HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.19990510 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 10, 1999
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards
b) Proclamation - National Historic Preservation Week '
c) Proclamation - Arbor Day
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V.Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's Comments
b) Councilmembers' Comments
c) City Manager's Comments
a) Ordinance #18, 1999 .
b) Request for Funds - Land Trust
c) Resolution #36, 1999 - Aspen Earthmoving Contract -1999 Trails Improvement
d) Resolution #37, 1999 - Design Build Contract Iselin-Moore Master Plan
Improvements
e) Resolution #38, 1999 - On-Call Engineering Services for Design & Construction
Management
f) Resolution #39, 1999 - Reimbursement Resolution
VII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #13, 1999 - Wildlife Protection -[u
b) Ordinance #10, 1999 - Land Use Code~
c) ~%7.5 Ordinance #16, 1999 - Burlingame Ranch Annexation
VIII. Action Items
a) Appeal ADU "Footprint" Code Interpretation
c) Ordinance ~17, 1999 - Housing Guideline~
IX. Information Items
a) Burlingame Ranch Rezoning
X. Adjournment
Ne~ Regular Meeting May 24, 1999
COUNCIL MEETS AT NOON FOR AN INFORMAL PUBLIC DISCUSSION, BASEMENT
MEETING ROOM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Palsy Malone, Human Reso,:~'')~
,, (
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Maria
DATE: April 27, 1999
RE: BONUS AWARDS -- FIRST QUARTER, 1999
Outstanding employee bonus awards for the first quarter, 1999, were
approved for the following individualS:
John Krueger, Parks Department
Mary Lackner, Community Development
Mitch Haas, Community Development
Gervaise Dupree, Community Relations Officer
Phil Overeynder, Utility Director
Tabatha Miller, Finance Director
Copies of the letters to the recipients outlining their accomplishments are
attached.
pm
Attachments
April 28, 1999
Phil Overeynder,
City of Aspen, Water Department
Dear Phil:
It is my pleasure to inform you that you have been selected to receive an
Outstanding Employee Bonus Award for your dedication and service above
and beyond the call of duty.
Your willingness to take over the supervision of the Engineering
Department during the period after Stan Clauson left the City and before Ed
Sadler arrived was a tremendous help. I know this was a difficult time
because you had already agreed to take over as Acting Electric
Superintendent with the departure of Bill Earley. Despite these added
responsibilities, you and your staff continued the excellent work on ongoing
water projects for the City of Aspen. The service provided by the Water,
Department continues to be excellent given your added workload associated
with new water line extensions, the Hines and Moore projects, the North
Forty project, CDOT's highway projects.and new facilities and construction
at the water plant.
Thank you for the service you give to the City of Aspen. You are a pleasure
to work with.
Sincerely yours,
Amy L. Margemm
City Manager
Tabatha Miller
Finance Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO. 81611
Dear Tabatha,
Congratulations! You have been awarded a City of Aspen Outstanding Employee
Bonus Award for your work on the overhead cost allocation analysis.
The City of Aspen had pined to spend approximately $10,000 of its Central Savings
on an overhead cost allocation analysis that had not been updated in at least a decade.
You saved the City this expense by putting in extra hours and completing the project on
your own.
The fact that you volunteered to take on this large project in addition to your many
other duties demonstrates a commitment to meeting City goals while saving taxpayer
dollars. Your behavior in this instance and your general work ethic and creativity
continue to be a model for other City employees.
Please be sure to attend the May 10 City Council meeting in order to receive you
award.
Thank you for all of your wonderful contributions toward making Aspen a better
community !
Sincerely,
Steve Barwick
Assistant City Manager
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado,
WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing
neighborhoods, fostering local pride and maintaining community character while
enhancing livability; and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both
urban and rural, find for Americans of all ages, all walks of life and all ethnic
backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the
contributions made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of
the heritage that has shaped us as a people; and
WHEREAS, "Protecting the Irreplaceable" is the Theme for National Preservation Week
1999, cosponsored by the City of Aspen and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
NOW, THEREFORE; I, John Bennett, do proclaim May 9-15, 1999, as Preservation
Week~ and call upon the people of Aspen to join their fellow citizens across the United
States in recognizing and participating in this special observance.
RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED th~s 10th day of May, 1999, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
By the order of the City Council
This 10th day of May, 1999
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
MEMORANI)UM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Jeff Woods, Parks Director
FROAI: Stephen Ellspen'nan, Forester and Natural Resource Specialist
DATE: May 4, 1999
RE: Arbor Day Proclamation and Tree City USA award ceremony
SU~EVIARY: The City of Aspen has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor
Day Foundation since 1992. To achieve this award, municipalities are required to make an annual
formal proclamation recognizing an Arbor Day Celebration. We are requesting Council make
this formal proclamation, recognizing Friday, May 14, 1999 as Arbor Day. In addition, we are
requesting Council's attendance on May' 14, at 12:00 P.M., at Rio Grande Park, for a
community' Arbor Day Celebration.
BACKGROUND: The Arbor Day Foundation sponsors a National program entitled Tree City
USA, designed to encourage cities and towns throughout the country to develop quality tree
management programs. Cities and towns must meet several standards to achieve Tree City USA
status on an annual basis, some of which include establishment of a tree ordinance, a minimum
of $2 per capita budget for tree management, and formal proclamation and celebration of Arbor
Day. This year the City of Aspen received an extra award from the Arbor Day Foundation
entitled Tree CiO' USA Growth Award. This award was earned for the Aspen's special
commitment to Community Forestry.
CURRENT ISSUES: This years Arbor Day Celebration will continue the City of Aspen
Backyard Forestry Program. The Parks Department has established a program to help promote
the importance of our community forest. By providing Aspen citizens with suitable trees of
different species and mature sizes to plant on their property, we hope to gain a significant
contribution to the success of our community forest. We will be giving away sizable trees to
Aspen residents at Rio Grande Park on Arbor Day. Trees will be available on a first come, first
serve basis and we will be asking residents to bring some verification of their residency, either in
-.
the form of a voter registration card or a utility bill With their drivers license. We would like to
request that the Mayor or another Council member to read the Arbor Day Proclamation at
the Ceremony' at 12:00 to begin the celebration.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move that Council proclaim Friday, May 14, 1999, Aspen Arbor Day.
CITY MANAGER CO~MMENTS:
trees.proclaim
PR OCLAMA TION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1880
WHEREAS, in 1872 J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture
that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of
more than a million trees in Nebraska and is now observed throughout
the nation and the worl& and
WHEREAS, trees reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil cut heating and cooling
costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, 'produce oxygen and
provide habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood four our homes,
fuel for our fires and countless other products; and
WHEREAS, our city's trees increase properr), values, enhance the economic vitality of
business areas, beaurib, our c. ommunity, are a source of joy and spiritual
renewal; and
WHEREAS, Aspen has been recognized as a Tree City USA by The National Arbor
Day Foundation,
NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED, that the Mayor, City Council
and the people of Aspen hereby proclaim May 14, 1999 as:
ARBOR DAY
in the City of Aspen, and we urge all citizens to support efforts to care for
our trees and woodlands and to support our city's community forestry
program.
By order of The City Council
Attest: This JOth day of May, 1999
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John S. Bennett, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Dave Tolen, Executive Director
DATE: May 12, 1999
RE: 1 st Reading and Sch6dule 2nd Reading and Public Headng for May 26, 1999
Resident Occupied and AH Zone Distdct Recommendations:
This issue could affect page 4 of the Guidelines, which relates to defining RO and pages 18 and
19 relate to information taken out of the City of Aspen Municipa! Code.
The following are the additional recommended changes:
Page 3 Maximum incomes for the categories are increased by the Consumer Pdce Index
(CPI), which is only a 1.355% increase from 1998,
Page 4 There are two changes in the policy for Resident Occupied units which will make
the City and County policies consistent. The Board approved these changes last
year. Approval of these changes are based on upcoming discussions with City
Council and the economic analysis being done now. The City 'did not have a
maximum sales price and/or a maximum income and asset cap.
Page 11 A discrepancy was found in the language regarding the signing of a contract after a
lottery. The policy requires that a contract must be signed three business days
after the lottery. The language on this page, paragraph B2, states five days. The
request is to change five to three to make it consistent with the policy.
The lottery process has also been added to this page.
Page 17 The new language on pages 17 and 18 relate to the information that was part of
the City Municipal Land Use Code. This language is being omitted from the Code
and incorporated into the Guidelines., relates to priorities for the affordable housing
units, requirements for affordable housing units in residential subdivisions,
requirements for affordable housing units under the multi-family housing
replacement program, requirements for the affordable housing zone district and
dedication fee for exempt single-family home and duplex units.
Page 19 Maximum sales prices have been increased by the CPI, which is consistent with
pdor years.
Page 21 Maximum monthly rents have been increased by the CPI, which is consistent with
pdor years.
Page 23 The payment-in-lieu fee has increased substantially, due to the increase in land
costs and construction costs.
Page 24 Adds additional information how the payment-in-lieu is calculated.
Page 27 The table which states the increase in maximum rents for existing affordable
housing units will be increased by the CPI, which is consistent with prior years.
Page 33&35 Appendix A and Appendix B, which list the sales units and rental units, have been
updated.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board has approved Housing Board Resolution No. 99-01
and recommends that City Council approve Ordinance No. 17 (Series of 1999) at 1st Reading and
schedule 2nd reading and public hearing for May 24, 1999.
ORDINANCE NO. 17
(Series of 1999)
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1999 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
GUIDELINES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mun. icipal Code of the City of Aspen, as amended, the Housing income,
Eligibility Guidelines and Housing Price Guidelines are to be established by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to prior resolutions and ordinances of the City, the City Council established
Employee Housing Income-Eligibility Guidelines and Housing Price Guidelines for prior years; and
WHEREAS, the 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines ('Guidelines) recommended by the Board of
Directors of the Housing Office of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, has been submitted to City Council which Guidelines set forth the 1999 Housing Office
qualification guidelines for Category 1, 2, 3, 4 and Resident Occupied (RO) ownership, rental housing
projects, lodge and commercial development, and development of residential housing units; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt said Guidelines, and by virtue of the enactment of this
Ordinance to supersede and amend all prior resolutions and ordinances of the City pertaining to housing
guidelines, but only to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby adopts the 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines, as
recommended by the Board of Directors of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, a copy of which is
annexed hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 2
That the regulations and guidelines set forth and adopted herein shall supersede to the extent
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, all prior resolutions and ordinances of the City of Aspen;
provided further that the provisions of resolutions and ordinances pertaining to employee housing guidelines
shall remain in full force and effect to the extent not inconsistent with the regulations and guidelines adopted
herein.
Section 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance
in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
~;~ction 5
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of May, ~1999, in the City Council
Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the
City of Aspen on the day of ,1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
AI'FEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of May, 1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
A'R'EST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
\g~ide\cc.o~d
ORDINANCE NO, 17
(Series of 1999)
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1999 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
GUIDELINES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mun!cipal Code of the City of Aspen, as amended, the Housing Income,
Eligibility Guidelines and Housing Price Guidelines are to be established by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to prior resolutions end ordinances of the City, the City Council established
Employee Housing Income-Eligibility Guidelines and Housing Price Guidelines for prior years; and
WHEREAS, the 1999 Affordable Housing Guidelines ("Guidelines) recommended by the Board of
Directors of the Housing Office of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, has been submitted to City Council which Guidelines set forth the 1999 Housing Office
qualification guidelines for Category 1, 2, 3. 4 and Resident Occupied (RO) ownership, rental housing
projects, lodge and commercial development, and development of residential housing units; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt said Guidelines, and by virtue of the enactment of this
Ordinance to supersede and amend all prior resolutions and ordinances of the City pertaining to housing
guidelines, but only to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby adopts the 1999 Affordable Housing GuidelineS, as
recommended by the Board of Directors of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, a copy of which is
annexed hereto and incorporated heroin.
Section 2
That the regulations and guidelines set forth and adopted herein shall supersede to the extent
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, all prior resolutions and ordinances of the City of Aspen;
provided further that the provisions of resolutions and ordinances pertaining to employee housing guidelines
shall remain in full force and effect to the extent not inconsistent with the regulations and guidelines adopted
heroin.
Section ;~
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance
in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
Section 5
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of May, 1999, in the City Council
Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the
City of Aspen on the day of ,1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of May, 1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
2
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING BOARD
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 1999 ASPEN/PITKIN
COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CITY COUNCIL
Resolution 99-0f
RECITALS
The Housing Board has evaluated the 1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Guidelines, and recommends that the Board of County Commissioners and the City
Council pass respective ordinances for the recommended changes marked in the
attached document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Board that they recommend the 1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines
be amended and approved as stated.
APPROVED by the Board at first reading on April 7, 1999 and at 2rid reading and
Public Hearing on May 5, 1999.
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Frank S. Peters, Chairperson Date
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
David Tolen, Executive Director Date
To: Aspen City Council .
Pitkin County Commissioners
Housing Office Board of Directors
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Director
Date: 21 April, 1999
Re: Housing Guidelines: Resident Occupied and AH Zone District Recommendations
Summary: The Housing Board has recommended new guidelines for resident occupied
units and for all units in AH zone district developments. The revisions are described briefly
as follows:
1. Set a maximum price 0f$375,000 for R.O. units
2. Set a maximum average price for all AH units in the AH zone, equal to the midpoint
between Categories 3 and 4.
3. Establish income and asset limits for R.O. qualification
· The following three issues remain to be resolved in these discussions:
· Is the recommended price for RO units, and the additional recommendations for a
maximum average price for AH units in mixed projects too low, and does this
eliminate the incentive for private initiatives for affordable housing?
· Is any additional restriction to the RO units appropriate? Such additional restrictions
have been characterized as creating a new "Category 5" unit, eliminating the original
RO program.
· Are the income and asset limits proposed the appropriate limits? Have we
recommended limits that are too low, and exclude households from the housing
program who should not be excluded.9
"Category 5" versus RO: The stated purposes of Resident Occupied housing have
varied, from providing units for households who are unable to buy in the free market, to
providing an incentive to the private sector, to providing "free market" housing for locals
to preserving the "middle class". The Housing Board, and the collaborative forum
established by the Leadership Aspen class to examine RO policy, recommended that the
primary objective for RO was to meet the need for households who did not qualify for
Category 4 housing but who could not afford free market housing. The recommendations
for RO are based on this objective primarily.
There is another viewpoint, that RO should provide a relatively unrestricted unit for
people who will live full time in Aspen. This has variously been called "flee market"
housing for locals, or resident free market housing. It has been suggested that if we create
a more restrictive category, whether that is called RO or "Category 5", that we should
also retain a less restrictive RO type.
Economic Feasibility of private Affordable Housing: Assuming that the City and
County agree to the Housing Board recommendations for a more restrictive R.O., will the
maximum recommended price of $375,000 provide sufficient economic incentive for the
private production of affordable housing through the AH Zone District? In addition, is the
Housing Board's recommendation for a maximum average price for affordable unit in the
AH Zone District too restrictive, and will this policy make it financially unattractive to
develop in the AH Zone District?
The attached financial analysis was prepared by the Aspen Appraisal group at the request
of the Housing Office in order to answer this question.. The analysis uses an appraisal
approach to evaluate five development options for a piece of property. For this analysis,
the appraisers used the Snyder property with the following five development approaches:
1. Development of the site as a single family home
· 2. Development of two single family homes under the density reduction lot split
3. Development of single family flee market homes and AH units under growth
management
4. Development of flee market residences under the County TDR program
5. Development of flee market and AH residences under the AH Zone district.
The analysis assumes that the property remained in the County, and was developed under
County land use requirements. For these purposes, all of the development scenarios would
be the same within the city except the TDR scenario, as TDR's cannot currently be
transferred into the City. The AH Zone District analysis assumed the proposed guidelines
for RO units and unit pricing.
Generally an appraisal makes a conclusion about the highest and best use of a property,
and develops a detailed opinion of the value of that property in that use. In this analysis,
the appraisers have gone into more detail than usual for each of the development
scenarios, and expressed an opinion of the probable value of the land under each of them.
Those values are as follows:
1. Value as GMZP site: $1,950,000
2. Value as a single family home site: $2,500,000 to $3,000,000
3. Value as two SFH Sites (Lot Split): $3,100,000
4. Value as AH Zone Development $3,400,000 to $3,500,000
5. Value as TDR Receiver Site: $3,900,000 to $4,000,000
For parcels within the County, the opportunity to use a site to receive TDR's creates
substantial value, higher than the opportunity to develop an All Zone District project. In
the City, however, the highest value is through the development of an All project
consisting of 30% free market units and 70% deed restricted units consistent with the
recommended policies.
The appraisers conclude, in their Amendment dated April 15, 1999 as follows:
In our analysis of the Snyder Ponds property it is clear that today AH development
results in a higher return to the land than does sale of the property for single family
home use. Thus, under the proposed guidelines, you have succeeded in competing with
the single family market on this particular piece of property.
Staff believes that this is persuasive independent evidence that the All Zone District
remains attractive to profit motivated developers even with the more restrictive RO and
other price guidelines recommended by the Housing Office. The actual relative value of a
private AH project depends on the site. For example, on a small parcel with limited
development potential, and All project may not be as attraciive as a single family home or
' duplex. This has always been true of the AH Zone District, as it depends on a density
bonus and Growth Management exemptions to create additional value. Where the
reasonable density for an AH project is not very much more than the development allowed
by right, an AH project may not be attractive. This would be the case, however, even if
the price guidelines for affordable units were a good deal more lenient than we have
recommended.
Income and Asset Limits: The last question relates to our recommend limits on
household income and assets, or purchasing power. The basis for these limits was agreed
upon between the Housing Board and the Collaborative Forum set up by the Leadership
Aspen class: RO units should be limited to those households that are above the Category 4
income and asset limits, but who are unable to afford free market housing.
There remains disagreement as to exactly what level to set for purchasing power. The
collaborative forum recommended that the RO program exclude households who are able
afford a free market home costing $800,000 or more. The Housing Board recommended
that households able to purchase a $500,000 free market home be excluded from RO
units. Each of these recommendations is based on our respective perceptions about what
free market housing is available and at what cost.
In order to help resolve this issue, we have recommended that an independent group of
citizens meet and review the guideline. This group has been meeting for the past several
weeks, and 'recently viewed a number of units currently available on the free market. The
panel has agreed that the P,O program should focus on two bedroom and larger units for
family households.
The RO panel is meeting to fmal~ze its recommendation prior to Council's second reading
and public hearing on the guidelines,
Recommendations: Staff and the Housing Board recommend that the Council adopt the
following recommendations on ~rst reading:
1. Establish an RO program intended to meet the needs of households who exceed
Category 4 guidelines and who are unable to obtain adequate housing in the free
market.
2. Set the maximum price for P,O units at $375,000 subject to special review of the
econorr~c circumstances and additional community benefit of a project proposing a
l~gher price.
3. Set the maximum average price for affordable units Ln the AH Zone district, including
P,O units, at the midpoint between Category 3 and 4.
4. At second reading and public hearing adopt a recommendation from the Housing
Board to set a limit on household income and assets (or purchasing power) for the R.O
program, This recommendation will be subject to the Housing Board 's review of the
current P,O citizen panel recommendations.
The
Aspen
Group, Ltd. ' co .
5co~ M. Bowie. ~I, S~
Randy Gold. ~I, S~
April 15, 1999
Ms. Mary Roberrs
Assistant Director
Asper/Pitkin County Housing Office
530 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Amendment to the Econonfic Assessment of the Snyder Ponds Property,
210 Midland Avenue, Pitkin County, Colorado
Ms. Roberrs:
This letter is an amendment to our Economic Assessment of the Snyder Ponds property
and follows our meeting with you and Mr. Tolen on April 13, 1999. Specifically, we
discussed the viability of an AH project on the Snyder Ponds property and our analysis of
such a scenario in our Economic Assessment of that site.
In our discussion you clarified for us a probable amendment to the Housing Authority
gt/idelines regarding maximum price categories allowed under an AH Development.
Nothing changes regarding the number of free market units allowed, but there is a change,
- at least in our understanding, of the proposed legislation for the AH portion of such a
project. It was our assumption in our Original document that each property "type" would
have to meet the requirement of an average sale price falling at the midpoint between
Category 3 and Category 4 established pricing. Based on that understanding, we
estimated in our AH model an acceptable project with nine Category 4 four bedroom
units, nine Category 3 four bedroom units, and eight Category 2 one bedroom units. With
an equal number of 4 bedroom units in both Category 3 and 4, they would naturally result
in a average price at the midpoint between the allowed prices in each of these two
categories. These averages were completely divorced from any consideration of the 1
bedroom units. We estimated Category 2 pricing for the 1 bedroom units to provide what
appeared to us to be an acceptable category mix in the project.
AH Employee Categories I '
Average Allowed
# Units Type. Price Total
4 Cat 3 1-BR $120,800 $483,200
4 Cat 4 1-BR $196,800 $787,200
9 Cat 3 4-BR $143,000 $1,287,000
9 Cat 4 4-BR $219,500 $1,978,600
Totel: $4,532,900
26 Average: $174,342
Projected Unit Mix
# Units Type Price Total
8 Cat 2 I:BR $78,300 $626,400
I Cat 3 4-BR $143,000 $143.000
17 Cat 4 4*BR $219,500 $3,731,500
Total: $4,500,900
26 Average: $173,112
You have pointed out to us that the intention of the Housing Authority and presumably
the new guideline amendment will be to provide the developers the option of meeting an
average price between Category 3 and Category 4 for all units in the project rather than
just units of a single type (e.g. all the four bedroom units).
