those buckets include substance use prevention and
cessation,as well as mental health.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to adoptOrdinance #14,Series of 2019, adopting a ban on flavored tobacco and nicotine
products in the City of Aspen.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Ordinance#14Series 2019
Attachment B- Flavor Danger (Provided by Pitkin County Public Health)
Attachment C-Written comments from Dr. Kim Scheuer
Attachment D- Resolution on Flavored Tobacco Ban, Aspen Valley Hospital District
Attachment E- Colorado School of Public Health Letter
Attachment F- Public Health Partners Letter
Attachment G- Letter from Aspen High School
Attachment H- Letter from School District Nurse
Attachment I- Letter From Mike Haisfield
64
1
ORDINANCE NO. 14
(Series 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN -
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT - TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 13.26
ENTITLED: RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICE
FLAVORING IN TOBACCO PRODUCT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
WHEREAS, Aspen area students report vaping rates among the highest in the nation.
WHEREAS, 81% of youth who have ever used a tobacco product report that the first
tobacco product was flavored.
WHEREAS, flavored nicotine products promote youth initiation of tobacco use and help
young occasional smokers to become daily smokers by reducing or masking the natural
harshness and taste of tobacco smoke and thereby increasing the appeal of tobacco and nicotine
products.
WHEREAS, the full risk of vaping products is still largely unknown at this time.
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported a more than
800% increase in electronic cigarette use among middle school and high school students between
2011and 2015.
WHEREAS, nicotine solutions, which are consumed via electronic smoking devices
such as electronic cigarettes, are sold in thousands of youth-appealing flavors, such as cotton
candy and bubble gum.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare to reduce the appeal of tobacco to youth and
to reduce the likelihood that youth will become tobacco users by prohibiting Tobacco Product
Retailers from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell, flavored nicotine
products.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN - HEALTH AND
QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT – IS HEREBY AMENDED TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER
13.26 ENTITLED: RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICE
FLAVORING IN TOBACCO PRODUCT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS, WHICH CHAPTER
SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS:
65
2
Chapter 13.26
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICE FLAVORING
IN TOBACCO PRODUCT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
Section 13.26.020 DEFINITIONS
A. "Characterizing Flavor"means a Distinguishable taste or aroma or both, other than
the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted either prior to or during consumption of a Tobacco
Product or any byproduct produced by the Tobacco Product. Characterizing flavors include, but
are not limited to, tastes or aromas relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa,
dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, spice; provided, however, that a
Tobacco Product shall not be determined to have a characterizing flavor solely because of the
use of additives or flavorings or the provision of ingredient information. Rather, it is the presence
of a Distinguishable taste or aroma or both, as described in the first sentence of this definition
that constitutes a characterizing flavor.
B. “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a Cigarette wrapped entirely or in part
in tobacco or any other substance containing tobacco. For purposes of this Chapter, cigar
includes, but is not limited to tobacco products known or labeled as “cigar,” “cigarillo,” or “little
cigar.”
C. “Cigarette”means any product that contains tobacco or nicotine that is intended to be
burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains:
1)any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco;
2)tobacco in any form that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance,
the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging or labeling, is likely to be offered
to, or purchased by Consumers as a cigarette; or
3)any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco that, because of its
appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely
to be offered to, or purchased by, Consumers as a cigarette described above.
4)the term includes all “roll-your-own,” i.e., any tobacco that, because of its appearance,
type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased
by Consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes.
D. "Constituent"means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound other than
tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet that is added by the manufacturer to a Tobacco
Product, including an Electronic Smoking Device, during the processing, manufacture, or
66
3
packaging of the Tobacco Product, including an Electronic Smoking Device, that imparts a
Characterizing Flavor.
E. “Consumer”means an individual who purchases a Tobacco Product or Tobacco
Paraphernalia for consumption and not for Sale to another.
F. "Distinguishable"means perceivable by either the sense of smell or taste.
G. “Electronic Smoking Device”means any product used by an individual to simulate
smoking in the delivery of nicotine or any other substance, even if marketed as nicotine-free,
through inhalation from the product. Electronic smoking device includes any refill, cartridge or
component part of a product, whether or not marketed or sold separately. Electronic smoking
device does not include any product that has been approved or certified by the United States Food
and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other medically approved
or certified purposes.
H. “Establishment"means any store, stand, booth, concession or any other enterprise
that Sells, offers for Sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, Tobacco
Products or Tobacco Paraphernalia including, but not limited to any retail location, stand, outlet,
vehicle, cart, vending machine, structure or any grounds where Tobacco Products and/or
Tobacco Paraphernalia are sold or offered for exchange.
I. "Flavored Tobacco Product"means any Tobacco Product, including Electronic
Smoking Device flavoring, that contains a Constituent or that imparts a Characterizing Flavor.
J. “Ingredient” means any substance, chemical or compound, other than tobacco, water
or reconstituted tobacco sheet that is added by the manufacturer to a tobacco product during the
processing, manufacture or packing of the Tobacco Product.
K. "Labeling"means written, printed, pictorial, or graphic matter upon any Tobacco
Product or any of its Packaging.
L. “License”means a Tobacco Product Retail License.
M. “Manufacturer” means a Person, including any repacker or relabeler, who
manufacturers, fabricates, assembles, processes, or labels a Tobacco Product; or imports a
finished Tobacco Product for Sale or distribution into the United States.
N. "Packaging"means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind or, if no other
container, any wrapping (including cellophane) in which a Tobacco Product(s) is sold or offered
for Sale to a consumer.
O. “Person”in this Chapter means any natural person, partnership, cooperative
association, corporation, limited liability company, personal representative, receiver, trustee,
assignee or other legal entity.
P. “Sale or Sell”means any transfer, exchange, barter, gift, offer for sale, or distribution
for a commercial purpose, in any manner, for any form of consideration or by any means
whatsoever.
67
4
Q. “Tobacco Paraphernalia”means any item designed for the consumption, use, or
preparation of Tobacco Products.
R. “Tobacco Product”means:
1. any product which contains, is made or derived from tobacco or used to deliver
nicotine, synthetic nicotine or other substances intended for human consumption,
whether heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed or ingested
by any other means, including, but not limited to Cigarettes, Cigars, little Cigars,
chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, snuff, bidis, snus, mints, hand gels; and
2. an Electronic Smoking Device;
3. notwithstanding any provision of subsections 1. and 2., above to the contrary,
“Tobacco Product” includes any component, part, accessory or associated
Tobacco Paraphernalia of a Tobacco Product whether or not sold separately.
4. The term “Tobacco Product” does not include:
(i)any product that contains marijuana; and
(ii)any product made from or derived from tobacco and approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in connection with cessation
of smoking.
S. “Tobacco Product Retailer”means any person who engages in the Sale of Tobacco
Products and or Flavored Tobacco Products directly to the public from any store, stand, booth,
concession, outlet, vehicle, cart, vending machine, structure or any grounds or any other
enterprise that Sells, offers for Sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration.
T. “Tobacco Product Retailing” means the act of selling, offering for sale or
exchanging or offering to exchange for any form of consideration, Tobacco Products and or
Flavored Tobacco Products.
Section 13.26.030 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICE
OR CONSTITUENT THEREOF THAT IMPARTS OR CONTAINS A
CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR PROHIBITED
A.The Sale or distribution by a Tobacco Product Retailer of an Electronic Smoking
Device that contains a Constituent or that imparts or contains a Characterizing Flavor, including
any refill, cartridge or component part of a product, whether or not marketed or sold separately,
is prohibited.
B. A Tobacco Product Retailer, or any of the Tobacco Product Retailer’s agents, or
employees shall not sell, offer for sale or possess with the intent to sell an Electronic Smoking
Device that contains a Constituent or that imparts or contains a Characterizing Flavor, including
any refill, cartridge or component part of a product, whether or not marketed or sold separately.
68
5
C.There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an Electronic Smoking Device or a
Constituent thereof imparts or contains a Characterizing Flavor if a Manufacturer or any of the
Manufacturer's agents or employees, in the course of their agency or employment, has made a
statement or claim directed to Consumers or to the public that the Electronic Smoking Device or
a Constituent thereof has or produces a Characterizing Flavor, including, but not limited to, text,
color; and/or images on the product's Labeling or Packaging that are used to explicitly or
implicitly communicate that the Electronic Smoking Device or a Constituent thereof has a
Characterizing Flavor.
D.There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a Tobacco Product Retailer in possession
of four or more Electronic Smoking Devices or Constituents thereof that imparts or contains a
Characterizing Flavor, including any refill, cartridge or component part of a product, whether or
not marketed or sold separately, including but not limited to individual products, packages of
products, or any combination thereof, possesses such Electronic Smoking Devices or
Constituents thereof with the intent to Sell or offer said products for Sale.
Section 13.26.040 COMPLIANCE MONITORING
A. Enforcement of this Chapter shall be monitored by the local police department and the
City of Aspen Environmental Health Department.
B.All Tobacco Product Retailers shall be subject to a compliance check for adherence to
the provisions of this Chapter at least twice a year with violators being checked more frequently
until two (2) consecutive checks are completed without a violation.
Section 13.26.050 VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES AND FINES.
A. Licensee Penalties and Fines. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, if
the City of Aspen Municipal Court determines, based on the evidence, that a Tobacco Product
Retail Licensee, or any of the Licensee’s agents or employees, has violated any of the
requirements, conditions, or prohibitions of this Chapter, or has pleaded guilty, “no contest” or
its equivalent, or admitted to a violation of any law related to the Sale of Electronic Smoking
Devices or Constituent thereof as set forth herein the following penalties shall be imposed on the
Licensee:
1.Upon the first violation, a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500)
2.Upon the second violation within thirty-six (36)months, a penalty of one thousand five
hundred dollars ($1500).
3.Upon the third violation within thirty-six (36)months, court appearance shall be
mandatory, and the Court may issue a penalty of up to the maximum amount allow by
law or imprisonment for a period of up to one (1) year or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
4. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
69
6
B. Suspension or Revocation of Tobacco Product Retail License. In addition to the
penalties set forth about, the City of Aspen may suspend or revoke a Tobacco Product Retailer
license issued pursuant to Chapter 13.25, pursuant to the terms set forth in such Chapter 13.25.
A Tobacco Product Retailer whose License has been suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter
13.25:
1.Shall not display Tobacco Products in public view during the time when the License is
suspended or revoked; and
2.Advertisements related to Tobacco Products that promote the sale or distribution of
said products from the location that could lead a reasonable person to believe that such
products can be obtained from the location shall not be displayed.
C. Remedies Cumulative. Remedies provided by this Chapter are cumulative and in
addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. In addition to the remedies provided
by this Chapter or by any other law, any violation of this Chapter may be remedied by a civil
action, brought by the City Attorney including, but not limited to injunctive relief.
D. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing a violation of any provision of this
Chapter shall cause the offender to be subject to the penalties set forth herein or in the Aspen
Municipal Code.
Section 13.26.070 NO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. Nothing in this
Chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty that is
preempted by federal or state law.
Section 2: Litigation
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 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.
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.
70
7
Section 4: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective as of January 1, 2020 and in full force and effect on and
after that date.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 20th day of May 2019 in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, seven (7) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of May 2019.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this 20th day of May 2019.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
71
1
ORDINANCE NO. 14
(Series 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN -
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT - TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 13.26
ENTITLED: RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING MENTHOL, IN TOBACCO PRODUCT RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS
WHEREAS, each day, about 2,500 children in the United States try their first cigarette;
and another 8,400 children under 18 years of age become new regular, daily smokers.
WHEREAS, 81% of youth who have ever used a tobacco product report that the first
tobacco product was flavored.
WHEREAS, flavored tobacco products promote youth initiation of tobacco use and help
young occasional smokers to become daily smokers by reducing or masking the natural
harshness and taste of tobacco smoke and thereby increasing the appeal of tobacco products.
WHEREAS, menthol cools and numbs the throat to reduce throat irritation and make the
smoke feel smoother, making menthol cigarettes an appealing option for youth who are initiating
tobacco use.
WHEREAS,flavorings such as mint and wintergreen in smokeless tobacco products
encourage new users to start with milder flavors and progress to more full-bodied, less flavored
products.
WHEREAS, young people are much more likely than adults to use menthol-, candy- and
fruit-flavored tobacco products, including not just cigarettes but also cigars, cigarillos, and
hookah tobacco.
WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported a more than
800% increase in electronic cigarette use among middle school and high school students between
2011and 2015.
WHEREAS, nicotine solutions, which are consumed via electronic smoking devices
such as electronic cigarettes, are sold in thousands of youth-appealing flavors, such as cotton
candy and bubble gum.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare to reduce the appeal of tobacco to youth and
to reduce the likelihood that youth will become tobacco users by prohibiting Tobacco Product
Retailers from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell, flavored tobacco
products.
72
2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN - HEALTH AND
QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT – IS HEREBY AMENDED TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER
13.26 ENTITLED: RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING MENTHOL, IN TOBACCO PRODUCT RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS, WHICH CHAPTER SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 13.26
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS,
INCLUDING MENTHOL, IN TOBACCO PRODUCT RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS
Section 13.26.020 DEFINITIONS
A. "Characterizing Flavor"means a Distinguishable taste or aroma or both, other than
the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted either prior to or during consumption of a Tobacco
Product or any byproduct produced by the Tobacco Product. Characterizing flavors include, but
are not limited to, tastes or aromas relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa,
dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, spice; provided, however, that a
Tobacco Product shall not be determined to have a characterizing flavor solely because of the
use of additives or flavorings or the provision of ingredient information. Rather, it is the presence
of a Distinguishable taste or aroma or both, as described in the first sentence of this definition
that constitutes a characterizing flavor.
B. “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a Cigarette wrapped entirely or in part
in tobacco or any other substance containing tobacco. For purposes of this Chapter, cigar
includes, but is not limited to tobacco products known or labeled as “cigar,” “cigarillo,” or “little
cigar.”
C. “Cigarette”means any product that contains tobacco or nicotine that is intended to be
burned or heated under ordinary conditions of use, and consists of or contains:
1)any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco;
2)tobacco in any form that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance,
the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging or labeling, is likely to be offered
to, or purchased by Consumers as a cigarette; or
73
3
3)any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco that, because of its
appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely
to be offered to, or purchased by, Consumers as a cigarette described above.
4)the term includes all “roll-your-own,” i.e., any tobacco that, because of its appearance,
type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased
by Consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes.
D. "Constituent"means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound other than
tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet that is added by the manufacturer to a Tobacco
Product during the processing, manufacture, or packing of a Tobacco Product.
E. “Consumer”means an individual who purchases a Tobacco Product or Tobacco
Paraphernalia for consumption and not for Sale to another.
F. "Distinguishable"means perceivable by either the sense of smell or taste.
G. “Electronic Smoking Device”means any product containing or delivering nicotine
intended for human consumption that can be used by an individual to simulate smoking in the
delivery of nicotine or any other substance, even if marketed as nicotine-free, through inhalation
from the product. Electronic smoking device includes any refill, cartridge or component part of a
product, whether or not marketed or sold separately. Electronic smoking device does not include
any product that has been approved or certified by the United States Food and Drug Administration
for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other medically approved or certified purposes.
H. “Establishment"means any store, stand, booth, concession or any other enterprise
that Sells, offers for Sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, Tobacco
Products or Tobacco Paraphernalia including, but not limited to any retail location, stand, outlet,
vehicle, cart, vending machine, structure or any grounds where Tobacco Products and/or
Tobacco Paraphernalia are sold or offered for exchange.
I. "Flavored Tobacco Product"means any Tobacco Product, including Cigarettes, that
contains a Constituent or that imparts a Characterizing Flavor.
J. “Ingredient” means any substance, chemical or compound, other than tobacco, water
or reconstituted tobacco sheet that is added by the manufacturer to a tobacco product during the
processing, manufacture or packing of the Tobacco Product.
K. "Labeling"means written, printed, pictorial, or graphic matter upon any Tobacco
Product or any of its Packaging.
L. “License”means a Tobacco Product Retail License.
M. “Manufacturer” means a Person, including any repacker or relabeler, who
manufacturers, fabricates, assembles, processes, or labels a Tobacco Product; or imports a
finished Tobacco Product for Sale or distribution into the United States.
74
4
N. "Packaging"means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind or, if no other
container, any wrapping (including cellophane) in which a Tobacco Product(s) is sold or offered
for Sale to a consumer.
O. “Person”in this Chapter means any natural person, partnership, cooperative
association, corporation, limited liability company, personal representative, receiver, trustee,
assignee or other legal entity.
P. “Sale or Sell”means any transfer, exchange, barter, gift, offer for sale, or distribution
for a commercial purpose, in any manner, for any form of consideration or by any means
whatsoever.
Q. “Tobacco Paraphernalia”means any item designed for the consumption, use, or
preparation of Tobacco Products.
R. “Tobacco Product”means:
1. any product which contains, is made or derived from tobacco or used to deliver
nicotine, synthetic nicotine or other substances intended for human consumption,
whether heated, chewed, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed or ingested
by any other means, including, but not limited to Cigarettes, Cigars, little Cigars,
chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, snuff, bidis, snus, mints, hand gels; and
2. an Electronic Smoking Device;
3. notwithstanding any provision of subsections (1) and 2) above to the contrary,
“Tobacco Product” includes any component, part, accessory or associated
Tobacco Paraphernalia of a Tobacco Product whether or not sold separately.
4. The term “Tobacco Product” does not include:
(i)any product that contains marijuana; and
(ii)any product made from or derived from tobacco and approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in connection with cessation
of smoking.
S. “Tobacco Product Retailer”means any person who engages in the Sale of Tobacco
Products and or Flavored Tobacco Products directly to the public from any store, stand, booth,
concession, outlet, vehicle, cart, vending machine, structure or any grounds or any other
enterprise that Sells, offers for Sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration.
T. “Tobacco Product Retailing” means the act of selling, offering for sale or
exchanging or offering to exchange for any form of consideration, Tobacco Products and or
Flavored Tobacco Products.
Section 13.26.030 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS
PROHIBITED.
75
5
A.The Sale or distribution by a Tobacco Product Retailer of a Flavored Tobacco
Product(s) is prohibited.
B. A Tobacco Product Retailer, or any of the Tobacco Product Retailer’s agents, or
employees shall not sell, offer for sale or possess with the intent to sell a Flavored Tobacco
Product(s).
C.There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a Tobacco Product is presumed to be a
Flavored Tobacco Product if a Manufacturer or any of the Manufacturer's agents or employees,
in the course of their agency or employment, has made a statement or claim directed to
Consumers or to the public that the Tobacco Product has or produces a Characterizing Flavor,
including, but not limited to, text, color; and/or images on the product's Labeling or Packaging
that are used to explicitly or implicitly communicate that the Tobacco Product has a
Characterizing Flavor.
D.There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a Tobacco Product Retailer in possession
of four or more Flavored Tobacco Products, including but not limited to individual Flavored
Tobacco Products, packages of Flavored Tobacco Products, or any combination thereof,
possesses such Flavored Tobacco Products with the intent to Sell or offer said products for Sale.
Section 13.26.040 COMPLIANCE MONITORING
A. Enforcement of this Chapter shall be monitored by the local police department and the
City of Aspen Environmental Health Department.
B.All Tobacco Product Retailers shall be subject to a compliance check for adherence to
the provisions of this Chapter at least twice a year with violators being checked more frequently
until two (2) consecutive checks are completed without a violation.
Section 13.26.050 VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES AND FINES.
A. Licensee Penalties and Fines. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, if
the City of Aspen Municipal Court determines based on the evidence, that a Tobacco Product
Retail Licensee, or any of the Licensee’s agents or employees, has violated any of the
requirements, conditions, or prohibitions of this Chapter, or has pleaded guilty, “no contest” or
its equivalent, or admitted to a violation of any law related to the Sale of Flavored Tobacco
Products the following penalties shall be imposed on the Licensee:
1.Upon the first violation, a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500)
2.Upon the second violation within thirty-six (36)months, a penalty of one thousand five
hundred dollars ($1500).
3.Upon the third violation within thirty-six (36)months, court appearance shall be
mandatory, and the Court may issue a penalty of up to the maximum amount allow by
76
6
law or imprisonment for a period of up to one (1) year or both such fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
4. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
B. Suspension or Revocation of Tobacco Product Retail License. In addition to the
penalties set forth about, the City of Aspen may suspend or revoke a Tobacco Product Retailer
license issued pursuant to Chapter 13.25, pursuant to the terms set forth in such Chapter 13.25.
A Tobacco Product Retailer whose License has been suspended or revoked pursuant to Chapter
13.25:
1.Shall not display Flavored Tobacco Products in public view during the time when the
License is suspended or revoked; and
2.Advertisements related to Flavored Tobacco Products that promote the sale or
distribution of said products from the location that could lead a reasonable person to
believe that such products can be obtained from the location shall not be displayed.
C. Remedies Cumulative. Remedies provided by this Chapter are cumulative and in
addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. In addition to the remedies provided
by this Chapter or by any other law, any violation of this Chapter may be remedied by a civil
action, brought by the City Attorney including, but not limited to injunctive relief.
D. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing a violation of any provision of this
Chapter shall cause the offender to be subject to the penalties set forth herein or in the Aspen
Municipal Code.
Section 13.26.070 NO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. Nothing in this
Chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty that is
preempted by federal or state law.
Section 2: Litigation
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 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.
77
7
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 4: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective as of January 1, 2020 and in full force and effect on and
after that date.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 20th day of May 2019 in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, seven (7) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of May 2019.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2019.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
78
FLAVOR DANGER
Today, tobacco products come in hundreds of fruit flavors such as little cigars, chewing tobacco,
hookah tobacco, or liquids for e-cigarettes. Flavors do not reduce the harm of tobacco products. In
fact, flavors can mask the harsh taste of tobacco, making it easier to get hooked on nicotine.
Once-Secret Tobacco Industry Documents Reveal Youth Are Targeted With Flavors
· “It's a well known fact that teenagers like sweet products…”1
· “New users of smokeless tobacco ... are most likely to begin with products that are milder tasting, more
flavored…”2
· “Menthol brands have been said to be good starter products because new smokers appear to know that
menthol covers up some of the tobacco taste and they already know what menthol tastes like, vis-à-vis
candy”3
Flavored Tobacco Products Attracting (and Addicting) Youth and Young Adults
· At least two-thirds of youth tobacco users report using tobacco products “because they come in flavors
I like .” 4
· Of teens and young adults who ever used tobacco, 81% of teens and 86% of young adults reported that
their first product was flavored.4
Local E-Cigarette Use
· Regular use of e-cigarettes among high school students has more than doubled from 21% to 45%.6
· More than 2/3 of high school seniors and 1/5 of 8th graders have tried e-cigarettes.6
· Colorado has the highest rates of e-cigarette use among youth in the nation, and the Roaring Fork
Valley has some of the highest rates in in the state. 6 7
· Youth who use e-cigarettes are 4x more likely to pick up cigarettes. Aspen HAS seen an increase in
cigarette use among high school students from 2015 to 2017.6 8
Current Youth Use of Flavored Tobacco
· More than two-thirds of high school
e-cigarette users are using flavored
e-cigarettes.5
· 51% of youth e-cigarette use is mint
or menthol.5
· 81% of youth who ever tried tobac-
co chose flavored tobacco as their
first tobacco product.5
79
Citations and References
1: SWAT (Students Working Against Tobacco) Florida Tobacco Industry Quotes and Facts Related to Flavor Tobacco
http://swatflorida.com/uploads/fightresource/Flavored%20Tobacco%20Industry%20Quotes%20and%20Facts.pdf
2: SWAT (Students Working Against Tobacco) Florida Tobacco Industry Quotes and Facts Related to Flavor Tobacco
http://swatflorida.com/uploads/fightresource/Flavored%20Tobacco%20Industry%20Quotes%20and%20Facts.pdf
3: Tobacco Control, January 2011, Menthol cigarettes and smoking initiation: a tobacco industry perspective
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/20/Suppl_2/ii12.full.pdf
4: Ambrose, BK, et al., “Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-2014,” JAMA.
2015;314(17):1871-1873.
5: National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2018.
6: Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2017.
7: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2018 NYTS Data: A Startling Rise in Youth E-cigarette Use
https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/PublicHealthEducation/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/ucm625887.htm
8: Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2015.
9: Flavored Tobacco Products, Counter Tobacco https://countertobacco.org/resources-tools/evidence-summaries/flavored-
tobacco-products/
10: Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tobacco Control 2017;26:78-84.
11: States and Localities with Flavored Tobacco Restrictions, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2019.
Flavor Danger Fact Sheet, Updated January 2019
Federal Law on Flavored Tobacco
Candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes were banned under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act in 2009. However, all of the products shown below, including menthol cigarettes, non
-cigarette smoked tobacco products and smokeless products, were not included in the ban.
Impact of Flavored Tobacco Restrictions
· The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ban on flavored cigarettes was associat-
ed with a 17% reduction in the probability of middle and high school youth becoming smokers and a
58% reduction in cigarettes smoked by current youth smokers.9
· In 2009, New York City passed a law restricting the sale of most flavored tobacco. By 2013, product
sales decreased by 87%.10
Communities with Flavored Tobacco Restrictions
Two states and over 180 communities have passed restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco products
(laws differ according to product and store type).11
What the City of Aspen Can Do
Pass a comprehensive policy restricting the sale of all flavored tobacco products.
· Restrict all flavors, including mint and menthol, for all types of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes
· Restrict at all access points, including general stores and adult-only retailers.
For more information contact Risa Turetsky Pitkin County Public Health (970) 618-1781
80
April 30, 2019
To: CJ Oliver
City Council
cjoliver@cityofaspen.com
Regarding: Banning Flavored Tobacco Products
Dear CJ Oliver and the Members of the City Council,
I was asked to write you about any comments I may have on the proposal to ban flavored tobacco
products in the City Of Aspen. As you may be aware, flavored tobacco products are marketed towards
children to get them addicted at a young age. Unfortunately, children are particularly susceptible to the
damages of tobacco; cancers including lung, tongue, mouth, throat, esophagus, pancreas, in addition
to hypertension, strokes, heart disease, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, frequent colds, cavities etc.
Children are also more vulnerable to the current marketing strategies used to sell products.
Flavors do not mask the harms of tobacco but rather make the products less harsh so they can become
easier to use more frequently. In fact, research shows, many children would not use nicotine products if
it weren’t for the availability of tobacco in flavors they liked.
Unfortunately, the children of The Roaring Fork Valley and Aspen are not immune to this and we have
seen a significant increase in tobacco users over the last several years. This includes tobacco in the
forms of vaping and of cigarette use.
This is a health issue that is influenced by greed and disregard of public health. And it targets our most
vulnerable citizens. Other cities have successfully banned flavored tobacco products resulting in a
decrease in use among youth. Aspen should too.
Sincerely yours,
Kim Scheuer, MD
Board Certified Family Practice,
Board Certified Lifestyle Medicine,
www.dokslifestylemedicine.com
970 309 8528
81
82
May 1, 2019
Dear Aspen City Council:
Thank you for considering legislation that will provide further protections for Aspen youth from the
harms of tobacco use and for, once again, providing a model policy for the rest of Colorado. The vaping
epidemic seen across our state has drawn attention to the issue of flavored tobacco products and how
flavors are used to hook kids on nicotine and create lifetime nicotine addicts and customers.
Below we have provided information that we believe is compelling enough for the Aspen City Council to
accept nothing less than a full ban on all flavored tobacco products. There is simply no other way to
protect all youth from this dangerous and deadly addiction.
Vaping
• More than two-thirds (67.8 percent) of high school e-cigarette users are using flavored e-
cigarettes. 1
• JUUL says it is committed to preventing youth use of its products but the company’s 80-plus
lobbyists in 50 states are fighting proposals to ban flavored e-cigarette pods, which are big draws
for teenagers; pushing legislation that includes provisions denying local governments the right to
adopt strict vaping controls; and working to make sure that bills to discourage youth vaping do
not have stringent enforcement measures.2
• Colorado has the highest e-cigarette use in the country and Health Region 12 (which includes
Aspen) is among the top in the state.3,4
Menthol Cigarettes
• Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States. This is nearly
one in five deaths.5
• It is estimated that 91,000 kids now under 18 and alive in Colorado will ultimately die
prematurely from smoking.6
• Federal law prohibits the use of characterizing flavorings in cigarettes, except for menthol.
1 FDA 2018
2 NYTimes.com: In Washington, Juul Vows to Curb Youth Vaping. Its Lobbying in States Runs Counter to That
Pledge.https://nyti.ms/2V27I26
3U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2018 NYTS Data: A Startling Rise in Youth E-cigarette Use
https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/PublicHealthEducation/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/ucm625887.htm
4 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2015
5 https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm
6 The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General, 2014 83
• Menthol cigarette smoking is more prevalent among smokers who are young7, female 8, part of a
sexual minority 9, or part of a racial or ethnic minority 10. There is also significant menthol use
among smokers with mental illness.11
• African-American smokers predominantly use menthol cigarettes. Nearly 9 in 10 African-
American smokers (88.5 percent) aged 12 and older use menthol.6
• Tobacco companies have long known of menthol’s ability to mask the harshness associated with
cigarette smoke, increase the ease of smoking, and provide a cooling sensation that appeals to
many smokers, particularly new smokers.12
• Older industry marketing documents openly discuss the use of flavoring agents in cigarettes to
attract the interest of young smokers.12
7 Giovino GA, Villanti AC, Mowery PD, et al. Differential trends in cigarette smoking in the USA: is menthol slowing
progress? Tobacco control. 2015;24(1):28-37.
8 Caraballo RS, Asman K. Epidemiology of menthol cigarette use in the United States. Tobacco induced diseases.
2011;9 Suppl 1:S1.
9 Fallin A, Goodin AJ, King BA. Menthol cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults.
American journal of preventive medicine. 2015;48(1):93-97
10 Rock VJ, Davis SP, Thorne SL, Asman KJ, Caraballo RS. Menthol cigarette use among racial and ethnic groups in
the United States, 2004-2008. Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine
and Tobacco. 2010;12 Suppl 2:S117-124.
11 Hickman NJ, 3rd, Delucchi KL, Prochaska JJ. Menthol use among smokers with psychological distress: findings
from the 2008 and 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Tobacco control. 2014;23(1):7-13.
12 US Surgeon General’s Report, March 8, 2012 84
Other Flavored Tobacco Products
• Nearly 81 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 who had ever used a tobacco product reported that the
first product they used was flavored.13
• Four of out five youth who were current tobacco product users reported they used a flavored
tobacco product.12
• Youth use of flavored hookah products is even higher than youth use of flavored e-cigarettes.14
Older industry marketing documents openly discuss the use of flavoring agents in cigarettes to
attract the interest of young smokers
• FDA has proposed some restrictions on flavored tobacco products but they are not comprehensive
(e.g. exclude menthol) and will likely take years to implement. Therefore local policy is critical
for protecting youth.
Based on the information above, only a comprehensive flavor ban (that includes all tobacco products)
would protect all youth from the predatory practices of big tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers and
their youth-friendly products.
13 https://truthinitiative.org/news/hookah-most-popular-flavored-tobacco-product-among-youth
14 Source: Ambrose BK, Day HR, Rostron B, et al. Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years,
2013-2014. Jama. 2015;314(17):1871-1873.
85
Thank you again for taking this important step to protect Colorado’s youth. For more information, please
contact the Colorado School of Public Health’s Tobacco Program at 303-724-4236.
Sincerely,
Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS
Dean and Professor
Colorado School of Public Health
Cerise Hunt, PhD, MSW
Director
Center for Public Health Practice
Colorado School of Public Health
Tracy Doyle, MPH
Technical Assistance Coordinator
Center for Public Health Practice
Colorado School of Public Health
86
WWW.TOBACCOFREEKIDS.ORG
April 29, 2019
Mayor Skadron & Aspen Councilmembers,
Thank you for leading the way in protecting Colorado’s kids by considering legislation to ban the sale of flavored tobacco
in Aspen. Prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol cigarettes, is an important step in protecting
Aspen’s children from the unrelenting efforts of the tobacco industry to hook them to a deadly addiction. As you are
aware, Aspen is the first community in Colorado to consider such legislation. The policy you adopt has the potential to
be modeled across the state and therefore carries a great deal of weight. I ask that you consider the policy implications
for all of Colorado as you debate the provisions of a flavor ban in Aspen.