Your analysis results in a similar unit spread with Category 2, 3, and 4 units, but under this
new scenario there are substantially. more Category 4 four bedroom units than we had
proposed in our appraisal. The facing page shows .a summary of your conclusions under
current AH guideline pricing.
On the following facing page we have amended our pro-forms discounting the Snyder
Ponds AH model with the new AH configuration of eight Category 2 one bedroom units;
one Category 3 four bedroom unit, and seventeen Category 4 four bedroom units. This
results in a substantially higher net return for the AH units ($4,682,736 including
appreciation versus the $4,046,012 shown in our pro-forms in our original Economic
Assessment of the Snyder Ponds property).
The same discounting analysis results in a net present value for the Snyder Ponds property
under the AH model between approximately $3,425,000 and $3,560,000. This is roughly
$500,000 greater than reported in our March 1, 1999 Economic Assessment of Snyder
'Ponds.
At the end of our March 1, 1999 report we concluded with some final comments. We
noted that "there is not a remarkable difference in value between the most simplistic
potential development of the Snyder Ponds property as one single family homesite than the
most intense development as an All project. Hence, with Aspen's appeal to very high-end
single family purchasers, the County can expect to see more and more sites developed for
single family use rather than more intense, more complicated, and more risky AH
projects."
The question is, fithere ii an additional $500,000 in land value for All development, does
'this make it more probable that that would be the development pursued by a buyer rather '
than single family home construction? It is inescapable to conclude that an additional
$600,000 in the gross potential sellout of the AH component would motivate a purchaser
in conjunction with the higher gross profit this suggests. As important as this increase in
net sellout of the All units, is the settlement of an uncertain issue as to what All
categories will be permitted in the AH approval process. We encourage you° wherever
possible, to provide similar established standards for pricing and unit type to eliminate the
risk and yet still meet the City/County's requirements as to housing needs. Uncertainties
increase risk and require a greater return (profit). Wherever those risks can be eliminated
or minimized, profit can be uaded for a higher "going in" land value and create a greater
spen. Lalt
· pprms
oup; L d.
Discoun41ng: 8nyderPonds AH Model I * '
'~;SFL~S.k= 0 0 0 0 O e ~ ~ S ~ t
Teedh.~m~f~mUk.: Ss.eee.eo0 sage,880 $s~Bf,efe e.aeo ...... s8~,880 $e~2,af3 $t4rlfg,0ese
· ~..:.:;::..
· :~: .: : '~.
tlntt~c,t~: $75,000 ,~ $1~
spread between AH development and the simplest, most straig~ht forward single farally
"spec" home construction.
To promote All construction in the City and County, you must create the greatest
possible monetary advantage between that and more simplistic, single family "spec"
oriented development schemes. You can do this by making the net return for AH
development greater or by reducing its risk and the time necessary for approval (and thus
the profit requirement) or a combination of both.
In the valuation of any property, determination of its highest and best use is critical to
estimating value. By definition highest and best use is that use which is legal, physically
possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible and returns the hi~zhest value to the
]and. It is your goal to lose as few as possible of the remaining AH appropriate sites to
low density luxury home development. To do that it is essential that AH development
produce the greatest return to the vacant land (become the highest and best use).
developer can afford to pay $3,500,000 for a parcel of land for AH development but only
$3,000,000 for the vacant land for construction of one or two single family homes, the
property under normal circumstances should always be bought for the use which best
supports the highest land price.
As always, you are competing directly with a fast moving and highly dynamic single family
' home market, and a dwindling supply of available land. In our analysis 0fthe Snyder
Ponds property it is clear that today AH development results in a higher current return to
the land than does sale of the property for single family use. Thus, under proposed'
guidelines, you have succeeded in competing with the single family market on this
particular property. How long that situation will exist is, of course, problemeric. It is
doubtful that AH return will appreciate to the same degree that single family lots have
appreciated in the past two years. Thus, even with the best intentions, AH development
may be overcome by escalating single family land prices.
We hope this l~tter is sufficient for your needs at this time, I. fwe can be of further
assistance please do not hesitate to call,
Sincerely,
Scott M Bowie, MAI, SPA 1
Appraiser-Consultant Appraiser-Consultant
Cert. Genl. Appr. #CGO1313375 Cert. Genl. Appr. #CGO1313337
The
Aspen
Atbpraisal
Group, Ltd.
CERII.~ICATION
I cer~ to the best of my knowledge and belief:
I. I have t~en into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my development of the estimate of
Market Value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any sigfificant information f~om the appraisal
report and I believe, to the b~st of my knowledge, that all statements of fact contained in this appraisal repor~ m'e true
2. I have ~ated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional analysis, opinions, and
conclusions, wl~ch are subject only to the contingent and limiting condkions specified in this form. IfI have relied
on significant professional assistance from any individuals in the performance of the appraisal or the preparation of
the appraisal report, I have r~med such individual(s) and disclosed the specific ~sks performed by them in the Scope
of the Appraisal section of this report.
:J. I have no present or prospect/re interes~ in the property that is the subject to this report, and I have no present or
prospect/re personal interest or 13ias with respect to the pardes involved.
4. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors
the cause of the client, the mount of the value estimate, the av. ainment of a sfipnlated result, or the occurrence of a
subsequent event.
5. I did not base, either partially or completely, my analysis and/or the estimate of Market Value in the appra/sal
.report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national or/gin of either the prospective owners or
occupants of the subject property or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject
propony.
4. My analyses, opinions. and conclusions were developed, and th/s report has been prepared in conformity with the
Uniforra Standards of Professionai Appraisal Practice, adopted and promu2gated by the Appraisal Standards Board of
The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of th/s appraisal.
7. Unless specifically s~ted in the Scope of the Appraisal section and reiterated in the box below, I have made a
personal inspection of the property that is the subject of th/s report.
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED: 210 Midland Avenue, Pilltin County, Colorado
APPRABER: APPRAISER:
sig t : c .
Name: Randv GoI~,fMAI. SPA Name: Scott M. Bowie, MAI, SKA
Cart. Geni. Appr.#: CGO1313337 Cart. G~nl. Appr.#: CGO1313T~5
Stale: Colorado S~te: Colorado
Expira 'on Date of Cetcation: 12/31/00 ExpirationDateefCartfication: 12/31/00
I did~'d not [3 petsunally inspe~"~'~e~bject I didO1 did not [D personally inspect th~ subject
The
Aspen .
Appraisal
Group, Ltd.
ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION
The undersigned does hereby further certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief.'
1. The r~ported ~,~lyse~, opinions and conclusions were d~veloped, and this report has b~en prepared in conformity
with the r~quiremen~ of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of professional Appraisal Practice of
the Appraisal In~itute. '
2. Theuse~fthisr~p~nissubjectt~ther~quirements~ftheApprai~al~nstituter~atin~rt~ie~by~tsduiy
authorized r:pr~senmtives.
3. I have person,lily inspected the subject property and have contributed r/mterially to the value conclusion. A~ of the
date of this r~pert, I have completed the requir,'ments of the continuing education program of the Appraisal
Institute.
Cert. Genl. Appr, #CGO131333'7
Scoti M, Boyde, MAI, SPA
Appraiser-Consultant
Cen. Geui. Appr~ #CGO1313375
The
Aspen
Appraisal
Group, Ltd.
ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION
The undcr~igned does hereby further ce. nify that, to the best of my knowledge and b~lief:
1. The r~rted ~-~wyses, opinions and conclusions wer~ d~velopcd, and this r~pcrt has b~n prL-par~d in conformity
with the requirements of the Code of professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional App~ Practice of
the Appraisal Ins~kme.
2. The use aft~U,s r~pon is subject to the requirements of the Appminl In~tute reta~ng to review by its duly
authorized repr~senlali'ves.
3. I have per~onalty i~'pec~ed the subject property and have conm~vuted materially to ?.he va~ue conclusion. As of the
date of this repor~ I have completed the requirements of Lhe continuing educa~on program of lhe Appraisal
Ins~m~e.
Ce~ Genl. Appr. #CGO13 13337
Scott M. Bowie, MAI, SPA
Appraiser-Consultant
CerL Genl. 'Appr. #CGO1313375
The
Aspen
Apprais
Group, d.
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
CONTINGENT AND LllvlITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that appesn in the apprdsal report is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The appraiser will not be r~sponsthle for matters of a legal nature that affect either the property being appraised or the
title to it The appraiser assumes that the title is good and marketable and, therefore, will not render any opinions about
the title. The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsthle ownership.
:~, The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal report to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and
the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in vis~nzing the proper~, and understanding the appraiser's
determination of sine.
3, The appraiser has exmnined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (or other dam sources) and has noted in the appraisal report whether the subject site is located in an identified
Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied,
regarding this determination.
4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court because he or she made an appraisal ofthe property in
question, unles~ specific arrangements to do so have been made beforehand.
5. The appraiser has estimated the value of the land in the Cost Approach at its highest and best use and the
improvements at their conlributory value, These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in
conjunction with my other appraisal and are invalid if they are so used.
6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depreclation, the
presence of b~?~Tdous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that he or
she became aware of during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise stated in the
appraisal report, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse
environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) that would make the
properly more or less valuable, and has assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or warranties,
express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be reaponsthlc for any such conditions
that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because
the appraiser is not an expert in the field of environmental b~?~'d~, the appraisal rapor~ must not be considered as an
environmenm! assessment of the property.
7. The appraiser obtained the information, estimates, and opinions that were expressed in the appra~ report ~'om
sources that he or she considers to be reliable and believes them to be true and correct. The appraiser does not assume
responsthility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other pardes.
g. The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as provided for in the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice.
9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to
ntisfactory complelion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed
in a worlc~nl~e
10. The appraiser must provide his or her pHo~ wr/tten consent before the lender/client specified in the appraisal report
can dietribute the appraisal report (including conclusidus about the property value, the appr~er's identity and
professional designations, and references to any professional appraisal organiz~tious or the firm with which the appraiser
i~ associated) to anyone other than the borrower;, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage imqurer,
consultants; professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial irL~:imtions; or any depm'tment,
a~ency, or inmmmentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia; except that the lender/client may
distn'bute the property description section of the report only to data collection or rc-porting service(s) without having to
obtain the appraiser's prior written consent. The appraiser's writ~n consent and approval must also be obtalned before
the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media-
RiNDY GOLD, MA/, SRA '
Professional Afrsliations
Tile Ai~l~,,dsal intrude, MAI #6984, SEA
Certified Genel~ Appraiser, Smle of Colorado, #CGO1313337
Licensed Real Estate Assoc. Broker in the State of Colorado
Member of the National Association ofP, eakors
Member of the Aspen Board of P, ea.ltors
Educatioa
University of C. alifornia, Santa Barbara, BA, 1973, Honors
AppraLsal Instiute: Seminars and University of California, LA:
Real Estate Principles Real Estate Appraisal
Basic Valuation Procedures Analytical Tools of Real
Capitalintion Theory &Techniques A&B Income Tax Factors of Real Estate
Case Studies in R~al Est~e Valuation Tools &.Techniques for Land Analysis
Valuation Analysis and Report Writing Analysis of Special Properties
Ethics &Counseling Training Program Contemp. Appraising of income Properties
Litigation Valuation Easement Valuation Subdivision Analysis
Adv. Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches Other Comes:
Standards of Professional Practice, A&B Broker Transition Aspen Zoning Regulations
Computer Pingare Regulztory Takings Broker Ethics and Orientation
Experience
Appraiser-Corksultant, The Aspen Appraisal Group, Ltd. (formerly Molllca & Assoc.): August 1976 - present
Colorado R~al Estate Associale Broken 1979 - present
Associate Appraiser, The Epstein Co., Los Angeles, August, 1975 - October 1976
Designated RM by The Appraisal Institute: 1982, convened to SEA in 1992
Designated MAI by The Appraisal in_~tute: November, 1924
M~jor Clients
Nor'w~st Bank Pitkin County Bank Alpine Bank Colorado National Bank
Boston Safe D&T Chase Manhattan First Kepublic Savings 1" W~tem Mortgage
Snowm~s Village Wells Fargo Bank Pitkin County City of Aspen
P, esolution Trust Corp. FDIC
Appraisal Experience
SEngle Family Kesidential Multi-Family Kesidential Condominiums
Commeroial/Ketail Office Proposed Constraction
Ranch~ Vacant Building Sites Development Land
Lodges/Hotels Ea~ements/Condernnztion Special Purpose Buildings
Purposes
Mongage~ Financing Tax planning Es'~e Planning Condemnarlon
Listing Acquisition Insu~ble Cost Marriage Dissolution
Tax Appeal
Statement of Certification
The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing ~uca.tion
for its designated members. MAI's who meet the minimum standard of this The
program are awarded periodic education certification. I am currently ASpel1
certified under this program through December 31, 2001. ~A15pl,aiSa
Group, Ltd.
SCOTt M. BOWIE, MAI SRA
Professional Affiliatio~
The App~ ~mt~ ~ ~6848, S~
C~i~ Gen~ A~, Sine ofCoto~o, ~GOI113375
Li~nsed K~ ~e Bmk~ ~ ~e S~e of Colo~o
M~ber of~ N~on~ ~soci~on of K~ton
M~ber of~e ~p~ Bo~ of K~ton
Edu~on
App~s~ ~mte U. ofColo~o Con~g Edu~on Di~sion:
B~i~ V~on ~ Wa~ ~w
Comput~ ~i~ed hv~ent ~is
Lidg~on V~on
Adv. S~ Comp~on & Co~ Approa~es
Sm~ of~f~ion~ ~c~
Experience
App~ser-C~mulm~ ~e ~ App~s~ Group, Lt& (fom~ly Molli~ ~ Assoc.); Au~ 19~p~ent
Condom~im ~ope~ M~ement: D~t Condomain, ~en, Colo~o, 1971-7~
D~i~ated ~ by ~e~ ~i~te ofK~ ~te App~se~: 197S, convened to S~ ~ 1992
D~i~ed ~ by ~e~ ~mte ofK~ ~te App~: M~ch, 19S4
~jor Cllen~
No~ B~ Pi~ Co~ B~ Alp~e B~ Colo~o N~I~
Boron S~e D&T Ch~e ~ Ute Ci~ Mortgage l~ Wester Lending
~o~ C~i~ Wel~ F~o B~ Pi~n Co~ Ci~ of A~en
Sno~ V~e K~olufion T~ Co~, C~ B~ SIC
Appn~al ExpeHence
C0~erci~e~l O~ ~pos~ Co~aion
~ch~ V~t Buil~g Si~ Development ~d
~dg~ote~ ~em~ndem~on Speci~ ~ose Bufl~gs
Monte F~chg T~ pl~n~{n~ ~ Pl~g Conde~-~on
T~ App~
S~tement of Ceni~tion
~e App~ ~ ~ndu~ a vol~ pro~ of ~n~u~g ~u~ion
for i~ d~i~ed mmb~. ~s who m~t ~e ~m m~d of~
pm~ ~ aw~ed p~c ~u~don ceni~on. I m ~lty ~e
=ni~ed ~d~ ~is pw~ ~u~ D~ember 11, 1998. ~p~
ECONON~C ASSESSN~ENT
o~the
SNYDER PROPERTY
210 Midland Avenue
Pitkin County, Colorado
Much 1, 1999
FOR: Ms. Mar5' Roberts, Asst. Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PKEPAKED BY: Randy Gold, MAX, SPA
Appraiser-Consultant
Scott M. Bowie, MAI, SPA
_ Appraiser-Consultant
AppraisLalt
Group, L d.
The
Aspen
Appraisal
Group, Ltd.
' Scott M. Bowie,
~ndy Gold.
March I, 1999
Ms. Mary Roberrs, Asst. Director
AsperdPitkin County Housing Office
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Economic Assessment of the Snyder Ponds Property, 210 Midland Avenue,
Pitldn County, Colorado
Ms. Roberrs:
At your direction, we have inspected the subject property, considered recent market data,
and reviewed drai~ modifications which you have asked us to consider which will amend
the AspenfPitkin County Housing Guidelines. The purpose ofour ana/ysis is to examine
the Snyder Ponds property as a basis for establishing an economic model from which you
can discern the impact on value of a variety ofdevelopmem scenarios. As we will discuss,
there are a'number of assumptions, some of which are hypothetical, which affect each of
our development considerations. Hopeful/y, this model will assist you in evaluating the
economic viabiHty of the ,Affordable Housing zone district.
~his document should not be considered an appraisal of the Snyder Ponds property
specifically. Our analysis does in no way consider the Housing Authofity's current
proposed AH development scheme. In addition, in order to properly estiraate the Market
Value of this property, we would need more assistance regarding probable costs for
development, most notably infrastructure and vertical construction. While we have tried
to be realistic in our forecasting of costs, what is most important in establishing these
development models is consistency. Stated in other terms, if construction costs were to
increase over what we have shown in our report, the impact on value for each appropriate
scenario would be similar.
4. The size of the subject parcel is approx/mately 143,000 square feet. We have
assumed that there are no deductions toward effective parcel size for either
density or FAR calculations remlting from steep slopes, access easements
(either exitring or part of a new development scheme) or land under water.
5. The subject property is an acceptable receiving site for TDR's and that
~cient TDR's can be purchased (we have estimated a co~t of $125,000 per
TDR). It is also critical that one TDR is equivalent to a 5,000 square foot
single family developm. ent right exempt from both the GMQS process and all
affordable housing mitigation.
6. In development scenarios involving affordable housing, we have assumed
neighborhood acceptance of the most economically viable scenario. We
assume no "NIMBY" factor affecting either project density or the time
necessary to gain approval.
Following our Valuation section in which we examine each of the highest and best use
scenarios enumerated above, we present our conclusions and comments. These
conclusions in part represent the substance of this document and should be considered in
your evaluation of this economic model,
We trust that this report is sufficient for your needs at this time. If you have any
questions, or if we can be of any further a~sistance in the interpretation or application of
the findings in this report, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for this oppormhity to
be of service.
Sincerely,
id,
Appraiser-Consultant
Cert. Gen/.Appr. #CG0{3 13337
Scott M. Bowie, MAI, SRA
Appraiser-Consultant
Cert. Creal. Appr. #CGO1313375
App sal
Group, Lt& '
RANDY GOLD, MAI, SRA
Professional Affiliations
'i"ne Appraisal Institute, MAt ;6984, SPA
Certified General Appraiser, State of Colorado, #CGO1313337
Licensed Real Estate Assoc. Broker in the State of Colorado (1979)
Member of the National Association of Realtors
Member of the Aspen Board of Realtors
Education
University of California~ Santa Barbara, BA, 197.3, Honors
Appraisal Imstiute: Seminars and University. of California, LA:
Real Estate Principles Real Estate Appraisal
" Basic Valuation Procedures Analytical Tools of Real Estate Research
CapitalL,~ation Theory &Techniques A&B Income Tax Factors of Real Estate
Case Studies in Real Eatate Valuation Tools &Techniques for Land Analysis
Valuation Analysis and Report Writing Analysis of Special Properties
Ethics &Counseling Training Program Contemp. Appraising of income Propeaies
Litigation Valuation Easement Valuation Subdivision Analysis
Adv. Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches Other Courses:
Standard~ of Professional Practice, A&B Broker Tnnsition Aspen Zoning Regulations
Computer Program Regulatory Takings Broker Ethics and Orientation
Experience
Appraiser-Consultant, The Aspen AppraisaI Group, Ltd..(formerly Molllea & Assoc.): August 1976 - present
Colorado Real Estate Associate Broker: 1979 - present
Associate Appraiser, The Epstein Co., Los Angeles, August, 1975 - October 1976
Designated RM by The Appraisal Institute: 1982, converted to SPA in 1992
Designated MAI by The AppraisaI institute: November, 1984
Major Clients
Nor, vest Bank Pitkin County. Bank Alpine Bank Colorado National Bank
Boston Safe D&T Chase Manhattan First Republic Savings I" Western Mortgage
Snowmass Village Wells Fargo Bank Pitkin County City. of Aspen
Resolution Trust Corp. FDIC
Appraisal Experience
_ Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Condominiums
Commercial/Ketait Office Proposed Constraction
Ranches Vacant Building Sites Development Land
LodgesSIotels gasementgCondemnation Special Purpose Buildings
Purposes
Mortgagee FInanoing Tax Planning 'Estate Planning Condemnation
L Listing Acquisition Insurable Cost Marriage Dissolution
' Tax Appeal
StatementofCertification
~._
The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education
for its designated members. MAI's who meet the minimum standard of this The
pro,~',m are awarded periodic education certification. [ am cu~ently ASpel1
certified under this progrim through December 31,2001. ~A15prai,~[[
ta.
SCOTT M. BOV~I:E, MAI SEA.