Nationally, more than two states and 180 communities have passed restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco. San
Francisco banned the sale of all flavored tobacco products with no retailer exemptions, in 2018. Sacramento is on the
verge of doing the same. This is the policy that we support and recommend Aspen adopts for the following reasons:
In recent years, there has been an explosion of sweet-flavored tobacco products, especially e-cigarettes and
cigars.These products are available in a wide assortment of flavors that seem like they belong in a candy store
or ice cream parlor –like gummy bear, cotton candy, wild berry and lemonade.
The tobacco industry has a long history of using menthol cigarettes and other flavored products as “starter”
product to attract new users, almost all of whom are under 18. Flavors improve the taste and reduce the
harshness of tobacco products, making them more appealing and easier for beginners.
A government study found that 81 percent of kids who have ever used tobacco products started with a flavored
product.
In Colorado, more than a quarter of high school students use e-cigarettes, one of the highest rates in the
country. According to national data, 97 percent of high school e-cigarette users have used a flavored e-cigarette
in the past month.87
WWW.TOBACCOFREEKIDS.ORG
Among youth who smoke, more than half are smoking menthol cigarettes.
Tobacco industry marketing, advertising, and promotional strategies for menthol cigarettes are often directed at
low-income and minority communities, in addition to youth.
The tobacco industry spends $140 million annually in Colorado to market its products. We must stay vigilant in
protecting Colorado’s kids from the tobacco industry’s outreach and efforts to addict them. This policy will have a
positive impact on public health and will save lives.
Our organization works within the United States and around the world to advocate for public policies proven to prevent
kids from using tobacco, help tobacco users quit and protect everyone from secondhand smoke. A ban on flavored
tobacco products is just such a policy that will protect kids and save lives. For more information about our policy
priorities, please visit our website, www.tobaccofreekids.org.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
Thank you again for your leadership and partnership to protect Aspen’s kids.
Respectfully,
Jodi L. Radke
Regional Director
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
970-214-4808
jradke@tobaccofreekids.org
Rebecca Dubroff
State Government Relations Director
American Heart Association
1777 S. Harrison St. | Denver | CO | 80210
M 303.880.7788
88
ASPEN HIGH SCHOOL 0235 HIGH SCHOOL ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970-429-3539
May 3, 2019
Dear Aspen City Council,
Vaping has rapidly become a national problem for teens, and our valley is seeing the impacts of vaping as
more young people become addicted. Big tobacco has targeted youth through the allure of flavors; kids do
not have to suffer the awful taste of regular cigarettes. Instead, they can ingest the equivalent of one pack of
cigarettes per Juul pod in enticing flavors like cotton candy.
Parents, students, and educators are worried about the effects of vaping on our community’s youth. We are
so grateful that in Aspen you must be 21 to purchase tobacco, but we need to go a step further. Our kids are
getting addicted quickly, and realizing, too late, how harmful vaping is, and how difficult it is to stop. A
flavor ban, already instituted at Local’s Corner and the AABC Conoco, would help to combat the allure of
vaping.
AHS has participated in conversations with community and school partners, including our students, from
here to Rifle. Our valley has one of the highest tobacco use rates in the state, and vaping is the number one
reported substance used at AHS. Our students are clear about what needs to happen: all stores need to be 21
and over for tobacco products, and all stores need to implement a flavor ban. The best way to stop vaping is
to never start.
Sincerely,
Tharyn Mulberry, Principal AHS
Sarah Strassburger, Assistant Principal AHS
Sarah Strassburger Aspen High School sstrassburger@aspenk12.net 970-925-3760 x1132
89
May 2, 2019
To: CJ Oliver cjoliver@cityofaspen.com
Regarding: Flavored Tobacco Products
Dear Aspen City Council Members,
As the School Nurse of the Aspen School District, I am writing to express my very strong support of the
proposal to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products in the City of Aspen. In the school environment,
we are teaching, encouraging and practicing healthy behavior choices on a daily basis. We do this with
the hope of preventing unhealthy habits and substance addictions in our youth.
It is most concerning that products are created and marketed specifically toward adolescents and young
adults that have the ability to cause lifelong addiction challenges and the potential for major negative
health consequences.
A review of current data and literature clearly shows that flavored products increase the sale and usage
of tobacco at a younger age. I believe that it is the responsibility of our school and community leaders to
create barriers, provide education and make appropriate policy decisions around creating a healthful
community at large.
Respectfully,
Elise Dreher, BSN RN
Aspen School District School Nurse
90
To City Council members,
My name is Michael Haisfield, and I have been the owner and operator of the Aspen Store
convenience store in town since 1996? The Aspen Store employs 20 full and part time
employees, and we are one of only two businesses in town that sells tobacco products.
I would like to speak about the City Council’s proposal to ban all flavored, mint and menthol
tobacco products. I have talked to members of council and the general public and my
impression is this has all started in order to protect our youth. In my opinion, vaping and e-cigs
are the issue with young adults not the other tobacco products. This ban is imposing
restrictions on grown adults, who are, despite assumptions to the contrary, the primary users
of flavored tobacco products and should be allowed to make their own decisions.
In December 2018 we decided to voluntarily eliminate all Vape and E-cigarette products from
our stores here and in our two other down valley convenience stores because we saw a
problem with these products in our youth up and down the valley. We took the initiative and
were hoping to set the example for others to follow…including the city and county. Let’s try
and work together with other communities in the valley as well and really make a difference
with teen vaping and e-cig/juul usage.
I believe we must educate our youth! As of now there has not ever been a class or seminar to
Aspen students on the effects of tobacco. The city has raised over $300,000 from sales tax
from tobacco product sales but has not taken any steps on trying to curb a young adult, through
informative classes and seminars, from even wanting to try it. A ban won’t stop a young adult
for wanting to try a product, especially when it is a car ride (3.6 miles) away, but education on
the effects of tobacco most certainly will.
Finally, I ask that this ban is reconsidered and for the attention to be directed to other forms of
support, not personal taste. We live in a town where there are 7 dispensaries within walking
distance that sell all flavors, sizes and packaging of cannabis. Flavored tobacco and chew are
just options that a 21 year or over adult has. If this is about youth, than lets focus on those
under 18 and what we can do to support and educate them to make smart choices.
Sincerely,
Mike Haisfield
91
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM:Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner
THRU:Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE:APCHA Referral Land Use Code Amendment
Ordinance 12, Series of 2019. 2nd Reading (public hearing)
DATE:May 20th, 2019
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance amends the City of Aspen Land Use Code to eliminate the references and
requirements for Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) referrals for land use applications.
This amendment is being processed in response to the adoption of amendments to the City of Aspen
and Pitkin County APCHA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which will place City Council members
on the APCHA Board, potentially creating a conflict of interest during the land use process. First
reading of the Text Amendment Ordinance was heard and passed on May 13th, 2019.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on 2nd Reading (public hearing).
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the City’s Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1.Public Outreach
2.Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3.Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the Land Use Code states that when employee housing is provided as mitigation, an APCHA
Board recommendation is required. Other APCHA Board references also exist throughout the Land Use
Code. City Council member participation on the APCHA Board has the potential to create a conflict of
interest during the land use application review process when APCHA referral comments are provided to
the City Council in consideration of a final decision, or an appeal. To eliminate any potential conflict of
interest, the Land Use Code will need to be amended to remove the APCHA Board review and
recommendation requirements, replacing them with an APCHA Staff referral. Removing these
92
Page 2 of 2
requirements will then establish the City’s standard process which refers a land use application to the
Department Staff.
The City Council approved Policy Resolution No. 52, Series 2019 on May 13
th, 2019 which established
direction for a Land Use Code Amendment and is the 2nd step in the 3-step process. City Council also
passed Ordinance 12, Series 2019 amending the text of the Land Use Code on 1
st Reading and set 2
nd
Reading (public hearing) for tonight. If the draft ordinance is passed on 2nd Reading, the proposed Land
Use Code amendments will become effective in 30 days (June 19th, 2019).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance No. 12, Series 2019, on 2
nd Reading (public hearing).
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 12 Series of 2019, amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code to
eliminate APCHA referral and recommendation requirements, on 2nd Reading (public hearing).”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A –Staff Findings
Exhibit B -Redline version of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments
93
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE NO. 12
SERIES OF 2019
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE CODE RELATED APCHA BOARD REFERRALS AND LAND USE
APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS,in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to draft a code amendment to eliminate language regarding Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA) review and recommendation requirements for land use applications,
in order to respond to recent amendments to the City of Aspen and Pitkin County
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that changes the makeup of the APCHA Board; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Chapter 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach through the Community Development Newsletter
regarding the code amendment and City Council conducted work sessions; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on May 13th, 2019, the City Council approved Policy Resolution No. 52, Series of 2019, by a fiveto
zero (5 - 0) vote requesting a Land Use Code amendment to eliminate APCHA Board review and
recommendation requirements and delete other references relating to APCHA review, and replacing
with references requiring compliance with the APCHA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed Land Use Codeamendment
at1st Reading on May 13th, 2019 and at2nd Reading (public hearing) on May 20th, 2019 and finds that
the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Land Use Code amendments to eliminate APHCA Board
referrals in the land use process will further the integrity of the process and foster better
governance.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent and compatible with the goals and
objectives of the City of Aspen and the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
94
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 2 of 9
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The objective of the proposed Land Use Code amendment is to eliminate potential conflicts of
interests between the City Council and APCHA in the review of land use applications.
Section 2:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.D.7.a is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, as amended.
Section 3:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.D.7.b is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
b. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of
methods outlined in this chapter, including newly built units, buy
down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in-lieu.
Section 4:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.090.B.3.b is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
b. Providing a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable
housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area pursuant to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines (which may
require certain improvements) in a size equal to or larger than 30%
of the Floor Area increase to the Free-Market unit. The mitigation
unit must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 2 (or lower)
housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to
the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
Section 5:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.090.B.3.d is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
d. For property owners qualified as a full-time local working resident,
an affordable housing mitigation deferral agreement may be
accepted by the City of Aspen subject to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines. This allows deferral of the
mitigation requirement until such time as the property is no longer
owned by a full-time local working resident. Staff of the City of
Aspen Community Development Department and Staff of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority can assist with the
procedures and limitations of this option.
95
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 3 of 9
Section 6:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.090.C.2.b is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
b. Providing a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable
housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area pursuant to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines (which may
require certain improvements) in a size equal to or larger than 30%
of the Floor Area increase to the Free-Market unit(s). The
mitigation unit(s) must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 2
(or lower) housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser
according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines.
Section 7:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.090.C.2.d is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
d. For property owners qualified as a full-time local working resident,
an affordable housing mitigation deferral agreement may be
accepted by the City of Aspen subject to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines. This allows deferral of the
mitigation requirement until such time as the property is no longer
owned by a full-time local working resident. Staff of the City of
Aspen Community Development Department and Staff of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority can assist with the
procedures and limitations of this option.
Section 8:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.100.D.1 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
with the following:
1) The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and
transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled
to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines. The deed restriction shall authorize the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit
and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended.
Section 9:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.100.E.2 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
96
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 4 of 9
with the following:
2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi-family housing
units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing
deed-restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may
increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable
area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees
housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement
units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall comply
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
Section 10:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.100.E.4 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
with the following:
4. Location requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-
market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which
demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of
the units on site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or
would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical
constraints.
When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall
replace the maximum number of units on site which the Planning
and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate
and may replace the remaining units off site, at a location
determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or
may replace the units by extinguishing the requisite number of
affordable housing credits, pursuant to Sec. 26.540, Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit.
When calculating the number of credits that must be extinguished,
the most restrictive replacement measure shall apply. For example,
for an applicant proposing to replace one 1,000 square foot three-
bedroom unit at the 50% rate using credits, the following
calculations shall be used:
50% of 1,000 square feet = 500 square feet to be replaced. At the
Code mandated rate of 1 FTE per 400 square feet of net livable area,
this requires 1.25 credits to be extinguished; or
A three-bedroom unit = 3.0 FTE’s. 50% of 3.0 FTE’s = 1.50 credits
to be extinguished.
97
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 5 of 9
Therefore, the applicant must extinguish 1.50 credits to replace a
three-bedroom unit at the 50% rate. The credits to be extinguished
would be Category 4 credits.
Section 11:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.110.A.1.c is hereby deleted and replaced in its
entirety with the following:
c. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units
established as priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a desirable mix of
affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g., singles,
seniors, families, etc.).
Section 12:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.110.B.2 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
with the following:
2. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units
established as priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a desirable mix of
affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g., singles,
seniors and families).
Section 13:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.150.A.2 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety
with the following:
2) The change does not alter the number, size, type or deed restriction
of the proposed affordable housing units, subject to compliance with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
Section 14:
City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.520.020 hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with
the following:
General: Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses are separate
dwelling units incidental and subordinate in size and character to the
primary residence, located on the same parcel, and which may be
rented or sold to a local working resident as defined by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and as limited
by this Chapter. A primary residence may have no more than one
(1) ADU or carriage house. An ADU or carriage house may not be
accessory to another ADU or carriage house. A detached ADU or
carriage house may only be conveyed separate from the primary
98
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 6 of 9
residence as a "for sale" affordable housing unit to a qualified
purchaser pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. ADUs and carriage houses shall not be
considered units of density with regard to zoning requirements.
ADUs and carriage houses shall not be used to satisfy employee
housing requirements of the Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS), except that a detached ADU or carriage house which is
deed restricted and conveyed separate from the primary residence as
a "for sale" affordable housing unit to a qualified purchaser pursuant
to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended, shall qualify for issuance of a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540. All ADUs and carriage
houses shall be developed in conformance with this Chapter.
Section 15:
Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.520.070.A is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with
the following:
Deed restrictions and enforcement
A. Deed restrictions. At a minimum, all properties containing an
ADU or a carriage house shall be deed restricted in the following
manner:
The ADU or carriage house shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
Any occupant of an ADU or carriage house shall be qualified as a
local working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
The ADU or carriage house shall be restricted to lease periods of no
less then six (6) months in duration or as otherwise required by the
current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases
must be recorded with the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority.
A detached and permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Carriage House qualifying a property for a floor area exemption,
pursuant to Section 26.575.020 – Calculations and Measurements,
shall be deed restricted as a "for sale" affordable housing unit and
conveyed to a qualified purchaser, according to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended and according
to the following sales price limitations:
Accessory dwelling units from 300 to 500 net livable square feet –
Category 3 or lower.
Accessory dwelling units from 501 to 800 net livable square feet –
Category 4 or lower.
99
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 7 of 9
Carriage houses from800 to 1,000 net livable square feet –Category
5 or lower.
Carriage houses from 1,001 to 1,200 net livable square feet –
Category 6 or lower.
Category sales prices shall be those specified in the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. The initial
developer may select the first qualified purchaser of the unit.
Subsequent conveyances shall be according to the lottery sales
procedures specified in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended.
A detached and permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Carriage House deed restricted as a “for-sale” affordable housing
unit, as described above, and which is not required for mitigation
purposes, shall be eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Accessory dwelling units deed restricted to mandatory occupancy in
exchange for a floor area bonus, prior to the adoption of Ordinance
No. 46, Series of 2001, shall be continuously occupied by a local
working resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, for lease periods of six (6) months or greater,
unless the owner is granted approval to remove that restriction
pursuant to Subsection 26.520.090.B, Removal of Mandatory
Occupancy Deed Restriction.
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a
standard form for recording accessory dwelling unit or carriage
house deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be recorded with
the County Clerk and Recorder prior to a Certificate of Occupancy
being issued. The reception number associated with the recordation
shall be noted in the building permit file.
Section 16:
Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.520.090.A.2 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with
the following:
2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or
carriage house or the alteration to the deed restriction consistent with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
Section 17:
Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.520.090.B.2.a is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with
100
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 8 of 9
the following:
a) Develop a deed restricted affordable housing unit on a site that is
not otherwise required to contain such a unit or convert an existing
free-market unit to affordable housing status. The replacement
affordable housing unit shall be within the Aspen infill area, shall
be a one-bedroom or larger sized unit, shall meet the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines (which may require certain
improvements), shall be deed restricted as a Category 2, or lower,
for-sale unit according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Guidelines, as amended, and shall be transferred to a qualified
purchaser through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority sales
process; or,
Section 18: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not
limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption
of the Ordinance.
Section 19: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 20: 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 21: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become
effective thirty(30) days following final passage.
Section 22:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 20th day of May, 2019, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
101
Ordinance 12, Series 2019
Page 9 of 9
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of May, 2019.
Attest:
______________________________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on _______________, 2019.
Attest:
_____________________________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
102
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three –
Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
Staff Findings:
There are no known conflicts with any other portions of Title 26. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited
as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The proposed Land Use Code amendment to eliminate APHCA Board referrals in the land use process
will further the integrity of the process and foster better governance. The proposed amendment is in line
with the goals and objectives of the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City
and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The objective of the proposed amendment is to eliminate the potential for a conflict of interest for the City
Council and APCHA referrals. Eliminating this conflict is clearly compatible with community character and
in harmony with the intent of this Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
103
Exhibit B104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM:Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU:Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE:119 Neale Avenue, Transferable Development Rights
Ordinance #10,Series of 2019, Public Hearing continued from May 13, 2019
DATE:May 20, 2019
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance creates Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) to be removed from
119 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, Benedict Cabin Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
This is a landmarked property owned by 119 Neale Avenue, LLC. The property was created
through a Historic Landmark Lot Split, but does not contain a historic structure. The historic
resource that qualified the site for a lot split sits to the south, on Lot 2.
Council previously reviewed an application for three TDRs at 119 Neale Avenue and denied the
request in 2017. A subsequent lawsuit and settlement agreement has resulted in a commitment
by Council to allow two TDRs.This Ordinance is necessary to formalize the removal of
development rights from the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance. Since May 13th, the Ordinance has
been amended to address a neighbor concern over a portion of the subject property where
ownership is disputed. The Ordinance also now requires the applicant to complete the
removal of an unpermitted shed before the TDR certificates will be issued.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from City Council:
Transferable Development Rights–(Chapter 26.535.070) for the creation of two TDRs.
Council is the final decision-making authority.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Criteria for the establishment of TDRs, and the staff evaluation are provided as Exhibit A. 119
Neale Avenue is eligible for the creation of TDRs to the extent that the existing development is
smaller than the maximum allowable floor area. The maximum allowable floor area is 4,200
square feet and the existing development is 3,265 square feet, leaving 935 square feet of
unused floor area to create TDRs.
120
Page 2 of 2
The recent settlement between the property owner and the City states that two TDRs will be
allowed. Each TDR equates to 250 square feet of floor area, which the property owner will be
able to sell so that the floor area may be constructed on a non-historic property elsewhere in
Aspen.
The settlement includes a provision that this property will not be eligible for additional TDRs
in the future. Staff has included a condition in the Ordinance which restricts current and future
owners of 119 Neale Avenue from submitting applications for additional TDRs.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 2019, creating two TDRs at 119 Neale Avenue.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #10, Series of 2019
Exhibit A -Transferable Development Rights Criteria/Staff Findings
121
Ordinance 10, Series 2019
119 Neale Ave TDRs
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE #10
(Series of 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
CREATING TWO TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 119
NEALE AVENUE, LOT 1, BENEDICT CABIN SUBDIVISION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
PARCEL ID:2737-073-53-003
WHEREAS,119 Neale Avenue, LLC, Jeffrey Shoaf, registered agent, requests approval to create
and sever two Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) at 119 Neale Avenue (the “Property”);
and
WHEREAS,creation of these TDRs is an obligation agreed to by City Council through their
approval, via Resolution #41, Series of 2019, of a Settlement Agreement in the case of 119 Neale
Avenue, LLC V. The City of Aspen, Pitkin County District Court, Case #2017CV30131; and
WHEREAS,Section 26.535.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for creation
for Transferable Development Rights, which shall be approved if City Council determines
sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the established review criteria; and
WHEREAS,Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards were met, and
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development 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,
THAT:
Section1: Transferable Development Rights
Pursuant to thefindings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize the grant of two
(2) Transferable Development Rights from119 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, Benedict Cabin Subdivision,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Coloradowhich TDRs shall be deducted from the 4,200 square feet
of total allowable floor area for the Property, with the following conditions:
122
Ordinance 10, Series 2019
119 Neale Ave TDRs
Page 2 of 4
1. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall establish a date on
which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be validated and issued by the City
and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The property owner may decide when and if, as
warranted by the TDR market, the development rights will be converted into certificates
and sold.
2. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and
deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the property owner and the
property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available
development right of the Sending Site, 119 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, Benedict Cabin
Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, by 250 square feet per TDR together
with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder’s Office. No TDR certificate shall be issued by the City prior to the
demolition of the shed pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement entered in
District Court Case #2017CV30131.
3. Per the Settlement Agreement in the case of 119 Neale Avenue, LLC V. The City of
Aspen, Pitkin County District Court, Case #2017CV30131, current and future owners of
119 Neale Avenue are prohibited from submitting applications for additional TDRs for
the Property.
4. This Ordinance shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, shall run
with the land, and shall be binding upon 119 Neal Avenue LLC and Jeffrey Shoaf as
registered agent, their successors and assigns.
5. Nothing within this ordinance, the deed restriction entered pursuant to the ordinance, or
the calculation of allowable floor area on the subject site, shall be deemed to encumber
an approximately 785 square foot area along the northern boundary of the site described
in a Quit Claim Deed recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder at Book 799,
Page 660, Reception Number 387385. Nonetheless, the deduction of this lot area shall
not diminish the 4,200 square feet of total allowable floor area for the Property set forth
in the Settlement Agreement described above.
Section 2: 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.
Section3: 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.
123
Ordinance 10, Series 2019
119 Neale Ave TDRs
Page 3 of 4
Section 4: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested
for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any
failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to
properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of
Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific
development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice
advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a
vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan,
and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the
Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,
pertaining to the following described property: 119 Neale Avenue.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City
of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution
and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 13
th day of May 2019, and the 20
th day of May
2019, 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.
124
Ordinance 10, Series 2019
119 Neale Ave TDRs
Page 4 of 4
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City
ofAspen on the 22ndday ofApril 2019.
_______________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _________, 2019.
_______________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
125
119 Neale Ave TDRs
Exhibit A, Staff Findings
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
TDR REVIEW CRITERIA
26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development
right.
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant
to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
A.The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-
family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone
Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be
eligible.
Staff Finding: 119 Neale Avenue is a landmarked property. Single family and duplex
uses are permitted in the zone district where 119 Neale Avenue is located. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
B.It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development
rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred
and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR
certificates requested.
Staff Finding: According to City Council Ordinance #2, Series of 2012, the subdivision
approval that created this lot, 119 Neale Avenue is allowed a maximum floor area of 4,200
square feet. To the extent that the existing development represents less than that, the
owner may apply to sever Transferable Development Rights in increments of 250 square
feet of floor area.
The existing structure has been calculated to be 3,265 square feet, leaving 935 square
feet of unused floor area, sufficient for the creation of two 250 square foot TDRs. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
C.It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not
increase the specific nonconformity.
Staff Finding: No non-conformities will be created by the establishment of TDRs. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
126
119 Neale Ave TDRs
Exhibit A, Staff Findings
Page 2 of 3
D.The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built
development, any approved development order, the allowable development right
prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the
potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential
development incentives.
Staff Finding: The analysis only includes development that is by right. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
E.Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally
connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered
null and void.
Staff Finding: No such development order exists. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
F.The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development
of the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the
allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates
established. For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of
allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the
established property use, shall be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence
(whichever is permitted) minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area
multiplies by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a
square footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex
residence, as my be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible
for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City
Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction
shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Finding: The deed restriction will follow the form approved by the City Attorney.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
G.A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all
relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of
historic TDR certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner
shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right
of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed
restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's office.
Staff Finding: A closing will be scheduled at the conclusion of the review. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
127
119 Neale Ave TDRs
Exhibit A, Staff Findings
Page 3 of 3
H.It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide
building plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the
confirmation of built floor area. (Ord. 54-2003, §§ 4, 5)
Staff Finding: The applicant has provided a floor area analysis. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
I.The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of
transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the
City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer.
The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the
grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to
timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development
right certificate void.
Staff Finding: The applicant is obligated to report the sale to the City as described
above. This is included as a condition of approval in the Ordinance.
128
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM:Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
THRU:Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE:Transportation and Parking Management Code Amendments
Ordinance 13, Series of 2019
DATE:May 20, 2019
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance amends the Transportation and Parking Management section of the
Land Use Code. The proposed amendments revise terminology, coordinate regulations, and
clarify processes in the section.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the City’s Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1.Public Outreach
2.Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3.Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGOUND:
Community Development staff began developing amendments to the Parking section of the Land
Use Code with a Council work session in January 2018. In support of these code amendments,
Council unanimously passed Policy Resolution 20, Series 2018. This policy resolution directed
the Community Development Department to pursue amendments to the Land Use Code. For
reference, it is included as Exhibit D.
The current Parking section of the Land Use Code was re-written during the 2016-2017
moratorium, combining Off Street Parking requirements with Transportation Mitigation
requirements. At the time, minor amendments were anticipated to ensure the section is
internally consistent. The proposed follow-up amendments to the Parking section ensure the
code provides clear standards and processes for development and delivers on Council’s policy
goals. During the moratorium, staff contracted with Nelson-Nygaard and ReGeneration
Development Strategies, both leaders in the parking and transportation field, to assist in
129
Page 2 of 3
development of new parking regulations. Since 2018, staff has continued working with
ReGeneration on clarifications to the post-moratorium parking regulations.
Staff formed an expert steering committee of local designers, builders, and architects to
support the miscellaneous code amendment process, including review of the parking section of
the Land Use Code. Staff and the focus group worked through early 2019 developing
comprehensive re-writes of the Calculations & Measurements and Parking sections of the Land
Use Code.
While a majority of that work has been tabled due to 2019 work program constraints, it provided
the basis for the targeted code amendments proposed in Ordinance 13. Staff presented these
changes in draft ordinance form to Council at the May 6th work session. At that work session,
Council supported the proposed amendments and directed staff to return on May 13th for first
reading.
UPDATES FROM FIRST READING:
During first reading, there were some clarification requests from community members regarding
some of the changes proposed in this code amendment. Staff presented these at first reading,
and is removing the sections identified, including changes related to how the removal of parking
spaces is addressed. The potential changes will be rolled into future code amendments
regarding this chapter.
At the May 6
th work session, Council requested clarification on the definition of Parking Space,
Accessory. The term refers to the management of an on-site parking space associated with a
specific development. Accessory spaces are managed, typically through signage and
enforcement, to provide parking access to residents, tenants, and visitors to the site at specific
times of day. For example, a space may be signed for loading between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. and
resident parking for the rest of the day. This is distinct from a space which may, for example,
be reserved for the exclusive use of a tenant or for loading. The management scheme would
allow for the flexible use of parking spaces on a site, limiting the need for potentially redundant
tenant and loading parking, and reducing the area of a development site consumed by parking.
DISCUSSION:
The draft amendments included in Ordinance 13 are based on the work of staff, consultants
and the focus group over the course of 18 months. The scope of the amendments for the Parking
code is limited to:
coordination of standards within the section, and
clarification of language, and
improvements to formatting.
No proposed amendment would alter calculations, methodologies, or development rights. Key
amendments in the ordinance are outlined below and in the redline version of the ordinance
included as Exhibit C.
Definitions – 26.515.010
A handful of the definitions at the beginning of the section are proposed for amendment. The
amendments will ensure coordination with terms throughout the section, the Land Use Code
generally, as well as the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) standards. “Parking Space,
Guest/Loading” was added to the definitions to provide clearer standards for this type of 130
Page 3 of 3
parking. Finally, “Mobility Commitments” was changed to “Mobility Measures” and “Surplus
Mobility Measures” was added. These changes better coordinate the terminology associated
with the relationship between the parking and TIA regulations.
Applicability – 26.515.020
Language was added to this section to make the threshold clear as to which projects are subject
to the regulations in the section. This addition adds clarity for staff and applicants but does
not change the types of projects or properties subject to the regulations
Meeting Parking Requirements – 26.515.050
This section is highlighted because it has been significantly reformatted. None of the
regulations have been altered. The contents have been re-organized to better illustrate the
relationship between different parking configurations (sub-bullet #2) and the four ways in which
development can meet parking requirements.
Off-Street Parking Requirements – 26.515.070
The Engineering Standards allows for sites with more than 15 parking spaces to provide up to
25% of the total parking on-site as compact parking spaces. This language was added to the
Land Use Code to provide clarity to staff and applicants and ensure coordination between
departments.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Since November 2017, Planning staff has met with the 11-member focus group, including
representatives from P&Z and HPC, to receive direction and technical support on the
regulations originally proposed for amendment in 2018. While the scope of the work undertaken
with the focus group was broader than the current, targeted parking amendments, the proposed
amendments were addressed in the work of the focus group. Public outreach has also been
conducted via the Community Development newsletter and in conjunction with the Policy
Resolution process.
Prior to the May 6th work session and May 13
th first reading, staff provided the draft ordinance
to the focus group for comment. Staff met with and responded to comments from focus group
members in advance of the first and second reading hearings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 13 Series of 2019, amending the Transportation and Parking
Management section of the Land Use Code.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance 13, 2019
Exhibit A:Staff Findings
Exhibit B:Parking Amendments Draft – Redline Version
Exhibit C:Resolution 20, Series 2018 – Policy Resolution
131
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 1 of 19
ORDINANCE No. 13
Series of 2019
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE
AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.515, TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKING MANAGEMENT.
WHEREAS,in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to craft code amendments to related to transportation and parking management
regulations; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), beginning in 2017 the Community
Development Department conducted Public Outreach with the Planning & Zoning Commission,
City Council, and development community stakeholders regarding amendments to the
transportation and parking management regulations; and,
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department contracted with ReGeneration
Development Services for parking regulation consulting services in support of this code amendment;
and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on February 26, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution No. 20, Series 2019, by a five to zero
(5 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS,Aspen Area Community Plan policy III.1 (Transportation) calls for the
reduction of vehicle trips by user groups; and,
WHEREAS,Aspen Area Community Plan policy III.2 (Transportation) requires that
development minimize adverse impacts to transportation systems; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the amendments meet or exceed all
applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is
consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health safety and welfare; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO THAT:
132
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 2 of 19
Section 1: Chapter 26.515, Transportation and Parking Management, shall be deleted and
replaced with the following:
Chapter 26.515
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT
Sections:
26.515.010 Purpose and Definitions
26.515.020 Applicability
26.515.030 Transportation Mitigation
26.515.040 Parking Requirements
26.515.050 Meeting Parking Requirements
26.515.060 Procedures for Review
26.515.070 Off-Street Parking Requirements
26.515.080 Special Review Standards
26.515.090 Cash-in-lieu for Parking Requirements
26.525.100 Amendments
26.515.110 Appeals
26.515.010.Purpose
This Chapter establishes unified transportation and mobility standards to promote the city’s
policies relating to mobility, access to employment opportunities, and sustainability. This chapter
implements policies from the Aspen Area Community Plan to:
Limit vehicle trips into Aspen to 1993 levels, and reduce peak-hour vehicle-trips to at or
below 1993 levels;
Use Transportation Demand Management tools to accommodate additional person trips
in the Aspen Area;
Maintain the reliability and improve the convenience of City of Aspen transit services;
Expand and improve bicycle parking and storage within the Urban Growth Boundary;
Improve the convenience, safety, and quality of experience for bicyclists and pedestrians
on streets and trails;
Require development to mitigate its transportation impacts; and
Develop a strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the
adverse impacts of the automobile.
This Chapter establishes a variety of ways for property owners and developers to mitigate their
impacts on the transportation network. As new development and growth occur, increased
burdens on the transportation system can make it more difficult for the City to meet its
transportation and air quality goals. To the extent that increased travel demand can shift away
133
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 3 of 19
from automobile dependence, development and growth can be compatible with, and even
support, these goals.
To promote this shift in travel behavior, the City has transformed its approach to parking
requirements to focus on the promotion and expansion of mobility options, including more
walkable development patterns and a more efficient parking system, as well as the provision of
public and development-based mobility resources. This will directly improve the travel
experience and quality of life within growth areas, while helping to maintain the City's
transportation-system and air-quality standards.
This is accomplished through a new integrated approach, which incorporates the City’s
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines with Off-Street Parking Requirements. Where
the TIA serves to evaluate the potential adverse effects of proposed projects on Aspen’s
transportation systems, the off-street parking regulations focus on on-site mitigation needs
resulting from the provision of parking.