Professional Affiliations
The Appraisal institute, MAI #5848, SEA
Certified General Appraiser, State of Colorado, #CGO 1313375
Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado
Member of the National Association of Realto5
Member of the Aspen Board of Reakors
Education
Harvard Unlyenity, BA, 1971. Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cure Laude
Appraisal Im~citute U. of Colondo Continuing Education Division:
Real Estate Principles Real Estate Law
Basic Valuation Procedures Water Law
Cap/tal~ation Theory &Techniques A&B Real Estate Finance
Ca~e Studies in Real Estale Vatunction
Real Estate Investment Analysis
Computer Assisted Inv~t~nent Analysis
Litiga~on valuation
Ado. Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches
Standards of Professional Practice
Experience
Appraiser-Consultatu, The Aspen Appraisal Group, Ltd. (formerly Molllea & Assoc.); August 1975-present
Colorado Real Estate Broker:. 197,~.-present
Condominiurn Property Management: Duu'ant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado, 1971
Designated R.M by Amer/can Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: 1978, convened to SPA in 1992
Designated MAI by Ame~can Institute of Real Estate Appra/sers: March, 1984
Major Clients
Norwest Bank Pitkin County Bank Alpine Bank Colorado Natl.Ba:Lk
Boston Safe D&T Chase Manhattan Ute City Mortgage Ist Wes~er Lending
Am.Mort. Capital Wells Fargo Bank Pitkin County City of Aspen
Snowmass Village Resolution Trust Corp. Central Ban~ FDIC
Appraisal Experience
:
Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Condominiums
Commercial/R. etail Office Proposed Consunction
Rznches Vacant Building Sites Development Land
Lodges/H0teis .l~2~ementa/Condernnation Special Purpose Build~gs
Purposes
Mortgage Financing Tax Pl,,,~,~ing Estate PIning Condemnation
!. Listing Acquisition ksurable Cost Marriage Dissolution
~ ~. Tax Appeal
Statement of Certification
· ~ ' The Appraisal Instit-ate conducts a voluntary prugnm of continuing education
for its designated members. MAI's who meet the minhnum standard of this The
'? program are awarded peHodlc education certification. I arm currently Aspen
certified under this program through December 31, 1998.
2
Under the Growth Management Quota System approach, we will determine an
appropriate unit mix which is consistent with the criteria stipulated under the proposed
Affordable Housing guidelines and the Land Use Code. Those components are then
valued based upon either comparable land sales in the case of the free market portion of
the project or according to stipulated Affordable Housing guidelines. The gross sellout of
the completed components is determined and analyzed in a discounted cash flow model
over the time necessary to obtain approvals, complete infi'nsracture, and build the
affordable housing and sell the completed lots and AH units. Necessary deductions are
considered for all expenses related to obtaining approvals, cost of construction, profit, real
estate commission, and miscellarZeous costs. The resulting quarterly cash flows are then
discounted into a net present value estimate.
In the 6 and 7 lot subdivision process resulting from the acquisition and use of 5-6
transferable development fights, each of the approved building sites is again evaluated
based upon comparable land sales. In this approach there is no affordable housing
component to be considered. However, we again utilize a discounted cash flow model to
account for the time necessary to obtain approvals necessary to satisfy the County's
Subdivision and P.U.D. process, develop the infi'astructure necessary to offer completed
building sites available for sale and the time necessary to sell all 6-7 single fatally lots.
Appropriate deductions are again considered and the cash flows are discounted into a
value estimate wbAch equates to property in its "as is" condition.
Finally, our last approach is based upon a re-zoning of the property to Affordable
Housing. The development scheme is evaluated which again meets the criteria of the
attached dra.ec guidelines and the land use criteria as we understand it under the Affordable
Housing zone district. The free market component is valued as if complete based upon
comparable land sales while the sellout of the affordable housing units is estimated based
upon current guidelines. The cash flows are again examined witbAn the context of a
discounted cash flow in order to account for the time and cost necessary to obtain
approvals as well as to develop both the horizontal and vertical construction and sell both
the lots and completed All units. Those quarte~y cash flows are discounted into a net
present value estimate .c. orrelating to the value of the property under this approach in its
"as is" condition.
In the course of examirdng the comparable sales data discussed in our armlysis, we have
verified the transactions with the seller, buyer, or seller'S agent (the real estate broker or
salesperson), and have also verified closing information where possible with the records of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Comparable land sales 8~ven greatest
emphasis in our valuation have all been personally inspected by the appraisers.
We have not received an environmental study of the property. The subject site has never
been used for any purpose, to our knowledge, other than single family residential. We
assume that there are no environmental issues related to the development of this properly.
The
Aspen
pmisal
.. Market Value ks deined a~:
"The most probable price which a property shouM bring in a competitive and
open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale. the lruyer arut seller
each acting prudently and kn~Twledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected
by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of
a specified date arut the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions
whereby:
a. buyer cmd seller are t.~ically motivated;
b. both parties are well informed or well advisea~ and acting in what they
consider their own best interests;
c. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
d payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of
financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
e. the price rep~esents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected
by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone
associated with the sale."
(SOURCE.' Rules andReg'ulations, FederalRe,islet. Volume 55, No. 5.5, 165. Page 34696)
Aspen
Appraisal
Group, Ltd.
-.- -- -- ASPEN
BJ*ADAMSAN, COMPANY ,
""-~.
PROPERTY I~ENTI~CATION
Legal Description:
The subject properly is located at 210 Midland Avenue in Pifidn County, Colorado.
A/though the subject property h~ been annexed to the City of Aspen, we have been
directed to consider it as if it were not. The subject property is legally described by a
lengthy metes and bounds description which can be found in the addendure. However,
briefly, it can be described as:
A tract of land situated in li.iverside Placer U.S.M.S. No.3905, mended and lying
in Section 18, Township' 10 South, Range 84 West, of the 6'~ P.M., Pitkin County,
Colorado
Present Owner of Record and Sales History:
Title to the subject property is currently held by the City of Aspen. The property was
purchased in August 1994 f;'om John and Katherine Snyder. A/though the deed for this
transfer reflected a purchase price of $3,000,000, only $2,700,000 was conveyed, with the
$300,000 balance taken as a tax deduction by the sellers.
About the Property:
The subject property is located approximately 9 blocks east of downtown Aspen in the
East Aspen neighborhood. The neighborhood is a mixture of residential uses and price
categories. Single family homes range in value fi'om approximately $750,000 to in excess
of $3,500,000. The neighborhood also includes avariety of older, modest multi-family
projects including the Aspe..n View and Aspen t'r-alls. There are a scattering of new duplex
and luxury single family h~mes in the neighborhood as well. A/though the character of
this area is diverse, it is clearly a neighborhood in transition toward nearer high-quality
homes and duplexes.
The subject properly includes approximately 3.285 acres or 143,104 square feet. The site
is irregularly shaped as shown by the Site Plan on the following facing page. The site is
' undulating in topography, ~ng generally uphill fi'om west to east. Snow cover
obscured our inspection but the properly did have three ponds of varying size, one of
which is relatively large pond and located in the southwest comer of the site. We are
unsure whether or not the smallest of the ponds has been filled i~ The site includes a
-, · variety of foliage, primarily aspens in the southeas~ portion of the lot with a scattering of
mature conifers and cottonwoods. Views fi'om the site are good to very good, primarily
! southwest toward Aspen Mountain. A/though the property had been improved with two
· - residential structures and three garages, all the improvements appear to have been
demolished.' ~.
The
Aspen
Appmis
Group, Laltd.
Zoning:
The subjec~ property is zoned R-15, P.U.D., a Pitkin County zoffmg category requ~g a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for single family con,~uct~on. Allowed uses in the
R-15 zone include single family dwellhAgs with five bedrooms or fewer, public schools,
golf courses, parks and playgrounds, bust stops, crop production, and accessory buildings
and uses. There are a variety of uses allowed by Special Review including single fan~ly
dwel]Lngs wkh more than five bedrooms, churches, and day care schools, The R-15 zone
· requires minimum usable open st~ane per dwelling unit (exciudLng rights-of-way, meets,
parldng areas, and slopes over 30%) of 3,000 square feet with side and rear yard setbacks
each at 10 feet. There is a max~um height for all principal uses and buiIdings of 28 feet
in the zone and for accessory buLlclings and uses of 12 feet. The zone includes a floor area
ratio of. 16 indicating that 16 square feet ofbu~IdhAg is allowed for every 100 feet offand
area, Th~s would suggest a maximum FAR on this lot of 22,8~0 square feet. Allowed
square footage of any single fam~y home, regardless of lot size, would cap at 15,000
square feet.
A complete listhAg of the intent of the R-15 Moderate Density Residen~d~l Zone, Allowed
Uses, Special Review uses, and Prohjbked Uses, along with Dimensional Requh'ements
are Lnciuded in the addendure,
The subjec~ property's P,U.D. designation dictates that any development in excess of one
single family unit is sub]ec~ to compliance with the County's P.U.D. regulations. These
regulations impose numerous addi?jonal review standards upon development, mos~ notably
that P.U.D,'s include open space for ~he mutual benefit of the project's residents.
It is also necessary that any development of the subiect property, including single fan~ty
use, proceed through the County's 1041 I~m~mrd Review process. The site would be
evaluated according to a variety of p0tental hazards including wild~e, wiidl~fe, steep
slopes or geol0glc bm~m~ds, and riparian habitat. This process will also complicate any
d~velopment scheme of the propemy.
' The subject property has also been analyzed based upon a re-zoning to.Affordable
Housing. A complete copy of the intent, Allowed Uses, Special Review Uses, Probj. bited
USes, and Dimensional Requirements is also included hA the addendure. The AH criteria
has been utilized in our AH development scenan~o.
There are a varie~ of development alternatives available to the subiect property within the
contex~ of ks R-15 P.U.D. zoning and based upon a re-zoning to Affordable Housing.
The most likely of these alternatives are discussed in the follow~g section ofthls report.
Aspen
Appraisal
Group, Ltd.
The effect of zoning and the cqncept oflnnsferable development rights CYDR's) is
addressed in each of the five development schemes we have anzdyzed. We refer the reader
to the discussion of those development alternatives for Specibcs related to interpreting
relevant portions of existing or perceived zoning.
Highest and Best Use:
The term h~ghest and best use in tbjs valuation is defined as follows:
The reasonably probabl~ and legal use of vacant land or an improved property,
which is physically possible, appropriately supportea~ financially feasible, and
that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must
meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and
maximum profitability.
The term Eighest and best use of land or a site as though vacant in this valuation is deEned
as follows:
Among all reaso'able, alternative uses, the use that yields the highest present
land value, after payments are made for labor, capital, and coordinate'on. The
use of a property based on the assumption that the parcel of land is vacant or can
be made vacant by demolishing arty improvements.
The term highest and best use of property as improved in this valuation is deEned as
follows:
The use that should be made of a property as it exists. An existingproperty
should be renovated or retained as is so long as it continues to contribute to the
total market value of the property, or until the return from a new improvement
would more than offset the cost of demolishing the existing building and
constructing a new one.
(SOURCE: The Dictions,rv of Reed Estate Avvraisal, Appr~i~l Iv,~dtute, Titird Edition,
_ CoI~gbX 1993)
There are a variety of highest and best considerations for this property. UtiH~ng the
concept of transferable development rights, it appears to us that either subdivision of the
site into two lots or as many as 6-7 sites utilizing the TDR concept is probably the highest
and best use of the property (assuming the Snyder Ponds property is an acceptable
receiving site for TDR's). However, a variety of other development schemes are also
addressed in the following section ofthis report.
Apprai!
Group, d.
Mid-Range Land Sales - Aspen Area
Sale Price win Book/Pegs
Sate # Date Location Slze-Ac. Pdce Improy. Terms erentor/Gralttee ... Receptton
'1 t0/98 Aspen Elk 49 Lots D&E 0.14 $1~t00,0O0 $1,100.000 Cash C_~_~_pe_r~ejas 423806
2 12/98 Calden,voad Subd. Lot 3 0.17 $900,000 $900.000 Unknown Koutzoubous/Lemm 425542
3 10/98 E.Aspen BIk 31 R&S 0.14 $1.250,000 $1.250.000 Cony OlivaresrMIchaefson 423838
4 06/97 Kastet|c Lot 1 0.70 J tj~3_00j~00~)~~ __$_1_ ,_3._0~:__0~__ ___~Ca~sh _P~o~ve_ll~o_h.n.s~_o,_n~?_l_n_.W_!_n.~E.nler~e_e__s 404949
6 01/07 Kaetellc Lot 2 __1.0~2 ___$1~5~7_0~)~_ $1.600.000 Cash CaseL/Vy.!n~_*River-2 LLC . " 400788
6 04/08 Spruce Street~Rlchey 1.44 $1~150.000 $1.__250.000 Cash Rlch~y/Poreth Family 415584
I 06/05 Oklahoma Flats Lots 2-6 0.33 $74_3~2c~ $743,200 Cash Lavf~Jl~n~>/Kleln 783/664
7 8 04/08 Oklahoma Rats Lots 2.6 0.33 $ t ,000,000 $1,900~_000 Cash Klein/Branding GroUp 415476
8 09/97 Lacet Subd. Lot 6 0.22 $875,000 $875,000 Cash Cedar/Southland Corp. ' 408755
9 02/98 RIverside Lot 9 0.25 $819,700 $800.000 Cash Petecane PropS_CAM Dev. . 413486
10 05~98 ' SilvedodeLotl 0.42 , $65~0,0~_00__ $650,000 Cash WRHJolntVentUre/L!pton 416526_
10 · 11/08 Sllvedode Lot I 0.42 $750,_000 $772,500 Conv LJpton/NHl I LLC 42425f
1'1 06/98 Callahen Subd. Lot4 0.40 $1,300~ $1,300,000 Cash Burlon/Denholm 417613
12 02ffi8 West Asp~.n__lll Lot I 0.40 $1,300.000 $!~300,000 Cony Han~ey/Phllllps 413358
~-
t3 07/08 West Aspen II Lot 17 0,38 $1~5_0,~O00_ . $1~35~0,000 Cash SIIfer/Da!y 418697
14 01/99 West A~e_n II Lot 44 0.38 $7.~85~,0__0(~. $785.000 Cash Sells/Bales 426737
t5 __u_.:.e...E_a_s_N/__o4~I__,L2_t2 ..... p_.~3~__ .
16 _ 07/08..... 4~3951 Highway 82 1.32 .. 51~4~5_0,~__~_ S1.J~90~0 Cash Cockrail/Wilson 415515
t7 04/98 Maroon Creek Club Lot 8 0.46 $1_L276.800 $1 e~_0~.__OOO_ Eft. Cash Tleack III & HechUHaddch __ 415445
18 11/98 Moore PUD BIk G Lot 20 1.95 $750_~000 $750,000 Cash Zoom Flume/Bukur & Patdck 424127
19 12/98 Moore PUD BIk G Lot 30 1.09 $800.000 $800~_000 Cash Zoom FlUmejWhlston 425852
20 12/98 Moore PUD BIR G Lot 36 0.55 $950,000 $950,__O0~ Cash Zoom Flume/Asld Cotp'. 425854
2t 02/99 Moore PUD BIk G Lot 32 0.84 $550.000 $850,000 Cash Zoom Flume/Beavers 427332
22 02/99 Moore PUD BIk G Lot 37 1.65 $825,000 __ $825.000 Cash Zoom Flume/Bailey 427334
23 02/00 Moore PUD BIk G Lot 35 0.50 _~$t_,20_0,~o~x~__ ,__~$1 ,?~.~00, Cash Zoom FlumeFive Trees 428058
24 02/99 Moore PUD BIk E Lot 38 1,06 $850.000 $650,000 Cash _Zo~_.rn' .F.!,u_m~e_~v~_e.l'._r~ee__s .... Abp. v__e
25 02/99 Moore PUD BIkE Lot 40 1,03 $1.000,000 $1,000,000 Cash Zoom FlumeFive Trees Above ,,,
'1~1 ~ ~ III III ,~ Iml Immm mmmm ~mm mmmmm
l0
DEVELOPM]EI~'T OF S~'N'H)ER'PONDS AS
TWO SINGLE FAMlq,Y HOMESITES
The second question addressed to us is to estimate the value of the Snyder Ponds properl7
based upon a 50% density reduction lot split, Th/s lot split option as an exemption to
GMQS approval and subdivision is no longer recognized by the County in the metro area.
However, we analyzed the subdivision of the site into two single f:tm{ly lots with a
mechar~sm of one transferable development right Ci'DR). The TDR would bring with it
the right to build a single fernfly home up to 5,000 square feet. We would expect that to
be the lesser site in the 2-1or development, leaving the best site in terms of views, size, and
appeal as the "lathering parcel." This site we would expect to have its FAR "trimmed
down" by the County in the subdivision process but to be at least 7,500-10,000 square
feet.
In estimating the resulting land values we have considered the sales dis~ssed above in our
high-end land sales chart as well as those mid-range land sales shown on the facing page.
The better of the two Snyder Ponds sites with the larger FAR would be more comparable
to high-end land Sales 3, 8, 12 and 13. Sale 3 is an excellent guide to value and based on
that we feel it could have a value in the $2,200,000 range.
The smaller site in terms &FAR created from the TDR right wouid have a value more
similar to mid-range land Sale $ (a price which is now low) and exceeding other land sales
shown in that cha~. It would also be comparable to Sale 2 in our high-end land sales
chart, a smal/er 9,000 square foot West End site, a better neighborhood but with more
limited privacy and FAR We estimate its value at approximately $1,800,000.
We hypothesize in this scenario a buyer of the property "as is" who is really intending to
purchase the Snyder property for his or her own use but trying to mitigate some of the .
costs by marketing the lot created fi'0m the T'DR Such buyers rarely consider the time
involved in creating subdivision approval, though they do consider costs associated with
that process. On the following facing page we show our perception of the thinking
~rocess of a buyer of the Snydcr Ponds property for a 2-1ot subdivision scenario. From
the total lot revenue, we deduct 6.5% commission and closing costs on the lesser of the
two sites, approval costs of $25,000, cost for the TDR acquisition at $125,000, a mall.
mount of infrastructure costs amounting to $100,000 per lot to bring the common access
road on to the site servicing the two lots and to extend utilities along that road, and
$150,000 in common landscaping. Finally, we deduct 15% profit on the lesser of the two
sites (the one to be sold). Our estimate &total expenses are $887,000 deducted fi'om a
total' gross revenue ofth~ lots of $4,000,000 resulting in a total value of the Snyder Ponds
propert7 "as is" oi; rounded, .$3,100,000.
The
Aspen
'AppmisLalt
Group, d.
We include a landscaping allocation of $150,000 occurring upon completion of the
vertical construction. We include a management fee of $50,000 per year to oversee this
development and miscellaneous holding costs (taxes, insurance, etc.) at $10,000 per year,
applied here at $2500 per quarter evenly over the life of the development. We also
include a contingency factor o~'5% of all estimated expenses except for marketing costs
and developer's profit.
Our final line item is developer's or entrepreneurial profit. Although it could be argued
that no developer's profit is justified for AH development which loses money, there is still
risk associated with home construe'don (though no dsk in unit sellout). We feel an
entrepreneur deserves at least some modest return for development of the AH units, and
we have applied 5% of the estimated gross sellout. This is a nominal amount of
approximately $30,000. Developer's profit for the free market lots we estimate at :10% of
gross sellout or a total of nearly $1,100,000 in profit.
The total expenses by quarter are deducted from our estimate of sale revenue and those
quarterly amounts are discounted to a net present value at a discount rate rani~.ng from
12% to 14%. Considered in the discount rate (actually an interest rate on cash invested in
the project over its life) is the current state of the investment market, relative risk
associated with the development, and the fact that we have appreciated free market lots at
6% annually.
Discounting our cash flows results in a net present value in a range from approximately
$1,910,000 to $2,000,000 which we round at $1,950,000: This constitutes our estimate
of the value ofthe land "as is" intended for the GMQS development application we have
hypothesized here.
Aspen
Appraisal
Group, Ltd.
Discounting: Snyder Ponds TDR Model - 6 Units I
Today Approval Infr~eL FIn.,
INCOME: ' * 311189 Nt/gt 9/1/99 t2/1/99 3/t/00 9/I/00 9/I/00 ~2rl,/~, 3/1/09 Total
8F Lot Sslee: O 0 0 0 O 3 1 ! ... I 6
Unsold Lots 8 8 6 6 8 3 2 I. 0
Lot Revenue: $0 $0 F:)_ S3,e_Je,~ Sl,34e,320 8!,348:320 $1,3483,~_~ $7,960,9e0
Total Income from 8lleo: $0 $0_ __ $0 33,81e_~ 51,34q3,~2_0 $1~3483~20 $_1~e3,~_20 $7,eeo,geo
EXPENSES:
MARKEtiNG COliTS:
Commlselon & CIoslnO Coltl: ' 650% $248,040 $67j~41 · $67~,~J1. 3~t S510,962
APPROVAL COSTS: S16,667~ S16,66~7 S_I~7~ $~.0~0,_
TDR ,(~qubHfon: $625,000 $625,~
CONSTRUCTION COSTS:
InfraltrdctuFe: $150,000 $150._000~
Landscaping: $75.000 $75,000
Management; $5.000 $5.000 $5~O00~ $~ $5~O(X)~ $~ ~ $54000 . f~0_~
Mlec. Holding Costs: $_2~,~ ___$_2~500_ $_2,_5(~__. ~2,~ ' $2,_5~0_ $:2.~_~ $2,r~0~. $~2~L~0' $2L000'
cnnungency: 5.00% 15~45e ___S!2~_~_ S!~2Le S7,87__5 $~_66_25__ $4~_25_ ._S_3Ls_ s_3_75_ .. S5_9~2~
Developers profit Fm Mk~ 15.00% $572.400 $202,248 $202,248 $202~248 $11179:144
fium Expenses ' S~8J,6_2_5_ ~,_3,75 S25 375 S!~7_5_ __~,~+~_,~5~. $~_6,~4__ S,2__gz,Te4: $297,764 . $2~_934,35e
Total Net: ($681,625) ($25.375} ($25.375) ($165,375) $2151.435 $971.80e $1.050.55e $1.K30,55e $4.926.604.