Applicants will use a simplified, two-tiered process that:
1.Determines the project’s TIA applicability and calculates the project’s resulting “parking
requirement,” and
2.Provides a Mobility Plan that includes the applicant’s parking and mobility mitigation
requirements, which includes the provision of parking, utilization of cash-in-lieu, and/or
provision mobility options, including TIA mitigations if applicable.
The City then reviews the project’s mitigations for parking and mobility together as part of the
project’s land use application.
A. Adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines
Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted
and incorporated herein by reference as fully set forth those standards contained in the City of
Aspen’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, as may be amended, updated and expanded
from time to time by City Council Resolution (referred to in this Code as the “TIA Guidelines”). At
least one (1) copy of the TIA Guidelines shall be available for public inspection at the
Community Development, Engineering, and Transportation Departments.
B. Definitions. As used in this Section, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
Mobility Measures. Specific tools, strategies, and policies approved in the Mobility Plan. These
include the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and/or Multimodal Level of Service
(MMLOS) Mitigation Tools prescribed by the TIA, defined as follows:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Tools, which are strategies and policies to
reduce travel demand, particularly by single-occupancy vehicles, and
134
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 4 of 19
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Tools, which are improvements to
transportation service quality for travelers using a variety of modes including pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit passengers.
Mobility Plan. A complete mitigation plan for a proposed development’s transportation and
parking system impacts.
Parking Maximum. The maximum number of Parking Spaces provided on-site for a designated
use before triggering compliance with Shared Parking Requirements.
Parking Minimum. The minimum number of Parking Spaces required on-site for a designated
use.
Parking Requirement. The sum of a project’s required Parking, as provided in Section
26.515.020.C.
Parking Space, Accessory. A Parking Space that is managed to limit access to individuals
engaged with on-site uses (residents, tenants, and their guests/customers), but are shared between
all on-site land uses across different peaks in service throughout a 24-hour/day period.
Parking Space, Guest/Loading. A Parking Space that is managed to provide 24-hour/day
access to a development for guests, deliveries and loading to the public, service providers, and
other non-resident visitors to a development on a non-permanent basis.
Parking Space, Public. A Parking Space that is managed to provide at least 12 hours of public
use in any 24-hour/day period, with approved signage to effectively identify these hours of
public access.
Parking Space, Priced.A Parking Space – whether reserved, accessory, or public – that is
priced comparable to market rates at all times of operation.
Parking Space, Municipal.A Parking Space that is provided within City of Aspen facilities, or
directly managed by the City of Aspen, whether located in a private or City-owned parking
facility.
Parking Space, Reserved. A Parking Space that is managed to limit access to specified
individuals or specific on-site land uses.
Parking, Shared. Parking that is shared between multiple, distinct land uses, on the same site or
between proximate sites, to make more efficient use of spaces and reduce overall supply needs.
Shared Parking is required on a development which exceeds its on-site parking provision
maximum standard. Shared parking can be used to reduce a project’s Parking Requirement.
Shared Parking may include off-site parking spaces and/or priced parking spaces.
135
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 5 of 19
Surplus Mobility Measures. Any additional mitigation credits remaining after TIA-subject
projects have met the TIA requirements.
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Technical analysis guidelines for potential
transportation impacts generated by development projects within the City of Aspen.
26.515.020. Applicability.
This Chapter applies to all development and redevelopment which meets the definition of
Demolition, or is a Change in Use, as defined in Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota
System.
A. Determination of Applicability.
The applicant may request a preliminary pre-application conference with staff from the
Community Development Department to determine the applicability of the requirements of this
Chapter for the proposed development. The following chart details the process for complying
with the requirements of this Section through the creation of a mobility plan. The TIA
Guidelines are available on the City of Aspen website and may be used to determine whether a
project is subject to or exempt from the TIA.
136
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 6 of 19
Figure 1: Applicability chart illustrating how to create a Mobility Plan.
C. Requirements. This Chapter requires all applicable development to submit a Mobility
Plan, which addresses the following:
TIA applicability, and
TIA compliance (as applicable), and
The provision of parking, and
Cash-in-lieu of parking (as applicable), and
Surplus mobility measures (as applicable).
The City then reviews the project’s proposed TIA and Mobility Plan together as part of the
project’s Land Use Application.
137
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 7 of 19
26.515.030 Transportation Mitigation.
A. General Requirements. All applicable development shall mitigate its projected
transportation impacts as provided in this Chapter. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) for project applicability. Mobility requirements shall be satisfied through use of the
following approaches, either alone or in combination
1.Mobility Measures. Applicable development must provide Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) measures as
provided for in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. These
measures shall be maintained for the life of the development. All requirements shall
be incorporated in the project’s Development Agreement, pursuant to Chapter 26.490,
Development Documents.
2.Surplus Mobility Measures. Upon satisfaction of TIA requirements, a
development’s Mobility Plan may include surplus mobility measures, where credit is
provided over the minimum TIA requirements and applied towards Parking
Requirements outlined in Table 26.515-1. The proportion of surplus mobility
measures permitted for a development is outlined in Table 26.515-2.
26.515.040 Parking Requirements.
A.General requirements. All applicable development shall accommodate its projected
parking impacts as provided in this Chapter. Parking Requirements shall be satisfied through use
of the following either alone or in combination.
1.Parking Requirement Calculation. Parking Requirements shall be calculated for each
use within a development according to Table 26.515-1.
2.Parking Provision Minimum. Applicable development shall satisfy the minimum
Parking Provision Requirement, as calculated in Table 26.515-1. Minimum parking
provisions may be reduced in combination with mobility measures and transportation
system impact fees in accordance with the standards in Table 26.515-2.
3.Parking Provision Maximum. To create appropriate site planning and provision of
parking, applicable development shall not provide on-site parking in excess of 125% of
the Parking Provision Maximum requirement in the form of Reserved Parking Spaces or
Accessory Parking Spaces, unless the total number of on-site spaces in excess of 125% of
the Parking Provision Maximum are provided as Public Parking Spaces.
138
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 8 of 19
Key to Table 26.515-1:
Table 26.515-1 Parking Impact Requirement Calculations
Use
Aspen Infill Area
All Other Areas
Parking Requirement
(in units)Parking
Requirement
(in units)
Parking
Maximum
(in units)
Commercial(1)
1 unit /1,000 sf
Net Leasable
Space
1.25 units /
1,000 sf NLA 3 units per 1,000 sf NLA(2)
Residential –
Single-Family and
Duplex(4)
Lesser of 1 unit
per bedroom or
2 units per
Dwelling Unit
Greater of 1.25
units per
bedroom or 2.5
units per
dwelling unit
Lesser of 1 unit per bedroom
or 2 per unit
Residential –
Accessory Dwelling
Units and Carriage
Houses(3) (4)
1 unit per unit 1.25 units per
unit 1 unit per unit(3)
Residential –
Multi-Family (as a
single use)
1 unit per
Dwelling Unit
1.25 units per
dwelling unit
Lesser of 1 unit per bedroom
or two units per Dwelling Unit
Residential –
Multi-Family within
a mixed-use building
1 unit per
Dwelling Unit
1.25 units per
dwelling unit 1 per Dwelling Unit(2)
Hotel/Lodge 0.5 units per
Key
0.7 units per
Key 0.7 units per Key(2)
All Other Uses (civic,
cultural, public uses,
essential public
facilities, child care
centers, etc.)
Established by
Special Review
according to the
review criteria
of Section
26.515.080.
N/A
Established by Special Review
according to the review criteria
of Section 26.515.080.
139
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 9 of 19
(1)= Up to 100% of Parking Requirement, may be provided through cash-in-lieu.
(2)= A reduction in Parking Requirement may be approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.430,
Special review and according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.080
(3)= A reduction in Parking Requirements may be approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.520,
Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses.
(4)= All Single Family and Duplex dwelling units, as well as ADUs and Carriage Houses
shall provide their Parking Requirement as off-street, on-site parking spaces.
SF = Square feet
NLA = Net leasable square feet of commercial space
B. Fractional Requirement Computed. When any calculation of Parking Requirements
results in a fractional unit, that fractional unit may be paid through a cash-in-lieu payment or
satisfied through one whole additional on-site parking or mobility commitment credit.
26.515.050. Meeting Parking Requirements.
A.General requirements. Parking Requirements shall be satisfied through the following
provisions alone or in combination and described in a project’s Mobility Plan:
1. Cash-in-lieu. Cash-in-lieu payments may be made to satisfy Parking Requirements as
outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2, and according to Section 26.515.090.
2. Provision of Off-Street Parking:
a. On-Site Parking. Off-street parking may be provided on-site in applicable zone
districts to satisfy Parking Requirements, with Reserved and Accessory spaces not
to exceed the Parking Maximums outlined below in Table 26.515-1. Shared
parking may be counted provided that a Shared Parking Agreement and a shared-
parking analysis, as approved by the Community Development Director, is
executed.
b. Off-Site Parking. Off-street parking may be provided off-site in applicable zone
districts to satisfy Parking Requirements, provided that a Shared Parking
Agreement and a shared-parking analysis, as approved by the Community
Development Director, is executed. Off-site parking is subject to Special Review
per Chapter 26.430 and Section 26.515.080.
c. Reserved and Accessory Spaces. For both On-Site Parking and Off-Site
Parking, Reserved and Accessory spaces in excess of the Parking Provision
Maximums outlined below in Table 26.515-1 are subject to the Shared Parking
standards in Section 26.515.040.A.3.
3. Shared Parking Spaces. For both On-Site Parking and Off-Site parking, shared parking
spaces may be provided contingent upon a shared parking analysis being completed and a
Shared Parking Agreement being executed, as approved by the Community Development
Director.
4. Mobility Measures. Mobility Measures, as defined in Section 26.515.010.B, may be
provided, as follows:
140
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 10 of 19
a. Where projects are TIA exempt, Mobility Measures may be provided to satisfy
Parking Requirements as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2.
b. Where projects are subject to the TIA, Surplus Mobility Measures (after the
minimum TIA mitigation requirements have been met) may be provided to satisfy
Parking Requirements as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2.
The extent to which a project may satisfy its Parking Requirements with Mobility Commitments,
On-Site Parking provision, and Cash-in-Lieu will vary by location, according to Table 26.515-2
below.
141
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 11 of 19
Table 26.515-2 - Parking Requirements by Zone District
Location
Options for Meeting Parking Requirements
Additional
TIA Credits
(Projects
Subject to
TIA)
Mobility
Commitments
(Projects
Exempt from
TIA)
On-Site
Parking
Provision
Cash-In-Lieu of
Parking Fee
Payment
Commercial Core
(CC) and
Commercial-1 (C-1)
zones
Up to 2
Additional
TIA Credits
Up to 2
Mobility
Commitments
* Up to 20% of
the
Requirement.
Up to 100% of
the requirement
if subgrade.
Up to 100% of
the Requirement
Remaining
Commercial,
Lodging, and
Lodging Overlay
Zones
1 Additional
TIA Credit
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
1 Mobility
Commitment
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
At least 60%
and up to 100%
of the
Requirement
Up to 40% of
the Requirement
Remaining Infill
Area
1 Additional
TIA Credit
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
1 Mobility
Commitment
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
Up to 100% of
the
Requirement
Up to 100% of
the Requirement
All other Areas
1 Additional
TIA Credit
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
1 Mobility
Commitment
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
At least 60%
and up to 100%
of the
Requirement
Up to 40% of
the Requirement
Parking Requirements are subject to the following standards:
142
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 12 of 19
1.If the Parking Requirement is subject to establishment by adoption of a Planned
Development final development plan, review is subject to Chapter 26.445,
Planned Development.
2.If the Parking Requirement is established through a special review, the standards
and procedures of Section 26.515.080, Special Review Standards apply.
3.If the Parking Requirement is met via cash-in-lieu, the standards and procedures
set forth at Section 26.515.090, Cash-in-Lieu of Parking apply.
4.For properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, a waiver of the Parking Requirement may be approved, pursuant to
Chapter 26.430, Special Review, and according to the review criteria set forth
below.
5.For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as “lock-off
units,” each separate “key,” or rentable division, shall constitute a unit for the
purposes of this section.
6.The Parking Requirement for projects with multiple, distinct land uses
(residential, commercial, lodging, or other) may be lowered, if the applicant
submits a shared-parking analysis, approved by the Community Development
Director, which results in a peak-parking-demand measure that is less than the
Parking Requirement established by Table 26.515-1. The application for a shared
parking analysis shall be reviewed by The Transportation, Parking, Engineering,
and Community Development Departments and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission as a Special Review (Section 26.430).
*7.Off-street parking provision on a parcel that abuts an Aspen Pedestrian Mall may
only be provided in an on-site, subgrade parking structure. Alternatively, parcels
abutting an Aspen Pedestrian Mall may provide all Parking Requirements through
the payment of Cash-in-Lieu (Section 26.515.090).
26.515.060. Procedures for Review.
Development and redevelopment applications shall be reviewed pursuant to the following
procedures, as well as standards and the Common Development Review Procedures set forth in
Chapter 26.304.
A. Review Authority. All applications will be reviewed administratively for compliance
with this Chapter and relevant guidelines in conjunction with a project’s land use application,
unless otherwise specified. In all circumstances, the final land use review body shall approve the
TIA, after considering a recommendation from the Engineering, Transportation, and Community
Development Departments.
143
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 13 of 19
B. Review Process. For all applicable development, Mobility Plan review is completed in
conjunction with required land use reviews. Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, Pre-application
Conference, applicants are encouraged, although not required, to meet with a member of the
Community Development Department to clarify requirements of this Section and to determine
applicability.
1. For development only subject to administrative-level land use reviews, or for
development meeting a threshold established in the TIA Guidelines but not subject to a
land use review, the City Engineering and Transportation Departments may, on behalf of
the City of Aspen, determine that the project meets or exceeds the requirements set forth
in this Chapter and the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
When development meets an established threshold, but does not require a land use
review, review for compliance with this Chapter and the Guidelines shall be completed as
part of the building permit application.
2. In all circumstances, the final land use review body shall approve the TIA, after
considering a recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation Departments.
C. Review Criteria. All applicable projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which
shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The
Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine
whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards:
1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt,
minor, or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.
2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section
26.515.050.
3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be
provided for that increment of the expansion.
4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be
maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.
Projects failing to meet the requirements of this section may apply for a variation to the Planning
and Zoning Commission through the Special Review process (Section 26.430 and Section
26.515.080).
26.515.070.Off-Street Parking Requirements.
A. Applicability.Where off-street parking spaces are provided as part of a Mobility Plan,
the regulations in Sections 26.515.070.(B – I) apply.
B. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and
one half (8½) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high with a maximum
longitudinal slope of twelve percent (12%) and a maximum cross slope of five percent (5%). For
developments providing more than 15 on-site parking spaces, 25% of the on-site spaces may be
provided as Compact Parking in accordance with the requirements of the Engineering Design
144
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 14 of 19
Standards. Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and
duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley. Off-street parking
provided for multi-family dwellings which do not share a common parking area may be
exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject to special review pursuant to
Chapter 26.430, Special review and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review
standards, below.
Off-street parking must be paved with all-weather surfacing or be covered with gravel. For
residential development, a grass ring or grass-paver-type surface may be used. All parking shall
be maintained in a usable condition at all times. All development or redevelopment must be in
conformance with, or bring existing parking into conformance with, Engineering Design
Standards, including but not limited to the access requirements outlined in Chapter 4
Transportation Design.
C. Use of off-street parking. Parking spaces shall be used for the parking of vehicles and
shall not be used for non-auto related uses such as storage units or trash containers. No off-street
parking area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles,
equipment, materials or supplies, nor shall any such activity adjacent to off-street parking spaces
obstruct required access to off-street parking areas.
D. Location of off-street parking. Off-street parking, except shared parking, publicly
accessible parking, or off-site parking as approved as part of a mobility plan, shall be located on
the same parcel as the principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the lot
occupied by the principal use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary
road where one exists unless otherwise established according to this Chapter.
E. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off-street parking provided for
detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings is not required to have unobstructed access
to a street or alley, but shall not block access of emergency apparatus to the property or to
structures located on the property. This allows for "stacking" of vehicles where a vehicle is
parked directly behind another.
F. State Highway 82 off-street parking. All parking required for uses fronting State
Highway 82 shall be accessed from the alley, if an alley exists, and shall not enter from or exit
onto State Highway 82.