Hal Proant VmTue: 12.00% $4,0__14__,9_5_6_ ~i.nq_le Fami!l ~1. Avg/Lo~ fi Lots S1.200~.000
14.00% $3,881,467 ' AverageLo(Slze: 18,573
Average FAR 1 Lot: 3~813
DEVELOPIVIENT OF .SNYDER PONDS WITH TDR'S TO CREATE '° 6 TO 7 FI~F,F, MARKET LOTS
We have also analyzed the value of the Snyder Ponds property as a TDR. development to
support subdivision. You have not specified for us the number of development rights
which would be acceptable to the County or transferable to the Snyder Ponds property,
but we have assumed the n~ximum within zon/ng which would also maximize the
economic yield of the resulting ~'ee rn~ket lots.
The R.-15 site, as we have discussed in the GMQS approach, could support 9 lots
(143,000 SF divided by 15,000 SF per lot). However, tb/s many lots would tend to erode
the allowed FAR. to such a degree as ~o impair the value of the resulting lots. We feel 6 to
7 lots maximizes the potential buildout on this property, stir creating lots of a size,
privacy, and FAR. potential most readily rn~ketable. We have, as discussed above,
assumed that development with TDK rights would not bring a necessity to mkigate any
employee housing. In both 6 and 7-unit scenarios we have deducted an acre of common
land from the total lot size of Snyder Ponds, leaving approximately 100,000 square feet of
land area for division among the free market lots. In the 6-1or scenario, thh translates to
approximately 16,500 square feet per lot and in the 7-lot scenario, 14,200 square feet per
lot. We have applied the entire FAR. (.16) appropriate to the 143,000 square feet of'site
to the individual lots in each scenario yielding approximately ~2~0 square feet of FAK for
each lot in the 7-lot scenario and 3,800 square feet of FAK in the 6-lot scenario.
We refer the reader to our GMQS analysis above for our Csth'r~te of the resulting land
values. In the 6-1or scenario, free market lot sizes and FAK's will be very similar to those
suggested for the four free market lots in the GMQS analysis. Though there is, overall,
less density in the TDR. scenario and no affordable housing, there are more free market
lots to absorb the hulk of the land area and, overaJ. l, we feel free market land values would
approximately equate to those indicated in our GMQS ar~ysis above at S1,200,000 per
lot as an avenge.
In the 7-1nt ~cenario, F.AR.'s are sm~er, lot sizes are smaller, and density is slightly greater
r and, in this analysis, we estimate gross sellout at $1,100,000 per lot as an average in the
' current market.
On the facing page is our cash flow development scena_do for the Snyder Ponds TDR
model for 6 lots. No one knows how long the application process will be in the TDR
-,.
~ development (we are not aware of any completed applications), ~ut we estimate approvals
~ ' in 9 months so ttmt infr~tructure could be completed 6months later in June, 2000. At
that time the first lot sales could occur we show 3 initial pre-sales, with one free market
[. lot sale in each of the foliowing three quarters so that sellout could occur 2 years ~'om
"' today. The initial lot sales are appreciated at 6% (1 year). After LPfis initial rn~rketing
The
Discounting: Snyder Ponds TDR Model - 7~ Units
- Todsy Appmvd . Infr~st. FI~.
SF Lo( SaJOI;: 0 0 0 0 0 3 t t I I 7
Commlodoe & Closing Costs: 8.60*/, $221,3~r0 $_8033,~Z_7 'q~80,337, $6~1 $8~5J_58_ $553,540
ArPROVALCOST9: S!_6~e6,L ;!e, 66,ET s1_6,~7_ $so,ooo
1ORAcqullltlon: . $750~ $75~)~
CONSTRUCTION COAT9:
Sum Expenses SGJ~2L8_75' .1_2_5,37~5 ___J~376 1191,625 11,022,445_ 135_2,3_~ 1273,60e_ ~273~6~6__. 1~550 ~_81~
16
during approval and inCastructure construction, we have appreciated the remaining three
lots at an adddtional 6% y~elding a total gross revenue ofslighHy over $7,860,000.
The costs are much the same as discussed in our GMQS analysis above except that there
is no vertical construction for affordable housing. Cornrr~ssions and closing costs are
deducted at 6.5% of gross sales as they occur. Approval costs we estimate at $50,000
(roughly halfofGMQS costs for this abbreviated process). TDR's we cost at $125,000
each for 5 (we have assumed there ~s one inherent building right with the Snyder Ponds
property). Infrastructure costs we show at $50,000 per lot for 6 fi'ee market lots,
landscaping at $150,000, and rnanagement at $20,000 per year over the life of the
development. This is much lower than in our GMQS model, hut no vertical constraction
needs to be overseen and it is a simpler application process. Holding costs are the same as
noted above at $10.000 per year. We include a contingency factor of 5% of all expenses
except profit and marketing costs. Developer's profit we include at 15% of gross sales.
This is less than the GMQS profit allocation primarily because of the lower risk associated
with TDR development both in terms 'of time and cost. Nevertheless, our profit as a raw
dollar mount is similar to that shown in the GMQS model because there are more free
market lots here.
Quartofly cash flows are ridscounted at the same 12-14% rate yielding a value estimate of
approximately $:~,900,000 to $4,000,000.
On the Facing page is our 7-lot scenario yielding much the same value conclusion. The
only change is t/at the TDR acquisition amount increases and infras's'ucrure costs are
higher by an additional $50,000. Our value conclusion by this scenario is approximately
$4,000,000 to $4,200,000. The reader can see the dLrn~shlng remarns which occur as the
project becomes denser, lots are smaller with more lindted PAR. Based on these
approaches, we select a ~nal value for the' Snyder Ponds project "as is,' based on this
TDR model of subdivision development at $4~000,000.
Appra }
Group, d.
Mid-Range Land Sales - Aspen Area
Sale I Price wlo Book/Page
Sale # Date LocalJan Slze-Ac. Price Improy. Tenfie Grantor/Grantee Reception iV
I 10,'99 Aspen elk 49 Lots D&E 0.14 S1_J0~0!_00~0_ $_1_10~0,!_000' C~as~L poope~rrIZ_eja~s 423806
2 12/98 Calderwood Subd. Lot 3 0.17 $900.008 $900,000 Unknown KoutzoubouNLamn~ 425542
3 10/98' E.AapeB Blk 31 R&S 0.14 $1_!2~5_0,000 $1.250.000 Cony Ofivares/Michaelson __ 423836
4 0~/97+ Kastellc Lot I 0.70 $1,309,000 $1,300,000 Cash PowetI-Johnson/Win Win Enteq~dses 404049
6 01/97 Kaetellc Lot 2 1.02 $1,503J7_0~0_ $1,600,000 Cash CaseyANin-Rlver-2 LLC . __ 400768
6 04/98 . S_pmce Street-Rlchey 1.44 $1J~1_50_sa.00 $1,25_0~000~_ Cash Rlchey/Porath F~am_lly 41_5~5~
7 06/95 Oklahoma Rats Lots 2-8 0.33 $743,200 $743,2_00 Cash Le~OlnofKfeln 763/664
? a 04/96 Oklahoma Rats Lots 2-8 0.33 $1,000.000 $1.000,000 Cash' Klein/Brand!hi Group 415476
8 09/97 Lacet $ubd, Lot 6 0.22 $675,600 $6_7_~5~0~30 Cash Carte/Southland Corp. _ 40__8755
9 02/98 Riverside Lot 9 0.25 $8191700' $800.000 Cash Peterson PrayCAM Dev. 413488
t0 05/98 Silverlode Lot t 0.42 $050,000 $6_5~,000 Cash WRH Joint Venture/LIptOn _ 416526
10 a !1/98 Sitvedode Lot I 0.42 $750,000 $7~ Cony L?pton/NHt I LLC 424251
11 06/98 Callahen Subd. Lot 4 0.40 $~1,300,000 $1.300.000 Cash Budon/Denholm 417613
t2 02/98 West Aspen Ifi Lot 1 0.40 $1,300,009 $1,300,000 Cony Harvey,~hll~l!ps 413356
t3 07/98 ' West Aspen tl Lot 17 0.38~ $1~35_0,_000~ ... $1,350r000~ Cash Stiffer/Duly 419697
14 01/99 Wast Aspen II Lot 4A 0.30 __ $785,_~ $785~_00~0. Cash Sells/sden 426737
16 u.c. Eastwood Lot 2 0.35 $_9~591~000~ , . $9_50,000 Cash _K~e!!y~N_u~c~kLn_hera __n/a
t6 07/98 43091 HIghway 82 1.32 $t,45_~0000 $1,400,000 Cash CockrellNVilson 419515
17 04/98 Mamoo Crook Club Lot 6 0.46 $1.270,800 . $1,360,000 Eft. Cash Tiea~k lit & Hecht/Hartdch 415445
t8 11/96 Moore PUt:) BIk G Lot 28 1.95 $700,600 $750.000 Cash Zoom Ffume/Oukur & Patrick 424127
19 12/98 Moore PUD BIk G Lot 30 1.09 $600,000 $__6~00~ Cash Zonm Flome/Whlston 425852
20 12/98 Moore PUD BIk G Lot 38 0.55 $950.000 __ $950.000 Cash Zoom Ffume/Astd. Co~p. _ 425854
21 02/99 Moore PUt:) BIk G Lot 32 0,84 $850,000 $650.000 Cash Zoom Fiome/Soovers 427332
22 02/99 Moore PUt:) BIk G Lot 37 1.65 $6~00p_ _ $6_2_5j0~_~ __ Cash Zoom Flume/Bailey _ 427334
23 02/99 Moore PUD B;k G Lot 35 0.50
24 02/99 Moore PUO Btk E Lot 38 1.06 S850.000
28 02/99 Moore PUO BIkE Lot 40 1.03 $1,000.000 $1,000,000 Cash Zoom Flume/Five Trees Ab43ve
19
~.-,,
On fie prior facing page we show four different scenarios which meet or approximate
these requirements. We also cost the results and deduct the cost from the potential gross
if'sold at a prince $375,000 maximum) when the alternative is to "balance" those
with Category 3 units in order to meet the maximum average price threshold.
Conse_q_uently, we have taken the most simpllsfic approach an.d incluc[e ~ even n. umber of
Category 3 and Category 4 urfits in our development scenario so that the average sale
p. ri_c_e....wi~_.fall in the middle of the category maxi~..ums.
On the following facing page is our discounted cash flow for the Snyder Ponds AH model.
We hypothesize approvals in 9 months (that may be optimistic) and completion of
ffi'astructure 6 months later in Iune, 2000. We show the completion of all affordable
housing unj. ts 6 months after that (construction will partially overlap infrastructure
construction) so fiat all AH units presumably sold under lottery, can close in December,
2000. The maximum API prices are appreciated at 2% per year for 1999 and 2000.
Single family lots we show selling upon completion of infrastructure with 6 pre-sales and
one sale per quarter until the 11 lots are sold out in September, 2001.
We estimate the average sale price for the 6 single family lots at $8.00,00.0. We refer the
reader to our chart of mid-range land sales, ~'epeated on the facing page· Of those sales,
we give most weight to Lacet Lot 6, (Sale g), Riverside Lot 9, (Sale 9), SilverLode Lot
West Aspen 1I Lot 4~ (Sale 14), and Eastwood Lot 2 (Sale 1~). These sales of relatively
small lots in the subject's neighborhood and other areas surrotmding Aspen range in sale
prices from approximately $780,000 to $950,000. The subject project will have the
advantages of the Shytier property ponds and proximity to Aspen, but FAR's are relatively
lin'~ted to approximately 3,000 square feet, lot sizes are very small, and the project is
associated with a relatively large affordable housing component. Given all these factors,
we feel the Snyder Ponds free market lots in this AH scenario will have an average value
of approximately $g00,000.
We have appreciated the ~tial 6 sales at 6"/_/._~.the n__ext 4 sales occurring over the following
year at an additional 6%._~, and the ~n~I sale occurring in September, 2001 at a third
time adjustment. The total esimated sellout of the 11 free market lots with time
adjustments fs slighfiy under $9,650,000. Adding the affordable housing component
results in a total gross sellout of the project of slightly under $13,700,00.0.
From those gross revenues we deduct costs in much the same fashion discussed in our
preceding analyses. CommisSions and closing costs on fi'ee market lots are based on
of gross sales; commissions and closing 'costs on affordable housing units is specified at
2.5%. Approval costs we have estimated at $5._0.000. Again, this is substantially less than
required under GMQS but similar to our TDR developmere scenario. ]'nrrastructure costs
AThe
Spell
· __AtSpraisal
Group, Ltd.
Discounting: Snyder Ponds AH Model
Le4Revenue:
Casion&C, Jeelr4Code~ 0.60%
Ceev~bdo.&CtodnlAH: 2J50%
"~ ~ ~ m ~ c ~:~:
20
are based on $50~000 per unit for the flee market lots, $_20,000 per unit for the 18 four,
bedroom townhouse units, and $5000 per unit for the one-bedroom affordable housing
units. Vertical construction of~ordable housing is shown at $150/$F adjusted one year
for inflation a.t 2%. We include an allocation for landscaping of $1..50,000, the same as
shown in our prior analyses. Management equates to our management al/ocation in the
Growth Management Quota System scenario at $5._Q0,QD.0 per year applied at $12,500
quarterly until vertical construction is complete. We include $50__0..0 per quarter in holding
costs. TIffs is greater than in our GMQS model primarily because of the larger number of
units. Our contingency is, again, ~/_~ofall proposed costs (except marketing cost and
· profit) and we apply dev__eJ. gp_er.'.s proflt..margin for the affordable housing units atff.~ and
for the free market units of 15%. This free market developer's profit allocation is the
same as shown in our TDR~velopmeng but less than the GMQS scenario (we used 20%
for devetoper's profit) primarily because of the lower price dategory of the free market
lots, the lower risk associated with All development and because the total amount of
profit at approximately $1,650,000 should be sufScient for the developer ofth~s AH
project. Quarterly cash flows are discounted at the same 12-14% discount rate discussed
above resulting in a value indication for the Snyder Ponds property for this proposed AH
developmere of approximately $3,000,000.
Aspen
Appmi:
Group, d.
21
';' ': CONCLUSION
In evaluating highest and best use, our approach is to estimate the value of the land "as is"
under each development scenario. In other words, we estimate what a buyer could afford
to pay for the land to build out each development and receive appropriate profit and
absorb the risk that each development entails. Theoretically, the development showing the
highest "as is" land value represents the highest and best use of the property and it will be
that use to which the property is placed and that price which the vacant land should sell
for.
The following are our conclusions:
Development with One Single Family Lotl $1,-~00,000 - 3,000,000
Development with Two Single Family Lots (1 TDR): $3,100,000
GMQS Model: $1,950,000
Subdivision: Development with 6-7 Lots (Using TDK's): $4,000,000
Rezonlng to Affordable Housing: $3,000,000
While this carmot be a precise analysis amd all our approaches are dependent upon
assumptions ou~ined in this report, the reader can see a general trend in our findings. The
following conclusions are obvious.
1. No one would go tlvough GMQS fo? this property. If all undeveloped PiLkin
County properties equat'~ to Snyder Ponds in terms of development potential, the
County has probably seen its last GMQS development application of this scale.
: The difference afforded under GMQS over AH of 40% flee market bedrooms
· :: versus 30% does,not outweigh the lower potential sellout of the AH component or
the AH more liberal density allotments. The land value indication is dramatically
lower for GMQS than shown for AH development (and any of our other
scenarios), even when we consider the profit potential of over $1,000,000 for
GMQS development.
i: 2. All develop._m_e~t_is~sopr?_b_ab, ty.np.tm~b.!Ie__~_gp. mpari'.s,qn__~i~.~ lxaj~cL,
- (under the assumption that the property in question is a feasible TDK receiving
... site). Fundamental is the current status of TDK's which allow development of one
. single 5rnily home up to 5,000 square feet with no necessary mitigation for
, :' employee housing, and no GMQS competition. The TDK concept is not only the
L streamlined process with no necessity or risk to build vertical construction of
affordable housing units, it also returns nearly the same profit we have shown for
, The
; '. ASpel1 ·
Group, Ltd.
22
AH development with far less likely neighborhood opposition because of
substantially lower density and '~'qIIVI~YTM concerns related to affordable housing.
In adcl/~o~ the TDK development yields fewer free market lots to sell for virtually
the same profit, lowering overall risk and the holding period.
3. Were the site not available for TDK recepdor~ All would probably constitute a
./ hi~est and best use of the i~'bperty. AlthS~]gh ~e vsl~e'ofthe land "as is" is not
· ~7~-,~ly d~fferent t~ ~6r' a'~ifi~ie farnily.hom.asite, there is over $1,500,000 in profit
to be derived by pursuing an AH development (albeit at subnantially greater risk).
~:. There is not a remarkable difference in value bev, veen the most simplistic potential
development of the Snyder Ponds property as one single family homesite than the
most intense development as an AH project. Hence, with Aspen's appeal to very
high-end single family home purchasers, the County can expect to see more and
more sites developed for single family use rather than more intense, more
complicated, and more risky AH projects (with attendant loss of potential
affordable housing), as high-end land becomes scarcer and prices continue to rise.
There does not appear to us to be so remarkable an advantage from AH
development over single family or low density development use to justify a
substantial "st___mpede" to provide the County (and the City) with additional
affordable housing.
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
1999 AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES
Effe~ve June ,1999
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
Frank Peters - (;hairperaon
Jackie Kasabach - Vice Chairperaon
Terry SChaefer - Treasurer
Cad Britton - Joint City/County Appointee
Bob Helmus - County Appointee
Rachel Richards - City Council Representative
Mick Ireland - BOCC Representative
Wish to thank:
THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIl,
Mayor John Bennett
Rachel Richards - Councilwoman
Terry Paulson - Councilman
Jim Markalunas - Councilman
Jake Vickery - Councilman
And
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Leslie Lamont - Chairperson
Dorothea Farris - Commissioner
Mick Ireland - Commissioner
Shellie Harper ~ Commissioner
Patty Klapper - Commissioner
for their continued support.
PURPOSE
"To assure the existence of a supply of desirable and affordable
housing for persons currently employed in Pitkin County, persons
who were employed in Pitkin County prior to retiremen~ the
Disabled, and other qualified persons of Pitkin County."
- Aspen/Plaid- County ltousinK ~uthodty~ GoM -
(Odg~ally Adopted 1983}
Each year the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereinafter the Housing Office) establishes
guidelines which govem the development of, admission to and occupancy of deed restricted
affordabie housing units for Aspen and Pitkin County. The guidelines support the Housing Office's
Goal and are not intended to supersede the appropriate City or County Land Use Codes or the
Uniform Building Code.
The 19989 Affordable Housing Guidelines respond to housing needs in Aspen and Pitkin County
as identified by the Housing Office. The guidelines are used to review land use applicetions,
establish affordable rental rates and sales pdces, establish criteria for admission and occupancy,
and to develop and prioritize current and long range housing programs.
It is the intent of the Housing Program to provide housing opportunities for persons who are or
have been actively employed or self-.empIoyed in Pitkin County who provide goods and services
to individuals, businesses or institutional operations in Pitkin County.
These Affordable Housing Guidelines shall remain
in effect until such time as new or amended
Guidelines are approved by the City Counc~ and
Board of County Commissioners.
Iggg Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page __,__1,~ of 37
HOUSING BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS
The purpose of this section is to assist the staff, development community and the public in
understanding the Housing Board's philosophy regarding vadous aspects of the program. These
policy statements will be reviewed and revised by the Housing Board on an annual basis,
A. Mitigating Affordable Housing] Impacts: The following list establishes the Housing Board's
options in order of preference depending on the site location,
1. On-site housing;
2. Off-site housing, including the buydown concept;
3. Cash-in-lieu/Land-in-lieu (the preference of cash or land shall be determined on a
case by case analysis).
B. Unit types: In areas where developers wish direction regarding the types of unit to
construct, the Housing Board would like to see the following, based on current needs:
A Entry level sales units (studio and 1 bedroom - Categories 1, 2, and lower priced
Category 3);
A,Rental units (Categories 1, 2 and lower priced Category 3);
Family-oriented sales units (Categories 3 and 4);
C. The pFoceeds from the sale of single family lots will b,e collected as follows:
1. The County/City will receive sales proceeds from single family lots when the land
is being provided as mitigation of affordable housing impacts for a development or
growth;
2. The developer/property owner will receive sales proceeds from single family lots
when the land is not being provided as mitigation of affordable housing impacts for
a development or growth.
D. Private sector involvement is critical in order to meet our affordable housing goats.
Therefore, the Housing Office Issue Manager will track affordable housing zone projects
through the Planning and Building Permit process in order to aid in communications
between the developer and government. This tracking system will ensure that all
affordable housing developments are treated as expeditiously as the City and County
policies intend,
999 AspentPit~in County Housing Guidelines Page 23.7 of 37
PARTL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORIES
The Housing Office's goa! is directed at establishing and implementing a plan to provide housing
within the community at rental rates and sales prices which are affordable to persons and families
of low (Category 1), moderate (Categories2 and 3) and middle (Category 4) income. In order to
carry out this objective, affordable hgusing units are categorized to reflect which income levels
they are to service as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 below,
SECTION 1
INCOME CATEGORIES
The maximum gross household income (defined in the Definitions
for each income category is set fo~h in Table I:
TABLE I
MAXIMUM INCOMES BY CATEGORY~
CategorT_ 1 Category_ 2 CategOry :~ CateqQr',/4
Income Percentlie2 25% 50% 75% >75%
0 Dependent $ 25;90025.500 $39,755~0.500 $5~.,~77~5.750 $!9~.,5~.0106.000
1 Dependent $ 33,000 $ 48,000 $73,250 $113,500
2 Dependents $ 40,500 $ 55,500 $80,750 $121,000
3 or Mere Dependents $ 48,000 $ 63,000 $88,250 $128,500
Total Net Assets Not in Excess of $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000
NOTE: A household may qualify to purchase or rent a unit in a higher category.
1999 Aspen/Pit~ir~ COunty HOusing Guidelines Page __~ of 37
SECTION 2
RESIDENT OCCUPIED UNITS AND QUALIFICATIONS
In addition to the income categories for affordable housing units set forth in Section I above,
affordable housing units may also be designated "Resident Occupied" (RO) units. This category
was created to offer the private sector an incentive to produce affordable housing for the
community. RO units shall be occupied by persons and families who qualify as stated below. The
Housing Office shall only qualify purchasers or tenants for compliance as set forth below.
Resident Occupied units with deed restrictions recorded pdor to the establishment of the RO
Guidelines are subject to their individual deed restrictions. This includes, but is not limited to,
Smuggler Mobile Home Park, Aspen Village and the AABC Rowhouses. Williams Ranch contains
10 "Category 5' units, which limits gross income to 8!57,325159.457 and net assets to $400,000.
RO units shall meet the following criteria:
A. Gross income and net assets shall not exceed an amount that permits a household to qualify
for a $600,000 purchase under the following assumptions:
l) if aft net assets to be counted as a down payment;
2) if 28% of gross income is available to finance the remainder of the purchase pdce at an
8% interest rate amortized over 30 years.
If thc unit is located in thc Aspen City limits, there will bc no incomo or 3sset caps.
B. Initial Sales Price shall not exceed $375,000 for a three- or four-bedroom unit. The $375,000
shall include the cost of the lot and the construction of the unit. The developer has the option
to request a Special Review to increase this maximum by providing documentation that a
higher price is needed to do the project or the project provides an exceptional community
benefit. An initial CO must be obtained within three years of the sale of the lot. Thi~ does not
apply ff tho RO units am within the Aspen City limits.
C. Maximum Resale Price/Appreciation - The maximum resale price shall be calculated as
follows:
the initial sale price of the RO lot or unit, plus 3% or CPI whichever is less, appreciation
on that amount, subject to the requirements below;, PLUS
A the actual cost to construct a unit on a lot, plus 3% or CPI, whichever is less,
appreciation on that amount from the time of Certificate of Occupancy (CO), subject to
the requirements below; PLUS
A any additional cost to expand the unit to the maximum 2,200 square feet, plus 3% or
CPI, 'whichever is less, appreciation on that amount, from the time of CO for that
addition, subject to the requirements section stated below;, PLUS
A the actual cost of permitted capital improvements stated in an exhibit attached to the
deed restfiction, not to exceed 10% of the initial sales price of the completed unit, or the
expanded unit.
1999 A~penfPitkin County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 37
For any existing mobile home park converted to the RO category, where the unit owners are
qualified Pitkin County residents as defined by the Guidelines, there wi// be no appreciation
cap on the trailer and/or lot and the Housing Office shaft have a right of first refusal on any
resale.
D. Unit Size o A maximum of 2,200 gross square feet; a maximum 500 square foot garage; and
a maximum 800 square foot basement. If a larger garage or basement is constructed, then
a// square footage over 500 or 800, respective/y, will be counted as a part of the 2, 200 square
feet of space allowed.
E. Employment Requirement - Applicants must demonstrate that they are qua/i~ed employees
and that they have four years of consecutive full-time employment, as defined by the
Affordable Housing Guidefines, in Pitkin County immediately pror to application. Individuals
who are retired are required to demonstrate that they were qualified employees based upon
the definition in these Guidelines for five consecutive years immediately pdor to retirement.
F. Pdmary Residence - A RO unit must be the owners prmary residence. Proof of residency,
including, but not limited to, voter registration and automobile registration, shall be required.
G. Income/Eamings - Applicants must demonstrate that their income/earnings are earned
primarily in Pitkin County (75%). Applicants must demonstrate that they pay Colorado
Income Tax as a Colorado resident.
H. The owner cannot own any other developed residential property in those portions of Eagle,
Ga~eld, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties which are part of the Roarng Fork River drainage, or
must list for sale, at competitive market prces, the residential real estate or mobile home prior
to or simultaneously with closing on the RO unit.
I. Sales and Marketing - The Housing Office shall only quailS/prospective purchasers. Units
will be bought and sold in the private sector, however, each sale shall contrbute a one
percent (f%) fee (on.total sale prce) to the overall housing program. This fee will be
collected in the same fashion as the FNMA fee at closing, (If the Housing Office markets and
sells RO units, then the seller shall contribute a 2% fee [on total sale price] to the overall
housing program, excldding the 1% fee above.)
[ 1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page _;~ of 37
PART II.
RENTING, PURCHASING, OR SELLING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SECTION 1
QUALIFICATIONS TO RENT OR PURCHASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
To qualify for and be eligible to rent orpurchase an affordable housing unit, a person must meet
the following criteria:
A. Be a full-time employee working in Pitkin County, a retired person who has been a full-time
employee in Pitkin County a minimum of four years immediately pdor to his or her retirement
defined in the Guidelines, or a disabled person residing in Pitkin County who has been a full-
time employee in Pitkin County a minimum of two years immediately pdor to their disability
(as defined in the Definitions); or the spouse of any such employee, retired person, or
disabled person or a dependent thereof living with that qualified employee, retired person or
disabled person.
B. Upon purchase or rental of the unit, employee(s) shall occupy the unit as the primary
residence.
C. Must not own developed residential real estate or a mobile home in those portions of Eagle,
Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties which are pad of the Roadng Fork River drainage, or
must list for sale, at competitive market pdces, the residential real estate or mobile home
prior to or simultaneously with closing on the affordable housing unit' (and still meet the
asset/income limitations as set forth in Table I). If the property is not sold by the time of
dosing on purchase of the affordable housing unit, it must remain listed until sold. If the
owner of the other residential property desires to rent that property pdor to sale, the owner
shall be required to rent such property as affordable housing in accordance with the
Guidelines at the income category determined by the Housing Office to be appropriate
under the circumstances. If an individual owns vacant land in those portions of Eagle,
Garfield, Gunnison or-Pitkin Counties part of the Roadng Fork River drainage, while leasing
or owning an affordable housing unit, as soon as the land is improved with a residence the
individual must relinquish the affordable housing unit by vacating the rental unit or listing and
selling the ownership interest in that unit. NOTE: Persons owning improved
residential property, residing in affordable housing prior to May 1, 1994, will be
allowed to retain ownership of that residential property and still be eligible to reside
in affordable housing. However, once the residential properl~ is sold, the per.son
residing in affordable housing may not acquire additional residential property and
remain eligible to reside in affordable housing.
D. Must have total current household income no greater than the maximum amount spedfled in
Part I above for the particular category.
1999 AspenJPit~in County Housing Guidelines Page _~ of 37 ~
E. Must not have total current household net assets greater than $225,000 for Category 4,
$200,000 for Category 3, $175,000 for Category 2, and $150,000 for Category 1. Any renter
or purchaser who has assigned, conveyed, transferred, or otherwise disposed of property
within the last two years without fair consideration in order to meet the net asset limitations
shall be ineligible. NOTE: The ownership of any residential property (including the
affordable housing unit to be purchased) shall be considered in determining
Maximum Net Assets. Maximum net asset limits for households which consist of at least
one dtizen of retirement age ar~ 150% of the applicable income category.
SECTION 2
QUALIFICATIONS TO RESIDE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
To REMAIN ELIGIBLE to reside in an affordable housing unit, a person must meet the following
criteria:
A. For residing in a rental unit, a person meet the requirements of Part II, Section 1, A, B, C, D
and E.
B. For residing in an ownership unit, the owner must meet the requirements of Part II, Section
1,A, BandC.
1 ggg Aspen/Pit, kin County Housing Guidelines Page 73-~ of 37
SECTION 3
HOW TO QUALIFY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Rental or Purchase)
A. INITIAL QUALIFICATION: In order to determine that a person or household desiring to rent
or purchase an affordable housing unit meets all of the cdteda set forth in Section 1 above,
the Housing .Office shall request any combination, or all, of the following documentation as
proof of residency, income, assets and employment (all information and documentation is
confidential):
1; Federal income tax returns for the last year (for prospective renters) or the last two (2)
years (for prospective purchasers). Prospective purchasers must also fumish a current
income statement and a current financial statement, in a form acceptable to the
Housing Office, vedfied by applicant to be true and correct;Or other documentation
acceptabie to the Housing Office. When current income is twenty percent (20%) more
or less than income reported on tax returns, then the applicant's income will be
averaged based upon current income and the previous yeaKs tax retums to establish
an income category for the purpose of purchasing or renting a unit.
2. Verification of employment in Pitkin County (i.e., wage stubs, employer name, address,
and phone number, plus evidence of legal residency [or I.N.S. Form i-9, Employment
·EligibiIity Vedficetion] or other appropriate documentation as requested by the Housing
Office).
3. Landlord verification (proof of residency, physical address).
4. Copy of valid Colorado Ddvefs License.
5. Verification of telephone service (date of installation, person listad to).
6. Vehicle registration and/or voter registration.
7. Any other documentation which the Housing Office deems necessary to make a
determination.
8. The applicant desiring to purchase a unit will be required to sign a release so that the
Housing Office can obtain a copy of the completed loan application submitted to the
lender.
9. Divorce Decree - If you have been divorced and you receive any sort of alimony or
child support, a copy must indicate that it has been entered of record and all exhibits
and supplements must be attached.
199g A~penjPit~in County H~using Guidelines Page ~ of 37
B. REQUALIFICATIONS:
1. In addition to the initial qualification requirements set forth above, renters of affordable
housing units shah be reviewed and verified bi-annually to ensure that they meet
Minimum Occupancy, Income and Asset requirements under the Guidelines as they
are adopted from time to time. Landlord shall provide disclosure in. the lease that
tenants must 'be quailfled every two years and that tenants must reapply for
qualification in the second.~,ear.
2. The Housing Office shall endeavor to cause the landtord to give each tenant written
notice, thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the two-year period, of the requirement for
requalification with the Housing Office for continued occupancy of the affordable
housing unit. The notice should be accompanied by the Housing Offica's Rental
Approval Form (with instructions for requalification). If the tenant does not receive the
landlord's notice or the Rental Approval Form, the tenant should contact the Housing
Office at 530 East Main, Lower Level, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (telephone: 920-5050)
and request a copy of the Form and instructions for requalification. The Housing Office
will impose a $15 fee for requalification.
3. If a tenant does not meet the minimum occupancy, income and asset requirements
upon requalification or elects not to pay the requalification fee, the tenant may continue
to rent and occupy the unit at the rent (subject to the Guidelines limit) and upon the
terms established by the landlord's lease, for up to one (1) additional year in order to
provide adequate time to Secure new housing or come under comptianca.
4. If the tenant is a resident of a unit which is owned by the City, County or Housing
Office, as the result of a "buydown" situation and that resident's tenancy began prior to
the "buydown" and has been continuous since that time, then the tenant must qualify
as a full-time employee, but does not have to quality under the income or asset
provisions, The tenant will be required to pay rent commensurate with his or her
household income of the unit, regardless of the price category for the unit.'
5. No requalificatio~ to meet income, asset and occupancy is required for persons who
have purchased and own an affordable housing unit, although the individual shall
remain a qualified employee or retiree as defined in these Guidelines and as they are
amended from time to time.
SECTION 4
INFORMATION ON RENTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Most of the rental projects are managed by separate management companies. Each specific
complex may differ in its rental procedures. Persons desiring to rent an Affordable Housing
unit must meet minimum occupancy and employment requirements. A list of the rental
projects and managers is located in Appendix D.
I 1999 Asper,./Pit~in County Housing Guidelines Page _9,~ of 37
Units managed by the Housing Office are Truscett Place, Smuggler Mountain Apartments and
Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing. Please contact the Housing Office or individual property
managers for specific rental information.
The Housing Office requires all tenants of deed restricted rental housing to requalify every two
years.
Persons who i'eceive emergency worker pdodty for rental units must verify their continued service
to that agency for their lease to be renewed. This requirement expires after two years of
residency/service.
SECTION 5
PROCEDURES FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
A. - LISTING UNIT WITH THE HOUSING OFFICE: STAFF DUTIES
1. An owner of an affordable housing unit desiring to sell should consult with Housing
Office and review the Deed Restriction covedng the unit to determine the maximum
sales price permitted and other applicable provisions concerning a sale.
: Unless otherwise provided in the Deed Restriction, the unit must be listed for sale with
the Housing Office and the Housing Office staff will administer the sale in accordance
.with the Guidelines in effect at the time of listing. There shall be a minimum listing
'-period of three months before a unit's price can be readjusted. Any termination in the
listing may require the payment of administrative and advertising costs.
2. These Guidelines are intended to assure that ALL purchasers and ALL sellers will be
treated faidy and irapartially. Questions will be answered and help provided to any
potential purchasers or sellers EQUALLY in accordance with the current Guidelines.
Listings, sales contracts, extensions to contracts and dosing documents will be
prepared and all actions necessary to consummate the sale shall be undertaken.
3. In pursuit of the above, the Housing Office staff will be acting on behalf of the Housing
Office. It shoutd be clearly understood by and among all parties to a sales transaction
that the staff members are not acting as licensed brokers to the transaction, but as
representatives of the Housing Office and its interests. They shall nevertheless attempt
to help both parties to consummate a fair and equitable sale in accordance with the
current Guidelines.
4. All purchasers and sellers are advised to consult legal counsel regarding examination
of title and all contracts, agreements and title documents. The retention of such
counsel, licensed real estate brokers, or such related services, shall be at purchaser's
or seller's own expense. The fees paid to the Housing Office are to be paid regardless
of any actions or services that the purchaser or seller may undertake or acquire.
1999 AspentPitkin County Housing Guidelines Page _1(L)37- of 37 I
B, ADVERTISING THE SALE: BID PERIODS
1. After a unit is listed for sale with the Housing Office, the Housing ~Office, at its expense,
arranges to advertise the unit for sate in the Wednesday daily papers. When a unit is
first listed. there is an initial two-week bid period during which the unit is advertised with
two open house dates when the unit may be viewed by interested parties. The initial
two-week bid pedod ends on the Wednesday after the second week of advertising. If
there are no bids received in the' initial bid period, there will follow consecutive one-
week bid pedods, ending on Wednesday, until the unit is sold.
2. If more than one bid is received during any bid period, bids are pdoritized according to
the Guidelines. If more than one bid is in top priority, a lottery is held and the winner is
notified. If the winner of the lottery does not proceed to contract within .r,'vcthree
business days of notification, the next in line is notified and so on, until the unit is under
contract for purchase. Back-up contracts in the pdority order set forth above will be
accepted.
3, Lottery Process:
a. The lottery is held the day after the listing Period has ended. unless specified
~ifferently.
b. All of the households who have bid on that unit ere entered into the lottery
proaram.
c. The names are printed out and verified Prior tO running the lottery to ensure that a
household has not been excluded, The names are verified by the bid sheets and
by the receipts provided to each bidder.
d, The lottery is run at noon on the date specified in the advertisement.
e. Once the lottery has been run. the list is printed out and the names are. again,
verified to ensure that all households were included in the lottery.
f. The lottery is then Classified as "official" and the names posted on the bulletin
board in the Housing Office.
g, The file of the Iotter~ winner is pulled and reviewed for completion.
h. Once the winner's information is verified. 'the winner is notified and a meeting is
SCheduled,
4. Prospective purchasers are enceureged to investigate sources of financing prior to
submitting a bid for affordable housing and can obtain names of lenders from the
Housing Office sales department. Sales staff are' available to assist interested parties
with the purchase procedure and to answer any questions about the process.
1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 113.7- of 37
C. SALES AND OTHER FEES:
1. Unless otherwise set forth in the Deed Restrictions covering the unit, at closing, the
seller will pay the Housing Office a sales fee equal to two (2) percent of the sales price.
The Housing Office may instruct the title company to pay said fees to the Housing
Office out of the funds held for the seller at the dosing. Unless otherwise specified in
the Deed Restriction, a one. half percent (1/2%) fee is paid by the Selier at the time of
listing, which is applied to the total sales fee payable at closing. In the event that the
seller fails to perform under the listing contract, rejects all offers at maximum price in
cash or cash-equivalent terms, or should withdraw the listing after advertising has
commenced, that portion of the fee will not be refunded. In the event that the seller
withdraws for failure of any bids to be received at maximum price or with acceptable
terms, the advertising and administrative costs incurred by the Housing Office shall be
deducted from the fee, with the balance credited to the owner's sales fee when the
property is sold.
2. Unless otherwise set forth in the Deed Restriction covering the unit, upon the initial
sale, resale or refinancing of units where FNMA-type financing provisions are used, the
use of which shall be at the sole discretion of the Housing Office, there shall be a 1/4%
fee charged by Housing Office. The fee shall be paid by the mortgagor, shall be based
on the amount of the mortgage; shall be paid for each mortgage transaction; and shall
be deposited in the Housing Office mortgage reserve fund account. Where the fee was
not paid on the initial purchase of units using the FNMA-type financing provisions, by
way of example the Twin Ridge, Fairway III and Willlares Woods projects, the fee shall
be paid by the owners of said units at the time the unit is refinanced or resold. The
purchasers of said units shall also pay the fee based on their mortgage as set forth
above. if the fee is paid on a unit and the unit is subsequently refinancecl, the fee shatl
only apply to that amount of the refinanced mortgage greater than the initial mortgage
upon which the fee was initially collected. FNMA-type financing provisions are those
which provide, among other things, for the removat of the Deed Restriction on the Unit
upon foreclosure of the mortgage if the Housing Office or the City or the County do not
exercise their op{ion to purchase the unit within a specified time following foreciqsure.
If FNMA-type financing provisions are not used by the mortgagor, no fee shall be
charged by the Housing Office. The amount and adequacy of the fee and the
mortgage reserve fund shall be reviewed annually as part of the review of the
Guidelines.
D, DEED RESTRICTION: The purchaser must execute, in aform satisfactory to the Housing
Office and for recording with the Pitkin County Clerk concurrent with the closing of the sale, a
document acknowledging the purchaser's agreement to be bound by the recorded Deed
Restfiction covedng the sale unit.
E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
1999 Aspen/Pit~in County Housing Guidelines Page 123-~ of 37
1. Any co-ownership interest other than joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common must be
approved by the Housing Office.
2. Co-signers may be approved for ownership of the unit but shall not occupy the unit
unless qualified by the Housing Office.
3. If a unit is listed for sale and the owner must relocate to another area, the unit may,
upon approval of the Housing Office, be rented to a qualified individual, in accordance
with the Guidelines for a maximum period of two (2) years. Notice of such intent and
the ability to comment shall be provided to any applicable homeowner's association at
the time of request to the Housing Office. A letter must be sent to the Housing Office
requesting permission to rent the unit until sold. A minimum six (6) month written lease
must be provided to the tenant with a sixty (60) day move out clause upon notification
when the unit is sold. All tenants must be qualified by the Housing Office and the unit
must be leased for the terms set forth in the Deed Restriction on the unit or, if there are
no such provisions in the Deed Restriction, upon terms appreved by the Housing
Office. Prior to Housing Office's qualification of tenant, said tenant shall acknowledge
as part of the lease that said tenant has received, read and understands the
homeowners' association covenants, rules and regulations for the unit and shall abide
by them. Enforcement of said covenants, rules and regulations shall be the
responsibility of the homeowners' association. A copy of the executed lease shall be
furnished by the owner or tenant to the Housing Office and homeowners' association.
SECTION 6
PRIORITIES FOR PERSONS BIDDING TO PURCHASE
AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
Units developed by a pdvate developer under the Affordable Housing Zone District will have the
option to choose a qualified employee for 1/3 of each of type of unit being developed. All other
units will be placed in a lottery and pdoritized as stated below. The 1/3 chosen by the developer
MUST MEET minimum occupancy as stated below, The qualified person(s) submitting the
:highest bid pdce (not to exceed the maximum bid pdce) during a bid pedod shall have the first
dght to negotiate purchase bf the unit. If two or more qualified bids are submitted at the highest
bid pdce, they shall receive preference and be pdodtized for selection as the top bidder in the
following order:.
A. Persons with a present ownership interest (joint or tenants in common) in the affordable
housing Unit.
B. Person(s) chosen by the remaining owner(s) to purchase the interest of another owner. Any
fractional sales must be approved by Special Review if not under a court order due to
dissolution procedures.
C. Qualified spouses and/or children of current owners, including joint custody of the children,
and/or qualified parent(s) meeting minimum occupancy and falling under the definition stated
in paragraph A on page 6.