G.Surface parking. Surface parking is prohibited or requires conditional use review as a
principal use of a lot or parcel in some Zone Districts (See Chapter 26-710). Where surface
parking is permitted and eight (8) or more spaces are provided, the parking area shall include one
(1) tree with a planter area of twenty (20) square feet for each four (4) parking spaces. Planter
areas may be combined but shall be proximate to the parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning
Commission may waive or modify this requirement on a per case basis. Parking within
structures is exempt from this landscaping provision.
145
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 15 of 19
H.Restrictions on drainage, grading and traffic impact. Off-street parking spaces shall
be graded to ensure drainage does not create any flooding or water quality impacts and shall be
provided with entrances and exits so as to minimize traffic congestion and traffic hazards.
I.Restrictions on lighting. Lighting facilities for off-street parking spaces, if provided,
shall be arranged and shielded so that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent
residential dwellings nor interfere with driver vision. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the
outdoor lighting regulations, Section 26.575.150.
26.515.080.Special Review Standards.
Whenever the transportation, mobility, and parking impacts of a proposed development are
subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance
with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated
according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community
Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
special review application.
A special review for establishing, varying or waiving transportation, mobility, or off-street
parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on its
conformance with all of the following criteria:
1. The transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the residents, customers,
guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of
the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking
opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-
street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and
employees.
2. An on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and guidelines is practically
difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
A.Commercial Parking Facilities. Special Review is required for a commercial parking
facility. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved
with conditions or denied based on conformance with its adherence to Commercial Design
Standards and the policy goal of provision of publicly-accessible parking in areas with high
public parking demand (in order to reduce vehicle congestion and emissions due to vehicles
circling for parking) is not offset by the proposed commercial parking facility’s potential adverse
impacts of the City’s multi-modal transportation system. For properties in zone districts where
146
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 16 of 19
Conditional Use Review is required for a Commercial Parking Facility, Conditional Use and
Special Review shall be combined.
26.515.090.Cash-in-lieu Requirements.
A.General. The City conducted a parking facility analysis in the fall of 2016 and
determined the costs associated with developing new parking facilities to serve the demands of
development. While not all potential facilities represented the same potential expenditure,
facilities considered likely to be developed by the City required an expected thirty-eight
thousand dollars ($38,000) per space to develop in 2016 dollars.
B.Cash-in-lieu. Mobility improvements serving commercial and mixed-use development
are a public amenity and serves the mobility needs of the general population. As such, the
mobility needs of the general population can be improved through various means other than the
provision of on-site parking spaces, including cash-in-lieu. A cash-in-lieu payment, for those
types of development authorized to provide parking via cash-in-lieu, may be accepted by the
Community Development Director to satisfy the Parking Requirement, as described in Section
26.515.040, above.
1. Time of payment. The payment-in-lieu of parking shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit. All funds shall be collected by the Community
Development Director and transferred to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate
interest-bearing account.
2. Use of funds. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the construction of a public
parking facility, transportation and mobility improvements, including vehicles or station
improvements, transportation demand management facilities or programs, shared
automobiles or programs and similar transportation or mobility-related facilities or
programs as determined appropriate by the City.
3. Refunds. Fees collected pursuant to this Section may be returned to the then-present
owner of the property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees
have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the
Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which
case the time period shall be extended by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund,
the present owner must submit a petition to the Finance Director within one (1) year
following the end of the seventh (7th) year from the date payment was received by the
City.
For the purpose of this Section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of
“the first payment in shall be the first payment out.” Any payment made for a project for
which a building permit is revoked or cancelled, prior to construction, may be refunded if
a petition for refund is submitted to the Finance Director within three (3) months of the
date of the revocation or cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be
accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of
147
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 17 of 19
the property and that the development shall not commence without full compliance with
this Chapter and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee.
4. Periodic review of rate. To ensure that the payment-in-lieu rate is fair and represents
current cost levels, it shall be reviewed every two years. Any necessary amendments to
this Section shall be initiated pursuant to Section 26.310.020, Procedure for amendment.
26.515.100. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Mobility and Parking Requirement
review by the Community Development Director in coordination with the Engineering and
Transportation Departments as needed.
A.Amendments to Trip Reduction Measures. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures
that have been implemented may not be amended at any time. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure
measures that have not been implemented, and any on-site TDM and MMLOS measures, may be
amended as outlined below. Changes shall be reviewed by the Engineering, Transportation, and
Community Development Departments to ensure the proposed change is appropriate given the
site’s context.
1. Insubstantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures resulting in
the same or more number of trips mitigated as the original approval may be approved
administratively by the Community Development Department, after considering a
recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation Departments. A land use
application is required, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review
Procedures. The applicant shall demonstrate how the new measure(s) is appropriate
given current site conditions.
2. Substantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures that reduces
the number of trips mitigated shall be reviewed by City Council, after considering a
recommendation from the Community Development, Engineering, and Transportation
Departments. A land use application is required, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common
Development Review Procedures, and the review shall be conducted in a duly noticed
public hearing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E), Public Notice. City Council shall find
the following standards are met:
a) The proposed change responds to changed site conditions or circumstances, including
but not limited to changes to land uses, site topography, or site plan.
b) The proposed changes will not adversely impact the immediate vicinity.
c) The proposed change meets the original intent of the approved measures.
d) The proposed changes have been approved by the Community Development Director.
26.515.110 Appeals. An applicant may challenge a determination made by the City in their
enforcement of the requirements of this Chapter by filing with the Community Development
Director a written notice of appeal as provided in Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedures, with
a full statement of the grounds for appeal. Appeals shall be reviewed by City Council, pursuant
to Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
148
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 18 of 19
(Ord. No. 17-2005, §1; Ord. No. 32, 2016, §1; Ord. No. 23, 2017, §23)
Section 2: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not
limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption
of the Ordinance.
Section 3: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: 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 5: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 6: Public Notice
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 20th day of May, 2019, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 20th day of May, 2019.
Attest:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this 20th day of May, 2019.
Attest:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
149
Ordinance 13, 2019
Transportation and Parking Management Amendments
Page 19 of 19
James R. True, City Attorney
150
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review -Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three –
Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A.Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
Staff Findings:
There are no known conflicts with any other portions of Title 26. The purpose of these amendments is to
improve clarity in the administration of the Parking and Transportation Mitigation requirements. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
B.Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited
as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The proposed Land Use Code amendment to clarify the administration of the Parking chapter of code
meets a number of goals of the AACP, as well as the stated goals of the Policy Resolution authorizing the
amendment. The proposed amendment is in line with the goals and objectives of the City. Specific AACP
statements this work furthers, includes:
Managing Growth –I.1 Achieve sustainability growth practices to ensure the long-term viability
and stability of our community and diverse visitor-based economy.
Managing Growth –VIII.2 Create certainty in zoning and the land use process.
Transportation –Parking V.1 Develop a strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking
and reduces the adverse impacts of the automobile.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C.Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City
and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed policies and code amendments ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the City’s
Land Use Code by ensuring its accuracy and the effectiveness of the regulations contained therein.Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
151
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 1
Formatted: Header
Chapter 26.515
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT
Sections:
26.515.010 Purpose and Definitions
26.515.020 Applicability
26.515.030 Transportation Mitigation
26.515.040 Parking Requirements
26.515.050 Meeting Parking Requirements
26.515.060 Procedures for Review
26.515.070 Off-Street Parking Requirements
26.515.080 Special Review Standards
26.515.090 Cash-in-lieu for Parking Requirements
26.525.100 Amendments
26.515.110 Appeals
26.515.010. Purpose
This Chapter establishes unified transportation and mobility standards to promote the city’s
policies relating to mobility, access to employment opportunities, and sustainability. This chapter
implements policies from the Aspen Area Community Plan to:
• Limit vehicle trips into Aspen to 1993 levels, and reduce peak-hour vehicle-trips to at or
below 1993 levels;
• Use Transportation Demand Management tools to accommodate additional person trips
in the Aspen Area;
• Maintain the reliability and improve the convenience of City of Aspen transit services;
• Expand and improve bicycle parking and storage within the Urban Growth Boundary;
• Improve the convenience, safety, and quality of experience for bicyclists and pedestrians
on streets and trails;
• Require development to mitigate its transportation impacts; and
• Develop a strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the
adverse impacts of the automobile.
This Chapter establishes a variety of ways for property owners and developers to mitigate their
impacts on the transportation network. As new development and growth occur, increased
burdens on the transportation system can make it more difficult for the City to meet its
transportation and air quality goals. To the extent that increased travel demand can shift away
from automobile dependence, development and growth can be compatible with, and even
support, these goals.
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
152
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 2
Formatted: Header
To promote this shift in travel behavior, the City has transformed its approach to parking
requirements to focus on the promotion and expansion of mobility options, including more
walkable development patterns and a more efficient parking system, as well as the provision of
public and development-based mobility resources. This will directly improve the travel
experience and quality of life within growth areas, while helping to maintain the City's
transportation-system and air-quality standards.
This is accomplished through a new integrated approach, which incorporates the City’s
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines with Off-Street Parking Requirements. Where
the TIA serves to evaluate the potential adverse effects of proposed projects on Aspen’s
transportation systems, the off-street parking regulations focus on on-site mitigation needs
resulting from the provision of parking.
Applicants will use a simplified, two-tiered process that:
1. Determines the project’s TIA applicability and calculates the project’s resulting “parking
requirement,” and
2. Provides a Mobility Plan that includes the applicant’s parking and mobility mitigation
requirements, which includes the provision of parking, utilization of cash-in-lieu, and/or
provision mobility options, including TIA mitigations if applicable.
The City then reviews the project’s mitigations for parking and mobility together as part of the
project’s land use application.
A. Adoption of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines
Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted
and incorporated herein by reference as fully set forth those standards contained in the City of
Aspen’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, as may be amended, updated and expanded
from time to time by City Council Resolution (referred to in this Code as the “TIA Guidelines”). At
least one (1) copy of the TIA Guidelines shall be available for public inspection at the
Community Development, Engineering, and Transportation Departments.
B. Definitions. As used in this Section, unless the context otherwise requires, the following
terms shall be defined as follows:
Mobility CommitmentsMeasures. Specific tools, strategies, and policies approved alternative in
the Mobility Plan. These include the TDM and/or MMLOS Mitigation Tools (located on the City’s
website), and include:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and/or Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS)
Mitigation Tools prescribed by the TIA, defined as follows:
• Transportation ),Demand Management (TDM) Tools, which is the application ofare
strategies and policies to reduce travel demand, particularly by single-occupancy
vehicles;, and
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
153
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 3
Formatted: Header
• Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS),) Tools, which evaluatesare improvements to
transportation services of roadways fromservice quality for travelers using a variety of
modes including pedestrian, bicyclepedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
facilitiespassengers.
Mobility Plan. A complete development mitigation plan that includes both TIAfor a proposed
development’s transportation and parking requirementssystem impacts.
Parking Maximum. The maximum number of Pparking Sspaces allowedprovided on-site for a
designated use. before triggering compliance with Sshared Pparking Rrequirements.
Parking Minimum. The minimum number of Pparking Sspaces that must be providedrequired
on-site for a designated use.
Parking Requirement. The sum of a project’s required Parking Units, as provided in Section
26.515.020.C.2.
Parking Space, Reserved. A parking space that is managed to limit access to specified
individuals or specific on-site land uses.
Parking Space, Accessory. A Pparking Sspace that is managed to limit access to individuals
engaged with on-site uses (residents, tenants, and their guests/customers), but are shared between
all on-site land uses across different peaks in service throughout a 24-hour/day period.
Parking Space, Guest/Loading. A Pparking Sspace that is managed to provide 24-hour/day
access to a development for guests, deliveries and loading to the public, service providers, and
other non-resident visitors to a development on a non-permanent basis.
Parking Space, Public. A Pparking Sspace that is managed to provide at least 12 hours of public
use in any 24-hour/day period, with approved signage to effectively identify these hours of
public access.
Parking Space, Priced. A Pparking sSpace – whether reserved, accessory, or public – that is
priced comparable to market rates at all times of operation.
Parking Space, Municipal. A Pparking Sspace that is provided within City of Aspen facilities,
or directly managed by the City of Aspen, whether located in a private or City-owned parking
facility.
Parking Space, Reserved. A Pparking Sspace that is managed to limit access to specified
individuals or specific on-site land uses.
Parking Unit. A measure of a project’s parking impact, valued at $38,000 per parking space,
which must be mitigated and/or accommodated via mobility commitments, parking provision,
and/or cash-in-lieu.
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
154
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 4
Formatted: Header
Shared Parking, Shared. Parking that is shared between multiple, distinct land uses, on the
same site or between proximate sites, to make more efficient use of spaces and reduce overall
supply needs. Shared Pparking is required on a development which exceeds its on-site parking
provision maximum standard. Shared parking can be used to seek provisional approval to either
reduce a project’s Parking Requirement, or to facilitate the use of. Shared Pparking may include
off-site parking to meet the Parking Requirement. Shared parking may includespaces and/or
priced parking spaces.
Surplus Mobility Measures. Any additional mitigation credits remaining after TIA-subject
projects have met the TIA requirements. TIA subject-projects may apply Surplus mobility
measures towards mitigation of Transportation Unit Requirements.
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Technical analysis guidelines for potential
transportation impacts generated by development projects within the City of Aspen.
26.515.020. Applicability. This Section applies to all development and redevelopment, unless
otherwise specifically exempted or limited.
This SectionChapter applies to all development and redevelopment which meets the definition of
Demolition, or is a Change in Use, as defined in Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota
System.
A. Determination of Applicability.
The applicant may request a preliminary pre-application conference with staff from the
Community Development Department to determine the applicability of the requirements of this
chapterChapter for the proposed development. The following chart details the applicability of
process for complying with the requirements for varyingof this Section through the creation of a
mobility plan. The TIA Guidelines are available on the City of Aspen website and may be used
to determine whether a project types:is subject to or exempt from the TIA.
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic
Formatted: Level 1
155
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 5
Formatted: Header
156
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 6
Formatted: Header
Figure 1: Applicability chart illustrating how to create a Mobility Plan.
C. Requirements. This Chapter requires all applicable development and redevelopment to
submit a Mobility Plan, which includesaddresses the following:
• TIA applicability, and
TIA compliance (as applicable),
1. Transportation Mitigation. Mitigation for impacts on the City’s multi-modal
transportation networks through the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) process,
and
• Parking Requirement. Mitigation for impacts on the City’s public and private
parking system and the reduction
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
157
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 7
Formatted: Header
• The provision of parking demand through mobility improvements, cash , and
2.• Cash-in-lieu of parking, (as applicable), and/or parking provision.
• Surplus mobility measures (as applicable).
The City then reviews the project’s proposed TIA and Mobility Plan together as part of the
project’s Land Use Application.
26.515.030 Transportation Mitigation.
A. General Requirements. All applicable development shall accommodatemitigate its
projected transportation impacts as provided in this Chapter. Refer to the Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) for project applicability. Mobility requirements shall be satisfied through use of
the following approaches, either alone or in combination
1. B. Approved Trip ReductionMobility Measures. Trip reduction measures,
also known asApplicable development must provide Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) measures, which
are approved and implemented as provided for a development pursuant toin the
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines,. These measures shall be
maintained for the life of the development. These credits will be used to satisfy TIA
requirements. All requirements shall be incorporated in the project’s Development
Agreement, pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Development Documents.
C. TIA Credits.
Surplus Mobility Measures. Upon completionsatisfaction of the TIA analysis, the program will
be reviewed for TIA requirements, a development’s Mobility Plan may include surplus mobility
measures, where creditscredit is provided over the minimum TIA requirements may beand applied
towards Parking Requirements.
2. outlined in Table 26.515-1. The proportion of surplus mobility measures permitted
for a development is outlined in Table 26.515-2.
26.515.040 Parking Requirements.
A. General requirements. All applicable development shall accommodate its projected
parking impacts as provided in this Chapter. Parking Requirements shall be satisfied through use
of the following either alone or in combination.
B.
1. Parking Requirement Minimums and Maximums. Calculation. Parking
Requirements shall be calculated for each use within a development according to Table
26.515-1.
1.2.Parking Minimums. Development and redevelopmentProvision Minimum.
Applicable development shall satisfy the minimum Parking Provision Requirement, as
calculated in Table 26.515-1. Minimum parking provisions may be reduced in
combination with mobility measures and transportation system impact fees in accordance
with the standards in Table 26.515-2.