1999 Aspen/Pi~n County Housing Guideiines Page l~3-7 of 37
D. Persons living in and owning another unit within the complex who meet minimum occupancy
standards. A person must have owned his in-complex unit for at least one year prior to
receiving the in-complex pdodty. If there are more than one in-complex bids meeting
minimum occupancy, a lottery will be held by giving the number of chances as stipulated
below. On an in-complex move, a unit must open up to bid to other qualified persons before
receiving the in-complex priority.
E. Persons with four or more consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately
prior to application for purchase:
1. With minimum occupancy and one or more dependents for units with three or more bedrooms
(dependents must reside in fie unit more than 183 days out of any 12-month period).
2. With minimum occupancy.
Each household in the top pdodty will receive the following number of chances:
Working in Pitkin County greater than 4 years but less than 8 years 5 chances
Working in Pitkin County greater than 8 years but less than 12 years 6 chances
Working in Pitkin County greater than 12 years but less than 16 years 7 chances
Working in Pitkin County greater than 16 years but less than 20 years 8 chances
-Working in Pitkin County greater than 20 years 9 chances
F, Persons with one to four consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately pdor
to application for purchase (each individual will receive one chance in a separate lottery
unless there is no one bidding who has been working in Pitkin County four years or more):
1. With minimum occupancy and one or more dependents for units with three or more bedrooms
(dependents must reside in the unit greater than 183 days out of any 12-month pedod).
2. With minimum occupancy.
G. Persons with less than one consecutive year of employment' in Pitkin County immediately
pdor to application for purchase (each individual will receive one chance in a separate lottery
unless there is no one )~idding who has been working in Pitkin County four years or more):
1. With minimum occupancy and one or more dependents for units with three or more bedrooms
(dependents must reside in the unit greater than 183 days out of any 12-month period).
2. With minimum occupancy.
H. Persons with four or more consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately
pdor to application for purchase not meeting minimum occupancy, but which most dosely
approximates minimum occupancy.
I. Persons with one to four consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately prior
to application for purchase not meeting minimum occupancy, but which most closely
approximates minimum occupancy.
1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines P~ge 1_43-7 of 37
J. Persons with less than one consecutive year of employment in Pitkin County immediately
prior to application for purchase not meeting minimum occupancy, but which most closely
approximates minimum occupancy.
After pdodtization, names of bidders with the highest bids of equal amounts and equal priodty
status shall be placed in a lottery which will be held within a reasonable amount of time following
the deadline for bids.
If the terms of the proposed purchas~ contract, other than maximum price, as initially presented to
the owner, are unacceptable to the owner, there shall be a mandatory negotiation pedod of three
(3) business days to allow the owner and potential buyer to reach an agreement regarding said
terms, including but not limited to the c~osing date and financing contingencies. If after the
negotiation pedod is over the owner and buyer have not reached an agreement, the next bidder's
offer will then be presented to the owner for consideration and a three (3) business day
negotiating pedod will begin again. All follow-up qualified bids will be processed in a like fashion
until the unit is sold or all bids are rejected. If the owner rejects all bids, the unit shall be rebid or
withdrawn from sale and the owner shall be subject to the provisions of Par~ I1, Section 5,
paragraph C.1., regarding sales fee.
NOTES:
f. Minimum Occupancy (see Definitions) as used herein is one person (with an ownership
interest) per bedroom. A minor child (21 years of age or younger) or dependent residing in
the unit greater than 183 days out of any 12-month period shall be granted equal fights as a
person with an ownership interest.
2. Emergency workers (see Definitions) meeting minimum occupancy may qualify for
placement into the highest lottery category (except Section 6 A, B, C and D) and compete
with other applicants in that category upon Special Review and upon finding by the Special
Review Committee that the emergency worker complies with the definition herein. In order
to receive the emergency worker pfiority, the emergency worker must have been in service
to the community with that agency for a least one year. In addition, they will be required to
be in service to their ,agency as a qualification of ownership until they have completed the
four years of service. ff they leave their service position before that time, they will be
required, as any other person out of compliance, to list their unit for sale to a qualified
employee. (The option for Special Review of circumstances for leaving would be open to
these emergency workers.) ::
3. First priofity fo~ handicapped accessible units shall be given to disabled persons pfioritized
by length of residency.
4. Persons removed from their residence in Aspen or Pitkin County due to conversion or
reconstruction of their residence by govemment action may receive higher pfiority upon
Special Review.
5. Transfer within immediate family to a qualified buyer requires a $1 O0 fee.
1999 A~pen/Pit~in County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 37
For the sale of any unit that has been expanded to include another bedroom, minimum
occupancy shall be based on the original bedroom count (e.g., for a f-bedroom unit
expanded to a 2-bedroom unit, a single person household would meet minimum occupancy).
SECTION 7
LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR OWNERS OF
AFFO. RDABLE HOUSING UNITS
If an owner of an affordable housing unit must leave Pitkin County for a limited period of time and
desires to rent the unit during the absence, a leave of absence may be granted by the Housing
Office for one year upon clear and convincing evidence which shows a bona fide reason for
leaving and a commitment to return to the Aspen/Pitkin area. A letter must be sent to the Housing
Office, at least 30 days prior to leaving, requesting permission to rent the unit during the leave of
absence. Notice of such intent to rent and the ability to comment shall be provided to any
applicable homeowners' association at the time of request to the Housing Office. The leave of
absence shall be for one year and may, at the discretion of the Housing Office, be extended for
one year, but in no event shall the leave exceed two years. The unit may be rented in accordance
with the Housing Of'~ce's Guidelines dudng said one or two year period so long as the Deed
Restriction covedng the unit permits the rental. In the event that the rental rate is not set forth in
the' Deed Restriction, the rent shall be established at the greater of owners cost or the rent
established in accordance with the Guidelines for units at the appropriate income category (see
Table IV). Owners cost as used herein includes the monthly mortgage principal and interest
payment, plus condominium fees, plus utilities remaining in owner's name, plus taxes and
insurance prorated on a monthly basis, plus $20 per month. Prior to Housing Office's qualification
of tenant, said tenant shall acknowledge as part of the lease that said tenant has received, read
and understands the homeowners' association covenants, rules and regulations for the unit and
shall abide by them. Enforcement of said covenants, rules and regulations shaIi be the
responsibility of the homeowners' association. A copy of the executed lease shall be fumished by
the owner or tenant to the Housing Office and homeowners' association. Additionally, an owner
may request a one-time in-county leave of absence for one (1) year by Special Review with all the
above conditions applying.
SECTION 8
ROOMMATES
Sales Units - Roommates are permitted provided that they meet the provisions of Part II, Section
1, A, B and C. Any roommate must be given a lease of at least six (6) months. Copies of
leases must be filed with the Housing Office. The maximum rental rate for the room shall not
exceed the maximum rental rate permitted under the Guidelines in Part III, Section 3, for said unit
pro rated on a per bedroom basis. For example, one roommate in a two bedroom unit shall pay a
maximum rentdone-half (1/2) of the rent; one roommate in a three-bedroom household shall pay
a maximum rent of one-third (1/3) of the total rent. Unless otherwise set forth in the Deed
Restriction and or covenants of the Homeowner's Association covedng the unit, an owner may
rent a unit/room to a qualified employee or qualified employee of a non-profit (provided that they
meet the income guidelines for that specific unit) so long as the owner continues to reside in the
1999 Asperu'Pit~in County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 37
unit as a sole and exclusive place of residence. The owner shall be deemed to have ceased to
use the unit as his or her sole and exclusive place of residence by accepting permanent
employment outside of Pitkin County, or residing in the unit fewer than nine (9) months out of any
twelve (12) months,
SECTION 9
SPECIAL REVIEW
A Special Review for a vadance from the strict application of these Guidelines may be requested if
an unusual hardship can be shown, and the vadance from the stdct application of the Guidelines
is consistent with the Housing Program intent and policy. In order to request a Special Review, a
letter must be submitted to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority stating the request, with
documentation regarding 'the unusual hardship. The applicant shall submit any additional
information reasonably requested by APCHA. A Special Review meeting will then be scheduled
in a timely manner. The Special Review Committee may grant the request, with or without
conditions, if the approval will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Guidelines, and if an unusual hardship is
shown.
[ 1999Aspen/Pit~inCountyHou$ingGulclelines Page173..7- of 37
PART Ill.
INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Part Ill of the Guidelines contains information tO be used by developers of affordable housing units
in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County whether required in connection with an application for free-
market developmenL residential subdivisions. under the Multifamily Housing Replacement
Program. Title 20. of the City of Aspen Municioal Code, and in calculating the dedication fee
(payment-in-fieu fee) for exempt single-family home and exempt duplex units. or otherwise.
SECTION 1
PRIORITIES FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
The Housing Board establishes the following eaual pdority unit types based on current needs:
· Entry level sales units (stuClio and 1-bedroom Categories 1, 2 and lower pdced Category 3
· Rental units (Categories 1.2 and lower pdced Category 3
· Family-oriented sales units (Categories 3 and 4)
SECTION 2
REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
IN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
A. At least 60% of the bedrooms in any residential subdivision apDroved under the City of
Aspen's growth management regulations shall be in units restricted as affordable housing.
The average rent or sale price of the affordable housing units shall not exceed the
Category 2 maximum amounts set forth in these Guidelines, and as they are amended
from time to time.
B. All units provided under this Section must meet one or more of the priorities stated above
in Section 1.
C. These requirements are not subiect to any type of vadance by Special Review.
D. No Resident Occupied (RO) units are permitted in the affordable housing component,
SECTION 3
REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS UNDER THE
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
A. The average price of affordable housing units required under Title 20 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code. Muftifamily Housing Replacement Program, shall not exceed Category 2
maximum rental Or sales prices as set forth in these Guidelines. and as they are amended
from time to time.
1999 AspentPit~in County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 37
B. All units provided under this Section must meet one or more of the priorities stated above
in Section 1,
C. These requirements are not subiect to any type of variance by Special Review.
D, No Resident Occdpied (RO) units are permitted in the affordable housing component.
SECTION 4
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
The following reouirements apply to affordabfe housing units in any Affordable Housing Zone
Distdct proiect that includes free market units,
A. The average odce for all the affordable housing units being proposed shafl not exceed the
midpoint between Category 3 and Category 4 maximum sales pdce for each unit type, as
stipulated in Part Itt, Section 4. Table III. of these Guidelines, and as they are amended
from time to time.
B, All units provided under this Section must meet one or more of the priorities stated above
in Section 1.
SECTION 5
DEDICATION FEE FOR EXEMPT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
AND DUPLEX UNITS
See Part I11, Section 10. Affordable Housing Dedication Fee (Payment-in-Lieu Fee/under these
Guidelines.
~ 1999 AspenfPit~in County Housing Guidelines Page ~_t,93~ of 37
SECTION 6
NET MINIMUM LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR
NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Table II sets forth the allowable Minimum Net Livable Square Feet (see Definitions) for each unit
type and category. Developers may choose to construct larger units; however, allowable rent and
sale pdces for such larger units may not exceed the maximum set forth in Tables III and IV.
PLEASE NOTE: The minimum net livable square foot requirements may be reduced upon
demonstration to and approval by the Housing Office that the development satisfies, or is required to
adjust to, other physical factors or considerations including, but not limited to, design for firability,
common storage, other amenities, location or site designs.
TABLE II
MINIMUM NET LIVABLE SQUARE FEET
FOR EACH UNIT TYPE AND INCOME CATEGORY
Categories 1 & 2 Categories 3 & 4
Unit Type Souare Feet Souare Feet
Studio 400 500
1 Bedroom 600 700
2 Bedroom 850 950
3 Bedroom 1,000 1,200
Single-Family Detached 1,100 1,400
NOTE: Net Livable Square Footage (see Definitions) calculations shall be required for the affordable
housing component of a project and must be verified by the Community Development DeparLrnent prior to
issuance of any building permits for either the free market or affordable housing COmponent of the project.
The Community Development Department shall retain a set of approved building permit drawings for the
project and the Community Development Department Or Housing Office may check the actual COnstruction of
the affordable housing units for COmpliance with the appmved building permit plans.
SECTION 7
MAXIMUM ~ALES PRICES FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND FOR AFFORDABLE LOTS
Table Ill sets forth the maximum sales price for newly deed restricted affordable housing units and
affordable lots to the initial purchaser. The maximum resale price of a unit shall be controlled by
the Deed Restriction covedng the unit executed by the initial purchaser upon dosing of the initial
purchase.
TABLE III - MAXIMUM UNIT SALES PRICES
Unit Type ~v~teoorv 1 Cateoorv 2 C~teoorv 3 Cateoorv 4
Studio $29,00029.500 S33,09057.060 .0!09,=.09111.000 $!~5,409188.000
1 Bedroom $33,'!9037.000 $73,~9079.500 $!29,~99122.500 $!9~,999198.500
2Bedroom ~e'~2,399'!'!.500$39,79991.000 $!32,299134.000 $293,299211.000
3 Bedroom $51,09051.500 t100,3001~1.500 $!~3,099145.000 $2!9,599~
Single-FarnilyDetached $52,~00:53.000 .0!15,-"09117.500 $153.300160.000
1999 Aspen/Pit~in County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 37
Single-Farnily Lot ($5,."~!00S9.000) ($20,50021.0001 $ I $2e,390~8.700
NOTES:
1. Single-family lots shall be developed with homes of three bedrooms or larger and shall be
pdoritized for lottery as set forth in Pad II, Section 5 heroin.
2. Category 2 single-family lots will require a $20,59021.000 subsidy payment by the developer in
addition to the conveyance of the. lot. Category 1 single-family lots will require a $e9,19069,000
subsidy payment by the developer in addition to the conveyance of the lot. Lot prices include the
cost of access and utilities for the lot as set forth in Part Ill, Section 6 heroin.
3. Sale units will be offered for sale through the Housing Office to atl qualified persons under the
procedures established by the Guidelines.
4. In the event affordable housing units associated with a lodge, agricultural operation, or
commemial development are retained by the ownedoperator of the development, bersons
employed directly by such owner/operator shall be given first priority to purchase; however, said
persons must meet the Housing Office's Guidelines for occupancy, income and assets cdteda in
order to qualify to occupy the unit(s). In the event there are no persons directly employed by the
owner who qualify, the unit shall then be offered to other quaiffied persons according to Part II,
Section 5, of these Guidelines. (Affordable Housing [AH] Zone development is exempt from this
section.) All resales will go into the general lottery and be sold by the Housing Office per the
deed restriction.
5. All newly deed restricted affordable housing sales units must be in a marketable condition and
comply with the Uniform Building Code and with all rules, ragufations, and codes of ail
governmental utilities and agencies having jurisdiction. Prior to sale the unit must be inspected
and appreved by a certified building inspector, architect or engineer appreved by the Housing
Office for compliance with the Guidelines. Cost of such inspections shall be the responsibility of
the applicant, and the results of such inspection must be approved by the HOusing Office.
SECTION 8
MAXIMUM MONTHLY RENTAL RATES FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Table IV sets forth the maximum monthly rental rates which may be charged by the developer for
newly deed restricted affordable housing units. The rental rates apply and shall be in effect for a
twelve (12) month pedod from the commencement date of the initial lease with the first tenant of the
newly deed restricted uniL Thereafter, the maximum monthly rental rate may be increased only if, and
to the extent that, the Guidelines then in effect permit an annual increase in rental rates, by using Table
VII.
1999 Aspen/Pit~in County HOUsing Guidelines Page 213~ of 37
respective governing body at the recommendation of the Housing Office. The dormitory/lodge
units must satisfy all requirements of the applicable Guidelines and shall be required to meet the
following minimum standards:
A. · Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more than eight persons.
B. There shall be 150 or greater net livable square feet of living area per person, including
sleeping and bathroom. For purposes of this requirement, Net Livable square footage shall
not include intedor or ex~edor hallways, parking, patios, decks, cooking, lounge used in
common, laundry rooms, mechanical areas, and storage. Rents for. dormitory/lodge units
and units developed for seasonal occupancy only pursuant to a plan approved by the
Housing Office shall be calculated on the net livable square footage as described above and
computed at the rates set forth on a case-by-case basis.
C. Notes 3, 4, 5 and 6 under Table IV, Part II1, Section 3, apply to Dormitory/Lodge units.
D. At least one bathroom shall be provided for shared use by no more than four persons,
containing at least one water closet, one lavatory, one bathtub with a shower, and a total
area of at least 60 net livable square feet.
E. A kitchen facility or access to a common kitchen or common eating facility shall be provided
subject to the Housing Office's approval and determination that the facilities are adequate in
size to service the number of persons using the facility.
F. Use of 20 net leasable square feet per person of enclosed storage area located within, or
adjacent to, the unit.
G. A managers or assistant managers rent shall be calculated based on the income category
of the respective manager.
H. Rents for dormitory units will be set by Special Review on a case-by-base basiS, given the
unique and varying charectedstics of dormitory units, with affordability as the key issue.
I 1999Aspen,/PitY, jn County Housing Guidelines Page ~13.~ of 37
SECTION 10
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEDICATION FEE (Payment-In-Lieu Fee)
Payment-In-Lieu Schedule
A. Pursuant to the applicable pity or County Land USe Codes, an applicant for a
development may, under certain conditions and Subject to certain requirements,
satisfy the affordable housing requirement by payment of an affordable housing
dedication fee (payment-in-lieu fee). The number of employees (affordable housing
residents) required to be housed is determined by the Employee Generation
schedules contained in the applicable City and County Codes. The time of payment
of the fee .is pdor to the issuance of a building permit. Acceptance of the payment-in-
lieu fee shall be at the sole discretion of the respective governing body at the
recommendation of the Housing Office,
B. All County fees shall be paid to the Pitkin County Finance Director and all City fees
shall be paid to the City Finance Director. A receipt shall be issued by the Finance
Directors to the applicant for submission to the Planning Office as verification of
payment, with a copy of the receipt supplied by the developer to the Housing Office
prior to issuance of a building permit.
TABLE V
PAYMENT IN LIEU SCHEDULE
Payment per Full-Time Equivalent Employee by Category
Category 1 ®~n? ~nn $147.000
Category2 $ o~ nnn $134.000
Category 3 $ ~n nnr~ $122.000
Category4 $ =~ onn $101.000
A ~ll-time equivalent employee equals an employee wowing
2,080 houm per year (40 houm per week, 52 weeks per year)
1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page L_~43-~ of 37
For the purposes of calculating payment-in-lieu fee, the following occupancy standards
shall apply:
TABLE VI
OCCUPANCY STANDARDS BY UNIT TYPE
UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCY
Dormitory/Lodge 1.00 employee/150 sq. ft.
Studio 1.25 employees
One Bedroom 1.75 employees
Two Bedrooms 2.25 employees
Three Bedrooms 3.00 employees
For each bedroom in excess of three,
the occupancy standard increases by .5 employees
Refer to Appendix E concerning methodology on Payment-in-Ueu Schedule
The fee reoufred for the construction ofr an exerr(pt sinfile-family home or duplex
unit shall be calculated as follows:
Averacle of the Cate[lorv 2 and Cafeoorv 3 oavment-in,fieu fee as stated in
Table V above. divided by 3.000 square feet X the net increase in FAR of the
new structure will equal the l~avment, in-~eu oavment for replacement
Structures.
:[he formula assumes that for even/3.000 square feet of new sinqle-fami~v or
duplex floor area. the public will be required to provide housin~ for one moderate
income employee. Cui'rently. that amount is $134.000 + $f22.000 + 2 + 3.000 =
$42.67 per square foot of new structure.
I 1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page.~,63~ of 37
SECTION 11
CONVEYANCE OF VACANT LOTS
Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development, under
certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the affordable housing require-
ment by the conveyance of vacant lots. Acceptance of the lots shall be at the sole discretion of
the respective goveming 'body upon recommendation of the Housing Office.
A. All lots must be fully developed and ready for construction, i.e., improved lots with water or
well, sewer or septic, roads, and telephone, electricity and gas (if available) in place to the
property line. A soils report, prepared by a qualified engineer and based upon test holes
within the building envelope of each lot, stipulating that the lot is suitable for construction of
the intended dwelling type without requiring unusual excavation, foundation work or
accommodation of other unusual conditions shall accompany the conveyance.
B. All lots shall be conveyed to the Housing Office concurrent with recordation of final plat for
the project.
C. At the time of conveyance, the developer shall establish an escrow account in an amount
sufficient to cover 125% of the estimated costs requ!red to complete the improvement of the
lots !n accordance with Item A above. Improvements as noted in Item A above, shall be
completed within one year from the date of conveyance of the property to the Housing
D. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the Protective Covenants shall incorporate
the condifions stated in A, B and C, directly above this paregraph.
SECTION 12
DEED RESTRICTING EXISTING DWELLING UNITS
A. Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development,
under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the affordable
housing requirement by deed restricting existing unrestricted housing to comply with the
Guidelines. Acceptance of existing units shall be at the sole discretion of the respective
governing body upon recommendation of the Housing Office.
B. If accepted by the City or County, existing units must be upgraded in accordance with the
following criteria, unless a variance from these requirements is approved by the applicable
governing body upon the recommendation of the Housing Office: all units must be freshly
painted; all appliances must be purchased within the last five years and be in good condition
and working order;, new carpet shall be provided (unless carpet has been purchased in last
five years and is in good condition and repair); the extedor walls shall be freshly painted
within one year of dedication, a general level of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be
provided, and, windows, heating, plumbing and electrical systems, fbxtures and equipment
shall be in good condition and working order. The roof must have a remaining useful life of
1999 Aspen/Plain County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 37 I
at least ten (10) years. All units shall meet Uniform Building Code minimum standards, any
applicable housing code or, in the absence of an adequate code, such recognized housing
code acceptable to the Housing Office and shall be approved by the Housing Office and
verified by a qualified Building Inspector accepted and approved by the Housing Office.
Applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgredes to meet the above
standards as well as any structural/engineering reports required by the Housing Office to
assess the suitability for occupancy and compliance with the Housing Office standards of the
proposed units.
SECTION 13
EXECUTION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS BY APPLICANTS
Deed Restrictions must be submitted by the applicant to the Housing Office according to the
following time schedule:
A. Conditional Use Applications - Prior to issuance of any building permit for a project, the
Housfng Office shall have an approved, executed and recorded Deed Restriction for the
required commitment by the applicant.
B. Growth Management Plan Applications - Prior to issuance of any building permit for a
project, the Housing Office shall have an approved, executed and recorded Deed Restriction
for the required commitment by the applicant. A copy of the recorded Land Use Code and
Resolution and Deed Restriction shall be sent to the Housing Office. Prior to issuance of
any Certificate of Occupancy, the Deed Restriction shall be amended, if necessary, to reflect
changes approved by the Housing Office and goveming bodies which may have occurred
during construction or conversion of the unit(s) (i.e., net livable square footage), executed
and recorded, with the original returned to the Housing Office for their files.
C. Others - Prior to issuance of any building permit for a project, the Housing Office shall have
an approved, executed and recorded Deed Restriction for the required commitment by the
applicant. A copy of the recorded Land Use Code Resolution and Deed Restriction shall be
sent to the Housing Office. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Deed
Restriction shall be amended, if necessary, to reflect changes approved by the Housing
Office which may have occurred during construction or conversion of the unit(s) (i.e., net
livable square footage), executed and recorded, with the original returned to the Housing
Office for their files.
SECTION 14
MAXIMUM VACANCY
Deed restricted rental units, which are required to be occupied, may be vacant between tenancies
for a maximum period of forty-five (45) days, unless authorized by the Housing Office. If the
owner exceeds the forty-five (45) day limit without Housing Office approval, then the Housing
Office will place a qualified employee from existing wait lists with a minimum six (6) month lease.
1999 Asper~Pi~<in COunty H~jsing Guidelines Page 2733: Of 37
PART IV.
MAXIMUM ANNUAL RENT INCREASE FOR
EXISTING DEED RESTRICTED RENTAL UNITS
The maximum monthly rent for an existing affordable housing unit is determined by star~ing with
the maximum monthly rent permitted for that unit under the Guidelines in effect in the year in
which the unit was first occupied and increasing that rent each year by the maximum percentage
rent increases permitted by the Guidelines each year,
Maximum rent increases and the year in which each increase was allowed for existing units are as
follows:
TABLE VII
PERMITTED INCREASE IN MAXIMUM RENT
FOR EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Year Increase Y~r Increase Year Increase
1978-1982 0.0% 1990 3.0% 1996 .99%
1983 6.6% 1991 0,0% 1997 1.31%
1984 5.0% 1992 2.0% 1998 .73%
1985 3.3% 1993 1.2% 1999 .54%
1986-1988 0.0% 1994 1.0%
1989 4.7% 1995 1.1%
The proposed .73.54% increase is based on the percentage change in the Consumer Pdce Index
(Urban Wage Earners), November 19967 - November 199-7-~_. The index increased at the rate of
1 .~g'~55% during this pedod. Operating costs for rental housing, which are subject to the CPI
increase, are assumed to be 40% of rental income. The proposed rental increase of .73,54% is
40% of the CPI increase; which is sufficient to cover any increase in operating costs.
Please contact the Housing Office for the actual maximum rental rates available and the Housing
Office will assist any applicant in determining their maximum permitted rent.
1999 AspsnfPi~in County H~sing Guidelines Page ~ of 37 }
PART V.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
A grievance is any dispute that a tenant or purchaser (see Definitions) may have with the Housing
Office with respect to action or failure to act in accordance with the individual tenant's cr
purchaser's rights, duties, welfare or status. A grievance may be presented to the Housing Office
Board of Directors under the following procedures.
I. FILING A GRIEVANCE II. CONDUCT OF THE HEARING
A. Any grievance must be presented in A. If the complainant fails to appear at
writing to the Housing Office. It may be simply the scheduled hearing, the Board may make a
stated, but shall specify: 1) the particular determination to postpone the hearing or make a
ground(s) upon which it is based; 2)the action determination based upon the written
requested; and 3) the name, address, telephone documentation and the evidence submitted.
number of the complainant and similar information
about his/her representative, if any. B. The hearing shall be conducted by the
Board as follows: Oral or documentary evidence
B. Upon presentation of a written may be received without strict compliance with the
grievance, a hearing before the Housing Office rules of evidence applicable to judicial
Board of Directors shall be scheduled for the nex~ proceedings.
scheduled Board meeting. The matter may be
continued at the discretion of the Board. The C. The right to cross-examine shall be at
complainant shall be afforded a fair hearing the discretion of the Board and may be regulated
providing the basic safeguard of due process, by the Board as it deems necessary for a fair
including notice and an opportunity to be heard in hearing.
a timely, reasonable manner.
D. Based on the records of proceedings,
C.. The complainant and the Housing the Board will provide a written decision and
Office sharl have the opportunity to examine and, include therein the reasons for its determination.
before the hearing at the expense of the The decision of the Board shah be binding on the
compiainant, to copy all documents, records and Housing Office which shall take all actions
regulations of the Housing Office that are relevant necessary to carry out the decision.
to the hearing. Any document not made available
after written request may not be relied upon at the
hearing,
D. The complainant has the fight to be
represented by counsel.
J 1999 Aspen,/Pit~in County Housing Guidelines Page __Lq,3,~ of 37
PART V1.
DEFINITIONS
Accessory Dwelling Unit IOrdtnance ~. Series of 19901
See Aspen Land Use Code, Chapter 26.40.090. Cosioner - A joint signato~' of a promissory note who shalt
not oocupy the unit unless qualffied by the Housing Office~
Affordable Housfno - Dwelllng units restricL~ to ~e housing
~ze and type for individuals meeting asset, income and Deed Restriction - A con~n~ct entered into between the
minimum occupancy guidelines appreved by the Aspen C~ Housing Office and the owner or purchaser of real property
Coundl, BOard of County C.,~nrnissio~ers and/or ~ Housing identifying the conditions of occupancy and resale.
Office, whichever shall apply.
Dependent - A minor child (21 years or younger) or offer
Affordable Hou$ino Zone District - See Aspan Land Use roletire of the mnter or owner of an affordable housing unit,
Code, Chapter26.28.110. which child or mtative is taken and list~l as a dependent for
federar inc~'ne tax purposes by Such tenter or owner or his or
Asoert/Pitkin County Housina Authority · Housing Office. her present or former spouse (said dependent must also be
related by b~ood or adoption and residing with the individual at
Assets - Anything owned by an individual which has least six monffs and cne day [183 days] OUt of every 12-
commercial or exchange value, Assets consist of specific rnonth padod oftline).
property or dairns against others, in contrast to c~ligations due
others. See also definition for Gross Assets and Net Assets. Disabled Person - A perso~ who meets the definition of
'individual wiff a disebi[ity' contained in 29 U.S.C. Sec~on
Basement - As defined by the applisable City or County Land 706(8), and/or as defined in the AmedOans with Disabilities Act
Use Code. of '1990; and/or a person who has a 'handicap,' as defined in
C.R.S. 24-34-301(4), the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act.
Bedroom - Desigr',~d to be used for sleeping purposes which
may contain doseta, may have access to a bathroom and DOrmitorY - A sruc~re or potion thereof under single
which meets applisable City or County Un~orm Building Code management that provides group sleeping accommodations
requirements for fighL venffiation, sen~ticn and egress. for occupants in one (1) or mote rooms for compensation.
Standards for use, __~3c,_?jpancy. and design of OUch facilities
Buydown Unit - Free-madcet which the gevemmant (ASpen, shall be appmvedby the Housing Office. See Part IIL Sec. 4.
Plain County; HOUsing Office) acquired and deed restricted to
affordable housing. Emergency Worker - An employee or volunteer (on Oall 24
hours/day for human, life threatening emergencies) of a
Caoital Imorovements - Unless o~"~n~se defined in the community based organi7..ation that provides oP,-scene
Dsed Reethction covedng the affordable housing unit, any assistance g~ng personal care to vicetoo, including, but not
fixture erected as a permanent improvement to reel property limited to the followthg: Fire Department Workers, Mountain
excluding repair, mplesemant, and maintenance costs. Rescue. Sheriffs Deputies, Police OffOars, Hospital
Emergency Room Teohniciana, Sodal Service Workers
Caretaker DweI1ino Units - See County Land Use Code. (menta} health and abuse case workers), Ambulence Drivers,
Emergency Medisal Technicians, and Communications
Consumer PfiOa Index ¢CPI~ - The Ccx~umer Price Index DispatDhers through the Sher~a Office or Police Department,
that is used for purposes of the Guidelines and ~ purposes of Emergency Servic~e Department Head approval is reciuired,
the Deed Res~c~on lathe ConsumerPricelndex-U.$. Cjty demoP. strating the need of that agency to house another
Average and Regions, Urban Wage Earners. end Clerfcal Emergency Worker in ~e Aspen area.
Workers (CPI.W~, All Items, Upclatod information is received
on a monthly basis from the U.S. Depafiment of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
1999 Aspen/Pit~',in County HOUsing Guldelinee Page ____3__3__3__3__3__3__3__3__3~ of 37
EmoloveelQualffied Resident/B~Ner - A pemon who is Gross Assets - Anything which has tangible or intangible
employed on the basis of a m~nimum of 1,500 hours worked value, in,'iuding properly of all Idnds. beth real and personal;
per calendar year in Pi~n County, which averages 35 hours a includes among other things. patents and causes of a~on
week, 10 months a year, or 32 hours a week, 11 months a which belong to any person, as well as any stcx;k in
year, physically wo~ng in PitY, in County and must reside in coq:~'at~on and any interest in the estate of a decadent; also,
the unit a minimum of nine (9) mon~'~s out of the year. the entire p~perty of a person. association, e:xpomtion, or
estate that is applicable or subject to the payment of debts.
EmDl~er - A business whose busine. ss address Is located Gross assets shall include funds or property held in a living
within Aspen or Pit~jn County. wh~e business employs ~.zst or any sireliar entity or interest, where the person has
employees (as defined heroin) within Plain County. and management fights or the ability to apply the assets to the
whose business taxes am paid in Aspen or PitYjn County. payment of debts. Gross assets shall not include. where
. approved by Special Review, pension plans. blind trusts. or
Emoloyee fNon.ProfltI-A pers~who wonks/per/orms fora' otiher entities or interests in which a pemon has no
non-profit organization. Employees inctude a~sts, performers. management fighis and no ability to apply such assets to the
musidans, organizers, bookkeepers, etc.. but excluding payment of debts. except to the extent that taxable earnings or
consh~on workers. Non-profit organizations include any interest inc:o'ne era derived therefrom.
caffified non-profit organization providing sen/ices to and
located in PitY, in County. Gross Income - The total income to include alimony and child
support derived from a business. bust, employment and from
Emotoyee DweItinc~ Unit - See PitY, in County Land Use Code. income-produdng prdaez~y. before deductions for expenses.
depredation, taxes, and sireliar allowances.
Em.Dlovee Housino - See definition for Affordable Housing.
Household - A~I individuals who will be occupying the unit
Famitv-0dented Unit - A dwelling unit attached or detached, regardless of legal status.
3 bedrocrns or more. w~b direct ground finor access to e
useable yard area. Household Net Assets - Combined net assets of all
individuals who wi[I be oucupy~ng the unit regardless of legs]
Fee .SireDie Estste- The maximum possible estate that one status.
can possess in real pn::.perty; complete and absdute
ownership of indefinite duration, freely transferable, and Household Income - Combined gross income of
inhedt~ble. individuals who will be occupying ~he unit regardless of legal
status. Adjustments to ~e gross for business expenses can
Financial Statement - A statement .detailing all personal be made for persorLs who am serf-employed.
assets, liabiii'des, and net worth (the difference hatwean es.sets
andiiabilit~es)asofaspeci~cdate. Kitchen - For A_,"~es_~P/Dwelling Units and Caretaker
Dwelling Un~, a minimum of a two-burner stove with oven,
Fixture - 1) A tangible thing which previously was personal standard sink, a 6-cubic foot reMgerator plus freezer.
property and which has heen attached to or installed on land
or a sbucture thereon in such a way as to become a part of Leasehold Interest - A less than fee simple estate which a
the mat property. 2) Any non-podabie fighting device built in or tenant possesses in real property.
attached securely to the sbucture. 3) The parmanant perle of
s plumbing system and rtxtures. Lottery - A drawing of tots to setact a winner f'mm equal
applicants of highest
] 1~99 Aspert/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 31.__~ of 37
Maximum Bid Price - Unless otheRvtse defined in the Deed Qualified Resident - A person(s) meeting the income and
Resinc~on covedng ~e unit, the owtler's purchase price asset limitations who meet the profile mquiraments (par~ of
muftiplied by the appreciation (as permitted by the Deed which requirements include being a qualified employee. a
Resinc~on) plus the present Value of capital improvement retired person, a disabled bersor~, Or dependent(s) of any of
costs including labor. if professionally provided. and for Which these as such terms are defined hereln) established by the
Varffication of the expenditure is provided. HOUsing Office from time to time and in effect at any time.
Minimum Occupancy * O~e berso~ (wiin a leasehold/ Resale Aoreement - A ~onlract entered into between the
ownership interest) per bedroom. A minor child Or.dependent Housing Office and ~e owner Or purchas~ of real property
shall be granted edual ststzJs as a person wiin identifying ~e conditions of __,':e~__,pancy and resale (also
leaseho~d/ownerehip interest Commonly referred to as a Deed Resthction).
Net A_~sets - Gross assets minus ilebilitles. Retirament Retirement Aoe - Should an owner Or tenant of a deed
accounts will be reviewed on a ceseJDy-case basis to resincted unit ratira before be age of 65, that individual must
determine whether Or not bey shall be inciuded as a net sell the ownership or move fTorn the deed resincted rantsl unit
asset Suct~ individual may go through Spatial Review to ask for a
waiver to maintain Bvt~ership/occupancy of his/her unit
Net Livable Souam Footeoe- Is Calculated on interiOr living
area and is measured intedor wall to intedor wall, including all Seasonal Emofovee - A person worldrig not less than 35
interior peations. Also included, but not limited to, habilable hOUrs per week {:luring the Winter Season (generally
basements and thtsdOr storage areas, closets and laundry November through A~I) and/Or Su~ Season (genera)ly
area. Exclusicns include, but are not limited to, uninhabitebie June thrcugh AUgust).
basements, mechanical areas, exteriOr storage, stairwells,
garages (either attached Or detached), petiCa. decks and Special Review Committee - A Spatial Review Committee,
porches. as established fTOm time to time by the Housing Office, is
composed of th~ or more persons - one person from City
Present Value - Fc~ the purposes of ti'P..se Guidelines and slaff, one person from County staff, and a HOUsing Board
any Deed Rasinc~or~s containing such terms, the present member. The Committee Shall have the authority to review
Value shall be the cost Or price of any capilal improvements as special clrcumetsnces with respect to matters specifically
esteblished at the time of suc~h improvement and shall be designated in the Guidelinss that are eligible for special
neither appreciated nor alepredated fTOm SUch time. review. including, l~jt not neoesearily limited to. be pdoiity
system; 5nanclal and asset limitations; Va~~cations and
Primary Residence - The sole and exclusive place of qualifiCations; esif-employment financial consideraticns;
residence. The ~Nner Or ranter shall be deemed to haVe occupancy;. admission; eto.
ceased to use the unit as her sole and exclusive place of
residence by acoepting permanent ~mployment OUtside of Storaoe Seace - Space intended and commonly utilized as
Pi~n county. Or residing in the unit fews' than nine (9) monbe location for preservation Or later use Or disposal of items.
out of any twelve (12) rn<~ths.
Tenant - A person who is leasing Or has leased a deed
Purchaser - A perso~ who is bu~ng Or has purchased a deed insinched unit Which is subject to these GuideIines, and any
resincted unit v;~hich is subject to these Guidelines. and any qualitying potential lessee Or pest lessee of any SUch deed
qualifying potential purct~ser Or past o~'ner of any such deed resthcted unit, but Only with respect to any issue a~sing under
restricted unit, but Only with respect to any issue arising under these Guidelines.
r~se Guidelines.
1999 Aspen/Pi~in County HOUsing Guidelines Page 323~ of 37 J
APPENDIX A
MAXIMUM INCOMES B Y CA TEGORY
(as of May 1999)
INCOME CATEGORIES
The maximum gross household income (defined in the Definitions) for each income
category is set forth in Table I.'
Cateeorv 1 .CaJ.e. gg/Z2 Catec2ory_ 3 Cateaory_ 4
Income Percentlie~ 25% 50% 75% >75%
0 Dependent $ 25,500 $40,500 $65,750 $106,000
1 Dependent $33,000 $48,000 $73,250 $113,500
2 Dependents $40,500 $55,500 $80,750 $121,000
3 or More Dependents $48,000 $63,000 $88,250 $128,500
Total Net Assets Not in Excess of $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000
NOTE: A household may qualify to purchase or rent a unit in a higher category.
'Fne 0 dependent figure increased by 1.355% due to fie CPI; each dependent adds $7,500 to each category,
up to three dependents.
~lncome amoLrr~ and percerrUles are derived from the f995 14pe~/PlOdn C~,unty Housing Sgudy ind survey of employees who live or work In
1999 Aspen/Pit~in County Housing Guidetines Page ~ of 37
APPENDIX B
CHART OF PRINCIPAL OWNERSHIP PROJECTS
NUMBER OF UNITS MAXIMUM REQUIRED
PROJECT NAME AND TYPE OF UNITS INCOME CATEGORY RESIDENCY
AABC Rowhouses 12 Townhomes No Income Guidelines Per Covenants
AJpine Cottages 10 Townhomes Category 4 and RO Per Guidelines
ASpen Village MHP 150 Trailers/Ovmership Of Land Resident Occupied Per Guidelines
Benedict Commons 27 Studios and Of~e Bedrooms Category 2. 3and 4 Per Guideiines
Billings Plaos 7 Townhomes Category 2, 3 and 4 Per Guidelines
Castle Crk Valley Ranch 4 Single-Family Homes Cate:jon/4 Per Guidelines
Centennial 92 Condcminlums Category 4 Per Guidelines
Common Ground 21 Townhomes (Land Lease) Category 2 and 3 Per Guidelines
East HOpkins 4 Townhomes Category 4 Per Guidelines
East Owl Creek 4 Single-Family Homes Cotegoq' 4 Per Guidelines
Fairway Three 30 Town homes Categoq' 4 Per Guidelines
Highland ',,1~las 16 Condominiums Category 4 Per Guidelines
Hunter Creak 77 Condominiums Categon/4 Per Guidelines
Juan Sb'eet 2 Duplexes; 2 Single-Family Category 4 Per Guidelines
Laost (East Cooper) 14 Tow'nhome.~Single--FamihJ Catsgory 3.4 and RO Per Guidelines
Lone Pine 28 Condominiurns Categon7 4 Per Guidelines
Mar~ninsson-Nostdahl 10 Condominiurns Cat~ego,'y 2 and 3 Per Guidelines
Midland Pad< 37 Cx~domiriiurP. s Category 4 Per Guidelines
Oh-Be-Joyful 5 Single-Family Homes Cat.~gonj 3 Per Guidelines
Red Ho~se Enctave Cond~ 6 Condominums Category 2 and 3 Per Guidelines
e
Smuggler MHP 87 Single-Family (Modular) No lnccme Requirements Per Covenants
Smuggler Run MHP 17 Single-Family (Modular) Categon7 4 Per Guidelines
Sopris Cd< Cabins 6 Units consisting Of LOts 1.2. 5, 7 & 9: Category 3
(Meadows) Single Family &Duplexes LOt 8: Category I Per Guidelines
Twin Pjdge 12 Townhomes
13 Single-Family (w/Garage) Category 4 Per Guidelines
Ute Pad< ? Single-Family Homes Category 4 Per Guidelines
Victorians at Bleaker S Condominiume Category 4 ~nd RO Per Guidelines
1999 ASgenrPitXin County Housing Guidetines Page ~ of 37 }
APPENDIX B
CHART OF PRINCIPAL OWNERSHIP PROJECTS
(COrltjtlUed)
NUMBER OF UNF/'S MAXIMUM REQUIRED
PROJECT NAME AND TYPE OF UN/TS INCOME CATEGORY REStDENCY
West Hopidns 11 Townhomes Category 2 and 3 Per Guidelines
W~iliams Ranct~ 35 Units consisting of Single-Family Category 2, 3, 4, RO-5 and RO Per Guidelines
Homes & Duplexes
W~lliams Woods 18 Townhomes Category 2 and 3 Per Guidelines
W/J Ranc~ 63 Singie-Family Homes Category 4 and RO Per Guidelines
Woody Creek MHP 54 SingEe-Family (Mobile Homes) RO MHP Requirements Per Covenants
TOTAL 888 Units
1999 Aspen/Plain County Housing Guidelines Page ____~ of 37
APPENDIX C
CHART OF PRINCIPAL RENTAL PROJECTS AND REQUIREMENTS
NUMBER OF UNITS MAXIMUM REQUIRED
PROJECT NAME AND TYPE OF UNITS INCOME CATEGORY RESIDENCY
AABC APARTMENTS 7 Unit~ Category 3 Per Covenants
ALPINA HAUS 44 Units N/A - Resident Occupied Per Ordinance
ASPEN COUNTRY INN 40 Units Category I & 2 Per Guidelines
CASTLE RIDGE 80 Units Category 3 Per Covenants
CENTENNIAL 148 Units Category 3 Per Guidelines
CRY PLAZA BLDG. 4 Units Category 1 Per Resoiu'don
COPPER HORSE 13 Units N/A - Resident Occupied Per Resolution
CORTINA (Hotel Jerome) 16 Units Category I Per Resol~on
HUNTER LONGHOUSE 33 Unfts Catego~ 3 Per Guidelines
MAROLT RANCH
Permanent 4 Units Category 3
Seasonal 96 Units N/A Per Guidelines
MOUNTAIN OAKS/HOSPiTAL 21 Units Hospits] Priority Per Hospital
PUPPYSMITH APARTMENTS 18 Units Resident Occupied Per Resolutjon
SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN
APARTMENTS ' 11 Units Category 1 Per Guidelines
TRUSCOTT PLACE
1- & 2-Bedrooms 46 Units Category 3 Per Guidelines
Studios . 50 Units N/A
UTE CRY PLACE 22 Units Category 2 & 3 Per Guidelines
TOTAL 535 Units Permanent
96 Units Seasonal
631 Units
You must be a qualified employee, retired person or disabled individual, as defined in the Guidelines, to
reside in the units listed above. This is only a partial list as there are numerous deed restricted units in the
Aspen area. It is also a requirement ~at all deed restricted units meet minimum occupancy; Le., one person
per bedroom.