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.5" +Indent at: 0.75"
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.5", Don't add spacebetween paragraphs of the same style, Numbered +Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space After: 12 pt, Don'tadd space between paragraphs of the same style,Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … +Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" +Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left, None, Don't add space betweenparagraphs of the same style, Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment:Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Left, None, Indent: Left: 0.5", Don't addspace between paragraphs of the same style
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
158
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 8
Formatted: Header
2.3.Parking Provision Maximum. In order toTo create appropriate site planning and
provision of parking, applicable development and redevelopment shall not provide on-
site parking in excess of 125% of the Parking MinimumProvision Maximum requirement
in the form of Reserved Parking Spaces or Accessory Parking Spaces, unless the total
number of on-site spaces in excess of 125% of the Parking RequirementProvision
Maximum are provided as Public Parking Spaces.
C. Parking Requirement Calculation. Parking Requirements shall be met for each use
according to Table 26.515-1, where requirements are calculated as Parking Units (defined in
Section 26.515.010.B):
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Level 1
159
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 9
Formatted: Header
Key to Table 26.515-1:
• (1) = Up to 100% of required Parking Requirement, may be provided through cash-in-lieu.
• (2) = A reduction in Parking Requirement may be approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.430,
Special review and according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.080
• (3) = A reduction in Parking Requirements may be approved, pursuant to Chapter 26.520,
Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses.
• (4) = All Single Family and Duplex dwelling units, as well as ADUs and Carriage Houses
shall provide their Parking Requirement as off-street, on-site parking spaces.
• SF = Square feet
• NLA = Net leasable square feet of commercial space
Table 26.515-1 Parking Impact Requirement Calculations
Use
Aspen Infill Area
All Other Areas
Parking Requirement
(in units)
Parking
Requirement
(in units)
Parking Maximum
(in units)
Commercial(1)
1 unit /1,000 sf Net
Leasable Space
1.25 units / 1,000 sf
NLA 3 units per 1,000 sf NLA(2)
Residential –
Single-Family and
Duplex(4)
Lesser of 1 unit per
bedroom or 2 units
per Dwelling Unit
Greater of 1.25
units per bedroom
or 2.5 units per
dwelling unit
Lesser of 1 unit per bedroom or 2 per
unit
Residential –
Accessory Dwelling Units
and Carriage Houses(3) (4)
1 unit per unit 1.25 units per
unit 1 unit per unit(3)
Residential –
Multi-Family (as a single
use)
1 unit per Dwelling
Unit
1.25 units per
dwelling unit
Lesser of 1 unit per bedroom or two
units per Dwelling Unit
Residential –
Multi-Family within a
mixed-use building
1 unit per Dwelling
Unit
1.25 units per
dwelling unit
1 per Dwelling Unit(2)
Hotel/Lodge 0.5 units per Key 0.7 units per Key
0.7 units per Key(2)
All Other Uses (civic,
cultural, public uses,
essential public facilities,
child care centers, etc.)
Established by
Special Review
according to the
review criteria of
Section 26.515.080.
N/A
Established by Special Review
according to the review criteria of
Section 26.515.080.
160
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 10
Formatted: Header
D. Parking Requirement when B. Fractional Requirement Computed. When any
calculation of Parking Requirements results in a fractional unit, that fractional unit may be paid
through a cash-in-lieu payment, or satisfied through one whole additional on-site parking or
mobility commitment credit.
26.515.050. Meeting Parking Requirements.
A. General requirements. Parking Requirements shall be satisfied through the following
provisions, alone or ain combination thereofand described in a project’s Mobility Plan:
1. Cash-in-lieu. Cash-in-lieu payments may be made to satisfy Parking Requirements as
outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2, and according to Section 26.515.090.
2. Provision of Off-Street Parking:
2.a.On-Site Parking. May Off-street parking may be provided on-site in applicable
zone districts to satisfy Parking Requirements, with Reserved and Accessory
spaces not to exceed the Parking Maximums outlined below in Table 26.515-1.
Shared parking may be counted provided that a Shared Parking Agreement and a
shared-parking analysis, as approved by the Community Development Director, is
executed.
3.b. Off-Site Parking. Off-sitestreet parking may be counted toward the
requirementprovided off-site in applicable zone districts to satisfy Parking
Requirements, provided that a Shared Parking Agreement and a shared-parking
analysis, as approved by the Community Development Director, is executed. Off-
site parking is subject to Special Review per Chapter 26.430 and Section
26.515.080.
c. Reserved and Accessory Spaces. For both On-Site Parking and Off-Site
Parking, Reserved and Accessory spaces in excess of the Parking Provision
Maximums outlined below in Table 26.515-1 are subject to the Shared Parking
standards in Section 26.515.040.A.3.
3. Shared Parking Spaces. For both On-Site Parking and Off-Site parking, shared parking
spaces may be provided contingent upon a shared parking analysis being completed and a
Shared Parking Agreement being executed, as approved by the Community Development
Director.
4. Mobility CommitmentsMeasures. Mobility CommitmentsMeasures, as defined in
Section 26.515.010.B, may be provided, as follows:
a. Where projects are TIA exempt, pre-approved alternative mobility
measuresMobility Measures may be provided to satisfy Parking
UnitsRequirements as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2.
b. Where projects are subject to the TIA subject, pre-approved alternative mobility
measures generated over, Surplus Mobility Measures (after the minimum TIA
mitigation requirements have been met) may be provided to satisfy Parking
UnitsRequirements as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted
Formatted
161
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 11
Formatted: Header
The extent to which a project may satisfy its Parking Requirements with Mobility Commitments,
On-Site Parking provision, and Cash-in-Lieu will vary by location, according to Table 26.515-2
below.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
162
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 12
Formatted: Header
Table 26.515-2 - Parking Requirements by Zone District
Location
Options for Meeting Parking Requirements
Additional TIA
Credits
(Projects Subject
to TIA)
Mobility
Commitments
(Projects Exempt
from TIA)
On-Site Parking
Provision
Cash-In-Lieu of
Parking Fee
Payment
Commercial Core (CC)
and Commercial-1 (C-1)
zones
Up to 2
Additional TIA
Credits
Up to 2 Mobility
Commitments
* Up to 20% of the
Requirement. Up
to 100% of the
requirement if
subgrade.
Up to 100% of the
Requirement
Remaining Commercial,
Lodging, and Lodging
Overlay Zones
1 Additional TIA
Credit (equal to 1
Parking Unit)
1 Mobility
Commitment
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
At least 60% and
up to 100% of the
Requirement
Up to 40% of the
Requirement
Remaining Infill Area
1 Additional TIA
Credit (equal to 1
Parking Unit)
1 Mobility
Commitment
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
Up to 100% of the
Requirement
Up to 100% of the
Requirement
All other Areas
1 Additional TIA
Credit (equal to 1
Parking Unit)
1 Mobility
Commitment
(equal to 1
Parking Unit)
At least 60% and
up to 100% of the
Requirement
Up to 40% of the
Requirement
Parking Requirements are subject to the following standards based upon the character of the
development::
1. If the Parking Requirement is subject to establishment by adoption of a Planned
Development final development plan, review is subject to Chapter 26.445,
Planned Development.
2. If the Parking Requirement is established through a special review, the standards
and procedures of Section 26.515.080, Special Review Standards apply.
3. If the Parking Requirement is met via cash-in-lieu, the standards and procedures
set forth at Section 26.515.090, Cash-in-Lieu of Parking apply.
Formatted: Left
Formatted Table
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted Table
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
163
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 13
Formatted: Header
4. For properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, a waiver of the Parking Requirement may be approved, pursuant to
Chapter 26.430, Special Review, and according to the review criteria set forth
below.
5. For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as “lock-off
units,” each separate “key,” or rentable division, shall constitute a unit for the
purposes of this section.
6. The Parking Requirement for projects with multiple, distinct land uses
(residential, commercial, lodging, or other) may be lowered, if the applicant
submits a shared-parking analysis, approved by the Community Development
Director, which results in a peak-parking-demand measure that is less than the
Parking Requirement established by Table 26.515-1. The application for a shared
parking analysis shall be reviewed by The Transportation, Parking, Engineering,
and Community Development Departments and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission as a Special Review (Section 26.430).
*7. Off-street parking provision on a parcel that abuts an Aspen Pedestrian Mall may
only be provided in an on-site, subgrade parking structure. Alternatively, parcels
abutting an Aspen Pedestrian Mall may provide all Parking Requirements through
the payment of Cash-in-Lieu (Section 26.515.090).
26.515.060. Procedures for Review.
Development and redevelopment applications shall be reviewed pursuant to the following
procedures, as well as standards and the Common Development Review Procedures set forth in
Chapter 26.304.
A. Review Authority. All applications will be reviewed administratively for compliance
with this Chapter and relevant guidelines in conjunction with a project’s land use application,
unless otherwise specified. In all circumstances, the final land use review body shall approve the
TIA, after considering a recommendation from the Engineering, Transportation, and Community
Development Departments.
B. Review Process. For all applicable development, expansions of existing development,
and redevelopment, Mobility Plan review is completed in conjunction with relevantrequired land
use reviews. Pursuant to Section, 26.304.020 of this title, Pre-application Conference, applicants
are encouraged, although not required, to meet with a member of the Community Development
Department to clarify requirements of this Section and to determine applicability.
1. For development only subject to administrative-level land use reviews, or for
development meeting a threshold established in the TIA Guidelines but not subject to a
land use review, the City Engineering and Transportation Departments may, on behalf of
the City of Aspen, determine that the project meets or exceeds the requirements set forth
in this Chapter and the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left, Don't add space between paragraphsof the same style, Numbered + Level: 1 + NumberingStyle: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Alignedat: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
164
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 14
Formatted: Header
When development meets an established threshold, but does not require a land use review,
review for compliance with this Chapter and the Guidelines shall be completed as part of
the building permit application.
2. In all circumstances, the final land use review body shall approve the TIA, after
considering a recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation Departments.
C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopmentapplicable projects are required to
submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and
Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development
Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements
using the following standards:
1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor, or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.
2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050.
3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion.
4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.
Projects failing to meet the requirements of this section may apply for a variation to the Planning and Zoning Commission through the Special Review process (Section 26.430 and Section 26.515.080).
26.515.070. Off-Street Parking Requirements.
A. Applicability. Where off-street parking spaces are provided as part of a Mobility Plan,
the regulations in Sections 26.515.070.(B – I) apply.
B. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and
one half (8½) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high with a maximum
longitudinal slope of twelve percent (12%) and a maximum cross slope of five percent (5%). For
developments providing more than 15 on-site parking spaces, 25% of the on-site spaces may be
provided as Compact Parking in accordance with the requirements of the Engineering Design
Standards. Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and
duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley. Off-street parking
provided for multi-family dwellings which do not share a common parking area may be
exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject to special review pursuant to
Chapter 26.430, Special review and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review
standards, below.
Off-street parking must be paved with all-weather surfacing or be covered with gravel. For
residential development, a grass ring or grass-paver-type surface may be used. All parking shall
be maintained in a usable condition at all times. All development or redevelopment must be in
conformance with, or bring existing parking into conformance with, Engineering Design
Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.5", Don't add spacebetween paragraphs of the same style
Formatted: Left, Don't add space between paragraphsof the same style, Numbered + Level: 1 + NumberingStyle: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Alignedat: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
165
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 15
Formatted: Header
Standards, including but not limited to the access requirements outlined in Chapter 4
Transportation Design.
C. Use of off-street parking. Parking spaces shall be used for the parking of vehicles and
shall not be used for non-auto related uses such as storage units or trash containers. No off-street
parking area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles,
equipment, materials or supplies, nor shall any such activity adjacent to off-street parking spaces
obstruct required access to off-street parking areas.
D. Location of off-street parking. Off-street parkingOff-street parking, except shared
parking, publicly accessible parking, or off-site parking as approved as part of a mobility plan,
shall be located on the same parcel as the principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same
ownership as the lot occupied by the principal use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from
an alley or secondary road, where one exists unless otherwise established according to this
Chapter.
E. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off-street parking provided for
detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings is not required to have unobstructed access
to a street or alley, but shall not block access of emergency apparatus to the property or to
structures located on the property. This allows for "stacking" of vehicles where a vehicle is
parked directly behind another.
F. State Highway 82 off-street parking. All parking required for uses fronting State
Highway 82 shall, if an alley exists, be accessed from the alley, if an alley exists, and shall not
enter from or exit onto State Highway 82.
G. Surface parking. Surface parking is prohibited or requires conditional use review as a
principal use of a lot or parcel in some Zone Districts (See Chapter 26-710). Where surface
parking is permitted and eight (8) or more spaces are provided, the parking area shall include one
(1) tree with a planter area of twenty (20) square feet for each four (4) parking spaces. Planter
areas may be combined, but shall be proximate to the parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning
Commission may waive or modify this requirement on a per case basis. Parking within
structures is exempt from this landscaping provision.
H. Restrictions on drainage, grading and traffic impact. Off-street parking spaces shall
be graded to ensure drainage does not create any flooding or water quality impacts and shall be
provided with entrances and exits so as to minimize traffic congestion and traffic hazards.
I. Restrictions on lighting. Lighting facilities for off-street parking spaces, if provided,
shall be arranged and shielded so that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent
residential dwellings nor interfere with driver vision. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the
outdoor lighting regulations, Section 26.575.150.
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Left
166
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 16
Formatted: Header
26.515.080. Special Review Standards.
Whenever the transportation, mobility, and parking impacts of a proposed development are
subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance
with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated
according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community
Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
special review application.
A special review for establishing, varying or waiving transportation, mobility, or off-street
parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on its
conformance with all of the following criteria:
1. The transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the residents, customers,
guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of
the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking
opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-
street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and
employees.
2. An on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and guidelines is practically
difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
A. Commercial Parking Facilities. Special Review is required for a commercial parking
facility. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved
with conditions or denied based on conformance with its adherence to Commercial Design
Standards and the policy goal of provision of publicly-accessible parking in areas with high
public parking demand (in order to reduce vehicle congestion and emissions due to vehicles
circling for parking) is not offset by the proposed commercial parking facility’s potential adverse
impacts of the City’s multi-modal transportation system. For properties in zone districts where
Conditional Use Review is required for a Commercial Parking Facility, Conditional Use and
Special Review shall be combined.
26.515.090. Cash-in-lieu Requirements.
A. General. The City conducted a parking facility analysis in the fall of 2016 and
determined the costs associated with developing new parking facilities to serve the demands of
development. While not all potential facilities represented the same potential expenditure,
facilities considered likely to be developed by the City required an expected thirty-eight
thousand dollars ($38,000) per space to develop in 2016 dollars.
Formatted: Left
167
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 17
Formatted: Header
B. Cash-in-lieu. Mobility improvements serving commercial and mixed-use development
are a public amenity and serves the mobility needs of the general population. As such, the
mobility needs of the general population can be improved through various means other than the
provision of on-site parking spaces, including cash-in-lieu. A cash-in-lieu payment, for those
types of development authorized to provide parking via cash-in-lieu, may be accepted by the
Community Development Director to satisfy the Parking Requirement, as described in Section
26.515.040, above.
1. Time of payment. The payment-in-lieu of parking shall be due and payable at the time of
issuance of a building permit. All funds shall be collected by the Community
Development Director and transferred to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate
interest -bearing account.
2. Use of funds. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the construction of a public
parking facility, transportation and mobility improvements, including vehicles or station
improvements, transportation demand management facilities or programs, shared
automobiles or programs and similar transportation or mobility-related facilities or
programs as determined appropriate by the City.
3. Refunds. Fees collected pursuant to this Section may be returned to the then-present
owner of the property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees
have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the
Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which
case the time period shall be extended by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund,
the present owner must submit a petition to the Finance Director within one (1) year
following the end of the seventh (7th) year from the date payment was received by the
City.
For the purpose of this Section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of
“the first payment in shall be the first payment out.” Any payment made for a project for
which a building permit is revoked or cancelled, prior to construction, may be refunded if
a petition for refund is submitted to the Finance Director within three (3) months of the
date of the revocation or cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be
accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of
the property and that the development shall not commence without full compliance with
this Chapter and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee.
4. Periodic review of rate. In order toTo ensure that the payment-in-lieu rate is fair and
represents current cost levels, it shall be reviewed every two years. Any necessary
amendments to this Section shall be initiated pursuant to Section 26.310.020, Procedure
for amendment.
26.515.100. Amendments. Amendments to an approved Mobility and Parking Requirement
review by the Community Development Director in coordination with the Engineering and
Transportation Departments as needed.
A. Amendments to Trip Reduction Measures. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure measures
that have been implemented may not be amended at any time. Off-site MMLOS infrastructure Formatted: Left
168
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500 – Parking
Page 18
Formatted: Header
measures that have not been implemented, and any on-site TDM and MMLOS measures, may be
amended as outlined below. Changes shall be reviewed by the Engineering, Transportation, and
Community Development Departments to ensure the proposed change is appropriate given the
site’s context.
1. Insubstantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures resulting in
the same or more number of trips mitigated as the original approval may be approved
administratively by the Community Development Department, after considering a
recommendation from the Engineering and Transportation Departments. A land use
application is required, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review
Procedures. The applicant shall demonstrate how the new measure(s) is appropriate
given current site conditions.
2. Substantial Amendment. Any amendment to TDM or MMLOS measures that reduces
the number of trips mitigated shall be reviewed by City Council, after considering a
recommendation from the Community Development, Engineering, and Transportation
Departments. A land use application is required, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common
Development Review Procedures, and the review shall be conducted in a duly noticed
public hearing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E), Public Notice. City Council shall find
the following standards are met:
a) The proposed change responds to changed site conditions or circumstances, including
but not limited to changes to land uses, site topography, or site plan.
b) The proposed changes will not adversely impact the immediate vicinity.
c) The proposed change meets the original intent of the approved measures.
d) The proposed changes have been approved by the Community Development Director.
26.515.110 Appeals. An applicant may challenge a determination made by the City in their
enforcement of the requirements of this Chapter by filing with the Community Development
Director a written notice of appeal as provided in Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedures, with
a full statement of the grounds for appeal. Appeals shall be reviewed by City Council, pursuant
to Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
(Ord. No. 17-2005, §1; Ord. No. 32, 2016, §1; Ord. No. 23, 2017, §23) Formatted: Normal, Tab stops: 0.98", Left
169
RESOLUTION NO. 20
SERIES OF 2018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
POLICIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), a Policy Resolution is required
to initiate the process of amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the City's
miscellaneous supplemental regulations; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1),the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with members of the public, local architects,
designers, and planners; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Miscellaneous Regulations, Definition, Parking and Mobility, Growth Management,
Nonconformities, ADUs/Carriage Houses, Variances, Zone Districts, View Planes, and
Signs sections of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction,and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code as described below will ensure the
ongoing effectiveness and viability of the regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use
Code to achieve City Council's policy and regulatory goals; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction,and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on February 26, 2018 the City Council approved Resolution No. 20, Series of
2018,by a_to_vote,requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Overall Code Amendment Objectives
Resolution No.20, Series 2018
Miscellaneous Regulations Amendment
Page 1 of 5
170
The objectives of these code amendments are to:
1. Simplify and update the calculations and measures standards in the Miscellaneous
Regulations section of the Land Use Code;
2. Improve the administration and interpretation of the Miscellaneous Regulations
section of the Land Use Code;
3. Maintain to the extent possible current development rights and regulations provided
by the Land Use Code;
4. Ensure the Parking and Mobility regulations in the Land Use Code deliver the policy
objectives identified by Council during the 2016-2017 AACP-LUC coordination
process;
5. Provide enhanced aesthetic standards for temporary food vending uses;
6. Ensure that the Land Use Code provides adequate time and a fair process for
property owners whose non-conforming properties are destroyed by fire or other
non-purposeful acts to repair their property;
7. Provide clear direction to duplex properties as to the affordable housing mitigation
requirements for the removal of an ADU that was developed as mitigation;
8. Ensure adequate time from the issuance of a variance for properties to obtain a
building permit;
9. Update the view plane legal descriptions to current survey standards;
10. Allow for historic engraved signs to remain and be maintained without allowing
non-historic properties to develop engraved signs without a permit;
11. Eliminate typos and errors from the Zone Districts regulations in Part 700 of the
Land Use Code.
Section 2: Miscellaneous Regulations Code Amendment Goals by Touie
The goals of the Miscellaneous Regulations code amendments related to "Exterior Features
Calculations"are to:
1. Maintain the current gross square footage allowed in the Land Use Code for
residential and commercial development;
2. Simplify the distinction between those development features that contribute to the
calculations floor area and those that do not;
3. Clarify and simplify the methodology for the calculation of floor area relative to
exterior features;
4. Clarify or eliminate terminology to improve comprehension of code language by
staff and the public.
The goals of the Miscellaneous Regulations code amendments related to "Grade and
Height"are to:
1. Maintain current development rights and restrictions, particularly regarding net lot
area and maximum building height;
2. Simplify the definition and methodology for the determination of grade on
development sites;
3. Limit excessive grading of development sites to preserve topography and limit
environmental and development impacts;
4. Clearly define and reduce the allowed exceptions to height and grade to improve
code interpretation and ensure appropriately scaled buildings and sites.
Resolution No.20, Series 2018
Miscellaneous Regulations Amendment
Page 2 of 5
171
The goals of the Miscellaneous Regulations code amendments related to "Yards and
Setbacks"are to:
1. Maintain current development rights and restrictions, particularly regarding the
visual and aural impacts of at-grade features within setback areas;
2. Maintain current setback distances for all zone districts;
3. Clarify distinction between setback areas and yard areas;
4. Simplify the description of features permitted in yard and setback areas, while
limiting the impacts of those features on adjacent properties.
The goals of the Miscellaneous Regulations code amendments related to "Demolition" are
to:
1. Maintain the current proportion of deconstruction which constitutes demolition;
2. Simplify the methodology for calculating which activities and structural elements
are included in the definition of demolition;
3. Improve and simplify the system for tracking demolition of properties over time to
control the progressive demolition of structures.
Section 3: Parkine and Mobility Code Amendment
The goals of the Parking and Mobility code amendments are to:
1. Coordinate the standards for lodge and multi-family zone districts with commercial
districts amended during the AACP-LUC coordination process;
2. Ensure appropriate parking and mobility access for multi-family residential
development inside and outside of the Infill Area;
3. Ensure appropriate parking and mobility access for lodge development within the
Infill Area;
4. Improve the clarity of the language, terminology, and standards in the Parking
Mobility section of the Land Use Code.
Section 4: Growth Management Amendment
The goals of the Growth Management code amendments are to:
1. Improve the aesthetic standards for temporary food vending operations;
2. Coordinate the sign allowance for temporary food vending operations with the
requirements for other commercial operations.
Section 5: Nonconformities Code Amendment
The goals of the Nonconformities code amendments are to:
1. Provide owners of destroyed properties sufficient time to submit building and land
use permitting materials before the expiration of their nonconformity replacement
rights;
2. Clarify that the requirement for the retention of a nonconforming use or structure is
the submission of building and land use permitting materials, not the issuance of
those permits.
Section 6: Duplex ADU Mitiiation Code Amendment
The goals of the Duplex ADU Mitigation code amendments are to:
Resolution No.20, Series 2018
Miscellaneous Regulations Amendment
Page 3 of 5
172
1. Ensure duplexes removing ADUs mitigate fully for the loss of affordable housing;
2. Create parity in the Land Use Code between single-family and duplex properties
seeking to remove an ADU.
Section 7: Variances Code Amendment
The goals of the Variances code amendments are to:
1. Provide recipients of variances from land use standards adequate time to prepare and
submit permitting documents;
2. Align the timeframe provided for variances to land use standards and the timeframe
required to submit for a building permit.
Section 8: View Planes Amendment
The goal of the View Planes code amendments is to:
1. Ensure the accuracy of the legal view plane descriptions.
Section 9: Signs Amendment
The goals of the Signs code amendments are to:
1. Comply with the requirements of the Reed Supreme Court decision;
2. Align the standards in the sign code with Council's goal of maintaining the status
quo with respect to business signage;
3. Provide existing engraved signs a means to be maintained without becoming
nonconforming.
Section 10: Zone Districts Code Amendment
The goals of the Zone Districts code amendments are to:
1. Clarify language and standards by eliminating errors and ensuring accurate cross-
references;
2. Coordinate the regulations and methodologies in Part 500 with the standards in Part
700 of the Land Use Code.
Section 11
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 12:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY,adopted this 26`x'day of February, 2018.
Resolution No.20, Series 2018
Miscellaneous Regulations Amendment
Page 4 of 5
173
Steven Skadron,Mayor
TEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Linda Manning,City Cle •k aures R True,-City Attorney
Resolution No.20,Series 2018
Miscellaneous Regulations Amendment
Page 5 of 5
174
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
LONG RANGE CALENDAR
LAST UPDATED 5/15/2019
Yellow indicates new information or dates since last publishing.
Strike‐through indicates deletions since last published date
5/21 4PM Work Session
5/23 10AM NWCCOG Council Meeting
5/27 No Meeting Memorial Day
5/28 4PM Work Session
6/3 4PM Work Session
6/4 4PM Work Session
6/5 4pm Grand Opening “Promontory Park” at Burlingame Park I
6/10 5PM Regular Meeting ‐ swearing in of new officials; organizational meeting for Council
member appointments to various boards, commissions and authorities
6/11 4PM Work Session Housing Development Update
6/13 8:30AM RFTA Board Meeting
6/17 4PM Work Session – Rio Grande Recycle Center Community Feedback; Dockless
Bikes/Trikes/Scooters Management
6/18 4PM Work Session – EOTC Meeting Prep; Water Update; public litigation update
6/18 5 PM Special Session: executive session for purposes of conference with attorneys for
litigation and real estate matters
6/18 – 6/21 CML Conference (Breckenridge) (Rachael & Ann only)
6/20 4:30PM CAST Reception and Annual Meeting (Breckenridge)
6/20 4PM EOTC Meeting
6/24 5PM Regular Meeting
6/25 4PM Work Session – City Offices Part I: Construction Update, Plaza Update
7/1 4PM Work Session ‐ Finances Update Possible Council Retreat Date – ALL DAY
7/2 4PM Work Session ‐ Possible Council Retreat Date – ALL DAY
175
2
7/8 5PM Regular Meeting
7/9 2:30PM TENTATIVE: joint BOCC meeting for APCHA Director interviews;
7/9 4PM Work Session Board and Commission Interviews
7/11 8:30AM RFTA Board Meeting
7/11 10AM NWCCOG Council Meeting
7/15 4PM Work Session ‐ Possible Council Retreat Date – ALL DAY
7/16 4PM Work Session – General Fund Overview, 2020 Budget Assumptions and Benefits Update
7/22 5PM Regular Meeting
7/23 4PM Work Session – City Offices Part II
7/29 No Meeting 5
th Monday
7/30 4pm No Meeting – 5th Tuesday City Manager Recruitment Applicant Pool Update
8/5 4PM Work Session ‐ Possible Council Retreat Date – ALL DAY
8/6 4PM Work Session – Joint Meeting with BOCC
8/7 All day EOTC Retreat
8/8 8:30AM RFTA Board Meeting;
8/8 All day ‐ City Manager Interviews
8/9 All day – City Manager Interviews
8/12 5PM Regular Meeting
8/12 8:30AM RFTA Board Meeting
8/13 4PM Work Session – City Offices Part III
8/14 4:30pm – 7pm Community Picnic on the Red Brick Lawn
8/19 4PM Work Session
8/20 4PM Work Session
8/22 10AM NWCCOG Council Meeting
8/22 6PM CAST Dinner (in Frisco)
8/23 7:45AM CAST Meeting (in Frisco)
8/26 5PM Regular Meeting
8/27 4PM Work Session
176
3
To Schedule:
Finances Updates to occur in Feb., June, Sept, and during Budget workshops
Joint BOCC meetings occur the first Tuesday of February/May/August/November
Emergency Management
5G/Wireless Infrastructure
Stormwater Fund Solvency
Retreat Dates and Topics
Sandwich Boards
Uphill Economy and Outdoor Recreation Plan
Expenditure plan for tobacco sales tax revenues
177
Let's Stop the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products to Protect Our Kids
The easy availability of candy-flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, and
flavored hookah is fueling an alarming increase in youth tobacco use. Stopping the sale of all
flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, is a needed step forward in reducing
teen use.
The Problem:
Youth use of e-cigarettes by Colorado youth is among the nation's highest. And according to the
2017 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, teens in the Summit region (includes Summit, Garfield,
Eagle, Grand and Pitkin counties) use tobacco products at even higher rates than the state as a
whole:
• 36% use e-cigarettes
• 9% still smoke cigarettes
Because menthol products produce a cooling and soothing effect, and because candy-flavored
tobacco products are more attractive to kids, they are considered good "starter products" for
youth and other inexperienced tobacco users. A government study found that 81 percent of kids
who have ever used tobacco products started with a flavored product.
Far too many people — more than half of all youth and young adult smokers — now smoke
menthol cigarettes. Younger populations have the highest rate of smoking menthol cigarettes.
Menthol is also a popular flavor in other combustible products and in e-cigarettes. Nationally,
over half(51.2%) of high school e-cigarette users use mint or menthol flavored e-cigarettes.
The Solution:
Stopping the sale of all flavored tobacco products is essential to protect our kids and keep us
from losing a new generation to addiction.
Stopping the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol, is supported by:
advanced
health American V�
Heart
directions Association.
COLOHAUU
• ,�`�lORAO
f
• < 9
¢ n.
x
Children's Hospital Colorado gib?>0:)" '?
_ao3a._eiaF H<im couatcran.<
'll-IIS iu- oJ I,n np.IrIP y.,u.
For more information or questions contact Rebecca Dubroff, American Heart Association,
Government Relations Director at RebeccaDubroff@heart.org
k�-
Use
of Flavored Tobacco Products
In Aspen, over 70% of high school seniors have tried a-cigs. Menthol cigarette use among current smokers
But they also use other tobacco products... in the U.S. by age,2012-2014
• Aspen had an uptick in teens using regular cigarettes."'
• 10.5% of Aspen HS students have used chew, snus, Ages 12-17 53 9
cigars, or other tobacco products (not cigarettes or e- 50.OA;
cigarettes), with boys having rates over 16%. '
Ages 26-34
• Of teens and young adults who ever used tobacco, 81% of
teens and 86% of young adults reported that their
first product was flavored.3
• Over 2/3rd of youth tobacco users report using tobacco
products "because they come in flavors I like ." 3 Source:Tobacco control
"we don't smoke that s***. We just sell it. We reserve the
right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and stupid"
-- Tobacco Company RJ Reynolds executive,
as relayed through a discussion with the former Winston Man, 19925
ProductFlavored Tobacco Menthol, like other flavors, can mask the
Use Among Youth
Current Tobacco Users (ages 12-17118 harshness of tobacco products, making it
easier to start and seem less dangerous.
HOOKAHOver 1/2 of youth who use e-cigarettes OR
regular cigarettes use menthol or mint."'
E-CIGARETTE 85.3
Kids who start with menthol are 80% more
SMOKELESS TOBACCO 81t likely to become regular smokers, 25% more
likely to become addicted.6
Product'SNUSPOLICH 80.4
ANY CIGAR TYPE 7 7 Youth Ages 12 to 17 Who Report Ftavoring is a
Primary Reason for Using a Tobacco
T8O . ,
,
T73.89%
"Ll
V
What else comes in flavors? '
HOOKAH
New products on the market come in candy flavors, CIGARS
SMOKE SNUS
too, ie Zyn, a powdered nicotine that TOBACCO POUCHES
dissolves in your mouth and is available locally.
Haft the addiction among Aspen's youth. Consider •
a comprehensive flavor ban that protects all kids.
For more information contact Risa Turetsky Pitkin County Public Health (970) 618-1781
Citations and References
1. Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2017.
2. Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2015.
3. Ambrose, BK, et al., "Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-2014,"JAMA. 2015;314
(17):1871 1873.
4. "Menthol and Other Flavors in Tobacco Products," US FDA.Current as of 07-20-2018. www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/
products-ingredients-components/menthol-and-other-flavors-tobacco-products
5. National Youth Tobacco Survey,2018.
6. D'Silva,J., Boyle, R.G., Lien, R., Rode, P.,and Okuyemi, K.S. (2012). Cessation outcomes among treatment-seeking
menthol and nonmenthol smokers.Am.J. Prev. Med. 43(Suppl.3),S242-5248
Graphics:
• Tobacco Control,January 2011, Menthol cigarettes and smoking initiation:a tobacco industry perspective https://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/20/Suppl_2/ii l 2.full.pdf
• "Flavored Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults,"Truth Initiative. Jan. 16, 2018. https://truthinitiative.org/news/
flavored-tobacco-use-among-youth-and-young-adults