19~9 A~pen/Pit~in County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 37 I
APPENDIX D
L/STING OF PRINCIPAL RENTAL PROJECTS AND PROPERTY MANAGERS
(as of May f999)
AABC Apartments
Jean Rhinehart Mountain Oaks (Hospital)
303 ASpen Airport Business Center Bill Brunsworth, Manager
Aspen, CO 81611 0401 Castle Creek Read
(970) 925-2102; 925-2104 Fax ASpen, CO 81611
(970) 544-1380)
AJpina Haus
Kevin De Ca~o, Property Manager North Mill Station
935 East Durant Frank MazzarTony Woods, Managers
Aspen, CO 81611 355 Puppy Smith Lane
(970) 920-3975; 920-2396 Fax ASpen, CO 8161
(970) 925-8603
Castle Ridge Aparn'nents
· Maxine Jacobs. Resident Manager Smuggler Mountain
1175 DoolitUe Circle, #603 Bruce Nether},, Proper~ Manager
Aspen, CO 81611 ASpen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(970) 925-6851 530 East Main, Lower Level
ASpen. CO 81611
Cantennial Apartments (g70) 379-6048
K~m Keilin. Property Manager (970) 920-5580 Fax
100 Luke Short Court
Aspen, CO 81611 Truscott Place Apartments
(970) 925-1678; 920-2691 Fax Terry Kappeli, Chief Of Property Management
ASpen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Copper HorSe 530 East Main, Lower Level
Kevin DeCado, Property Manager Aspen, CO 81611
328 West Main Street (970) 920-5139; 920-5580 Fax
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-3975; 920-2396 Fax
Hunter Longhouse Apartments
Josh Bumarnan, Property Manager
101 Lone Pine ROad, #20
Aspen. CO 81611
(970) 925-9474
Marolt Ranch (Seasonal Housing)
Bruce Nethery, Property Manager
Aspen]Pit~kin County Housing Authority
530 East Main. Lower Level
ASpen, CO 81611
(970) 920-3499 (Jan. - May & Sept. - Dec.)
(970) 920-5580 Fax
1999 Aspen/PitY, in County Housing Guidefines Page 373.~ d 37
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
at 1 .' ..
FROM: Sarah O es, P annrag Technician
KE: 2 Willjams Way, Addition to the Historic Sites and Structures
Inventer~, l st Reading
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUMMARY: Per City Cotmcil's request, the Community Development staff is seeking
to place 2 Williams Way (the former Aley residence) on the inventory of historic
structures. The property is not currently on the inventory because it was annexed in 1992
and the last comprehensive update of the Historic Sites and Structures inventory was in
1991. The original portion of this house, which is located at the comer of Spruce Street
and Williams Way and stands on the west side of the property, was built in the 1880s by
the Warkentine family. The structure is included on the 1896 Willits map. The east side
of the house dates from the same era, but was moved to the property from its location on
Main Street in the 1960s. The two structures have an adjoining section. The house is
currently used as a duplex.
The west side of the house, although in its original location, has been significantly
modified with triangular windows in the gable. Nonetheless, the building has retained its
original shape and character. Although not in its original location, the east side of the
house has retained its historic integrity due to details such as verge boards and designs in
the gable. A barn and outhouse that were located on the property no longer exist.
HPC reviewed and recommended approval for the addition of this site to the Historic
Sites and Structures Inventory by a vote of 7-0 on April 14, 1999. On May 4, 1999, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 4-0.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen.
LOCATION: 2 Willjams Way.
PROCESS: The following paragraphs are excerpts from the Land Use Code wkich are
to be utilized in evaluating additions of resources to the Inventory. Staff has prepared
responses to these standards to assist the Planning and Zoning Commission in its findings
regarding 2 Willjams Way.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES INVENTORY
Section 26.76.090, Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures.
Intent: Fifty (50) years old is .generally the age when a property may begin to be
considered historically significant. It is not the intention of the HPC to include
insignificant structures or sites on the inventory. HPC will focus on those which are
unique or have some special value to the community.
Response: The structure, both its original building and the portion of the house moved
to the property, meet the criteria for being more than 50 years old. Although significantly
altered from its original state, the structure has maintained its historic integrity, and is
unique because of its location in relation to the original townsite and other historical
buildings. The east end of the city contains rare examples of remaining Victorian homes,
many of which are more modest than the buildings seen in the West End. 2 Willjams
Way is all that remains of a neighborhood that can be seen in a c.1893 photo taken from
Smuggler Mountain. Further, the isolation of the structure from other existing Victorian
homes in the east end makes 2 Willjams Way a unique setting.
Section 26.76.090(c), The HPC evaluation process is as follows: Structures on the
inventory shall be categorized as to whether or not they are historic landmarks. No
further action need be taken x~ith respect to historic landmarks. All structures which are
not historic landmarks shall be evaluated by the HPC as to their current architectural
integrity, historic significance and community and neighborhood influence and
categorized accordingly, as follows:
A. Significant All those resources which are considered Exceptional, Excellent, or
those resources individually eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. All structures or sites within the City of Aspen, which are listed
on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be
reviewed according to the "Secretary of the Interior' s Standards for
Rehabilitation" in addition to the review standards of Section 26.72.010 and
26.72.020.
Response: The structure does not meet this standard.
B. Contributing. All those historic or architecturally significant resources that do not
meet the criteria for Significant; provided, however, these resources have
maintained their historic integrity or represent unique architectural design.
2
Response: The structure does not meet this standard.
C. Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity,
however, are "retrievable" as historic structures (or sims). These structures have
received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort
could be cons~dered Contributing once again.
Response: The structure qualifies as a Supporting historic resource. Although the
structure that is original to the site has been significantly altered, the structure still retains
historic qualities. Further, the fact that the east portion of the structure that was moved to
the property remains intact and has maintained its historic integrity, coupled with the
unique location of structure, creates the potential for the property to become Contributing.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council add 2 Williams Way to
the Historic Sites and Structures Inventory.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.[__~, Series of 1999,
on 1s' Reading, adding 2 Williams Way to the Historic Sites and Structures Inventory,
finding that the criteria for a Supporting structure has been met."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance No. ~ ~ , Series of 1999
Exhibit "A" - Current photograph of property
Exhibit "B' - Historic Architectural/Building Structure Form
Exhibit "C" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "D" - Minutes from HPC Meeting, April 14, 1999
ORDINANCE N0. X_~
(SERIES OF 1999)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
ADDITION OF SAID PROPERTY TO THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES
AND STRUCTURES, WHERE SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2
WILLIAMS WAY, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, certain red property located at 2 Williams Way, a parcel of land
situated in the Southeast ¼ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th
P.M., City of Aspen, is being considered for addition to the Inventory of Historic Sites
and Structures; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.76.090 of the Municipal Code, to qualify for
the inventory, a structure must be at least fifty (50) years old; and,
VCHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of
the addition; and
WltEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of the addition of the property to the inventory by a vote of 7-0
on April 14, 1999; and,
V(HEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of the addition of said property to the inventory by a vote of 4-0
on May 4, 1999; and,
V',rHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the addition of 2
Williams Way to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, has reviewed and
considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, the
Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows.'.
Ordinance No. __~ Series of 1999
Page 1
Section 1:
That 2 Williams Way as described above is hereby added to the Inventory of Historic
Sites and Structures.
Section 2:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not oiocrate as an abatemere
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
mended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the day of June 1999 a~ 5:00 pm in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of May, 1999.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
Ci~IA~orney John BenneR, Mayor
O~in~ceNo.,_,Seriesl999
P~e2
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of June, 1999.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City A~orney John Benne~,Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Ordinance No.._., Series 1999
Page 3
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM
State Site Number: Local Site Number:
Photo Information:
Township 10 South Range 84 West Section 7
USGS Quad Name A~pen Year 1960 X 7.5'
Building or Structure
Name: None
Full Street Address: 0002 Wi]]iam's Way
Legal Description: SW 1/4 of ~ection 7, Townshlp'10 ~, Rsnge 84 W of the
6th P.M.
City Aspen County Pitkin
Historic DistriCt/Neighborhood Name: None
OWner: Private/State/Federal Private
OWner's Mailing Address: 2 William's Way
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Building Type: Residential
Architectural Style: Miner's cottages (2~;jolned together
Dimensions: L: __ x W: __'= Square Feet: 2017(per ~994 survey)
Number of Stories:
Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): irregular; east side is gable w~th
side wSng and west side is side gable; two separate house joined
together in ]ate 1950s or early 1960s
Landscaping or Special Setting Features: atypical setting (off the
gr~d, iso]ated from other historic houses}, several'large pine trees are
on the property
Associated Buildings, Features or Objects Describe Material and
Function (map number / name): no longer e~ist; bar~ and outhouse used
to be present
For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in
the description as appropriate:
Roof: wood shingle; verge board in gable end on east side of ho~se
Walls: wood frame, clapboards
Foundation / Basement: concrete
Chimney(s): no chimney visible
Windows: plain, no embel]ishment; set of ribbon windows, but probably
not hi~torlc; 1 window has decorated verge board over window; windows on
west section of house are non-traditional, triangular shape
Doors: glazed, slmp]e casing in east side door and glass psnel the
length of the door; west side door glazed with stained glass and panels
in the bottom
Porches: large front porch; covers the ewtent of the front of the
house; porch i~ covered over a small part of the west side of the house
and i's ~upported by t~rned spindles
Page 2 of 3 State Site Number
Local Site # 00~2.ww
General Architectural Description: West part of house was built ~n
1R80's by John Warkentin. This hoarse .~hows up on the I896 W~]l~t'~ map
and is st~ll ~n its original location. The e~t house was moved to the
s~te from town, e~ther Madge ,qoderstrum's house from East Durant, Mabel
Beckerman's house 'from Ma~n Street or Loe~ Ringqu~st's house (photo
attached~. See l,en Shoemaker's Ploneer's of the Roaring Fork. J~m
Marka]una.~' mother, aunts a~d uncles were born ~n the house. The west
side of the hou.~e has more contemporary features than the east s~de of
the house.
FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Curren~ Use: Resldent~s] (duplex) Architect: none
Original Use: same Builder: unknown
Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 3880's
Actual X Estimate _Assessor
~ased On: ~tyle
MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS
Minor * Moderate * M~jor * Moved X Date *
Describe Modifications and Date: Ea.~t ~ide of current house wan moved
to the s~te and integrated with existing structure; s~gnif~csnt exterior
mod~flcat~on~ ~nc]ud~ng triangular windows, estimated date of addition
c~ house ~s late 19~0s or early ]960s
Additions and Date: see above
NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
__ Is listed on __ National Register; State Register
__ Is eligible for_ National Register; State Register
Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B __ C __ D E _
Map
Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation
~ ] Significant: Listed on or.is eligible for National Register
/1 Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or
architectural integrity.
O X Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations,
however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort.
Locally Designated Landmark
Page 3 of 3 State Site Number
Local Site Number__*
Justify Assessment: *
Associated Contexts and Historical Information: ,'
Other Recording Information
Specific References to the Structure/Building: P~t~i~ Co~nty Court-
hoarse Records;
Archaeological Potential: Y (Y or N) Justify: other structures
property have been removed; site was ~sed for some agricultural use
(i.e. anlma]s ~ept on site)
Recorded By: Sarah Oates, Planning Technician
Date: February 9, 1999
~ffiliation: Aspen [~storlc Preservation Commission - City of Aspen
Project Manager: Amy Guthrje, Nistorlc Preservation Officer/Planner
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF.
APRIL 14, 1999
· Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Members in attendance were Roger Moyer, Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch,
Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland, Christie Kienast, Maureen McDonald
and Jeffrey Halferty. Lisa Markalunas was excused. Staff in attendance
were Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer; Historic PreServation Officer,
Amy Guthrie; Sara Oates, Planning Technician and Chief Deputy City
Clerk, Kathleen Strickland.
MOTION.' Roger moved to approve the minutes of March l Oth and April
7th minutes; second by Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried
Disclosure
Suzannah stated that she is friends with the owners of 2 Williams Way and
they had a brief discussion on the implications but very general.
Amy stepped down on 1B4 W. Hopkins.
Heidi stepped down. on 2 Williams Way also.
834 W. HALLAM, EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
MOTION.' Roger moved to extend conceptual approval for 834 ~ Hallam
until April 26, 2000; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried
2 WILLIAMS WAY, INVENTORY, PUBLIC HEARING
Suzarmah recused herself.
Heidi recused herself.
Christie seated.
Maureen seated.
The affidavit &posting was presented to the attorney.
Sara informed the board that City Cotmoil requested that staff look into
placing 0002 Willjams Way on the Inventory of Historic Structures. The
west side of the property is in its original location and built around 1885.
The east side of the property with the gable was moved to the site at some
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 14. 1999
point in the 1960's and the two houses were combined. Scott Hicks and
Maureen Kinney own the property. 50 years old is the age that a property
can begin to be considered historically significant. Properties have to be
unique or have special value to the community. It is the only structure that
remains in that neighborhood.
Staff recommends to add this property onto the inventory due to its unique
character.
Sworn in were Scott Hicks and Maureen Kinney, owners of the property.
Scott stated that they contest the listing on the inventory due to practical and
philosophical opinions. The owners believe in the mission of the HPC and
historic preservation in Aspen. If they were intending to do a large scale
development to this project they would want to appear in front of the HPC
and oversee the process. They have no intention of doing such development
and have no interest in being under the thumb of another government entity
telling them how to add a window or change a gable in the roof. One of
Scott's concern is why all of a sudden today we are deciding that the house
is historical. HPC has been in existence for over 25 years and over that 25
year period this structure was never added to the inventory.
During the negotiations on the sale of the Aley property Jake Vickery
stepped in and brought up the question of whether or not this home should
be on the historical inventory. He had spent many months trying to
purchase this property for development. Jim Markalunas's aunt lived in the
property that was moved to this site. He also felt that the historical nature
should be reviewed.
Scott feels the current home does not meet the standards that are listed in
the memorandum. The house has been significantly modified with
triangular windows. They would potentially like to put gables in the other
end of the roof as it is in keeping with the current character of the property
and that is a decision they can make on their own. On the east side of the
building which is the building that was moved to the property in the 1960's
the city was aware of the property and did not list it at that point as an
historical structure. The property was in the city and then moved to the
county. Political wind shifting is dictating whether or not this is an
2.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF.
APRIL 14, 1999
historical structure. The middle part that connects the historic west and the
east was built in the 1960's. It comprises at least 50% of the current square
footage which is 2,000. There are two original doors remaining on the
original structure and no original doors on the structure that was moved t0
the property. Of over 20 windows there is only one original window. That
indicates that there has been quite a change to the property. Jim Reeser who
worked for Tri-Cor Corporation in the early 60's had his office in the
structure. The structure was'then used as a structure for the Hunter Creek
Association. Then the county stepped in and bought the property and it was
never listed as historical. Then the county exchanged the property for some
mining claims on Smuggler Mtn. Maxwell gave up his mining claims and
got the one acre parcel in town with the property as it is today around 1990.
The property was then armexed into the City. The property is segregated
from the original townsite. The property is resident occupied and deed
restricted affordable employee housing in the unit that they live in. The one
bedroom is category four. In the memo it indicated that the property would
be a supporting structure. The way it is written puts fear in the homeowners
when it is written that the structures have received substantial alterations
over the years; however, with substantial effort could be considered
contributing once again. The owners are hesitant to be under city
bureaucracy as they are already under employee housing guidelines. They
sold some of the property to the City for the park and gave 7,000 square feet
as an easement to the city so that they had a realistic size park that could be
used for the area. The owner feels this house is an issue due to the politics
of the day. The owners requested again that their house not be listed.
David informed the Board and owners that I{PC is not the final deciding
body on this matter.
Amy relayed to the I-{PC that the last time the inventory was done was in
1991 and the property was annexed into the city in 1992. The inventory
will be updated next fall and that is why it is not presently on the inventory.
CLARIFICATIONS
The maximum square footage is about 7,700 square feet based on a duplex.
The historic landmark lot split does not apply to this zone district. A code
amendment could be brought forward.
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF.
APRIL 14, 1999
If the property is not on the inventory it could be demolished.
H?C members felt that the house should be on the inventory even though
there have been numerous changes. Other historic houses have had
extensive changes. in the past. They felt that the site retains some of
Aspen's history and the nature of how the houses were moved there. It has
been altered significantly. Members feared what Could or would happen to
the house if it was not on the inventory. A lot has been ruined because we
did not have HPC sooner. It is the only house like it in that area and is very
picturesque. The house would be picked up on the inventory next year. It
wasn't on the county inventory because there is none but next year a county
inventory will exist. Being on the inventory and living in an historic house
is a thing of pride and the homes are maintained. HPC is trying to make the
process easier with the design guidelines. Members felt that the house
contributes to the quality of Aspen and the character that we would like to
preserve. Possibly future owners would not share Scott's philosophy.
It is important to protect the assets while we can. Government review is not
onerous and the owner gets a better project.
Maureen asked if the house is deed restricted or RO that maybe city council
should look at some leniency on the part of the housing authority that any
improvements go to the base value.
Scott said the burden should be on the property owner if they go to the
Building Dept. and request to tear down a wall they should be directed to
HPC. The end result should not be on trying to keep the house from being
demolished. Incremental steps on the process need addressed rather adding
all these homes to the inventory so landowners are under the thumb of
government.
Maureen Kinney spoke about her dedication to this house and the fact that
they will never demolish it. It is her dream house and it has been a struggle
to purchase the house.
Gilbert stated that the fact that the house is on the inventory doesn't compel
the owner to exert the effort in restoration the house. What it does is protect
the house so that that possibility always exists.
4
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF,
APRIL 14, 1999
MOTION: Mary moved to recommend approval of adding 0002 Williams
Way to the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures to City Council,
Finding that the criteria for a Supporting structure has been met,' second by
Christie. All in favOr, motion carried 7-0.
Yes vote: Roger, Gilbert, Mary, Susan, Jeffrey, Christie, Maureen
Mary relayed to the applicant that research indicates that historic properties
only get more valuable.
The Board felt that possibly relief in the fees charged could be explored.
531 E. COOPER- MINOR DEVELOPMENT
Stephan Kanipe, Chief Building Official stated that there was extensive
work done in the four apartments on the interior only by Tanner
Construction. He doesn't know who did the brick work.
Roger stated that there is a major violation to an historic building and it
could cause structural damage. The exterior brick needs removed and
repaired. He relayed that he tried to call the contractors but there was no
answer.
Suzannah stated that there are two issues: The issue of having the work
done without a permit. The other issue is how do we get remediation for the
work that was done in terms of the historic building.
Roger felt that there was a third issue: If you have a contractor working on
an historic building maybe we need to look at masonry contractors going
through a training.
Stephen stated that the department is headed toward that particular training.
David Hoefer, city attorney stated that staff will investigate and report back
to HPC.
5
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Margerum ~
DATE: May 6, 1999
RE: National Land Trust Request for Funds
SUMMARY: The Land Trust Alliance is requesting a $2,500 grant from
Council to support the Land Trust Alliance's 1999 Land Trust Rally being
held in Colorado. (See attached.)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve a grant
of $500 from Council's contingency fund.
...................... 6'~z :~.~
. ~;,. ~.~..
'-
Office of~e Aspen City M~ager :: .: ...:':~;~T~v'
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO g16! 1 ....... TL. ======================== ·
De~ Ms. Margemm:
I m pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Aspen requesting a $2,500 grant in support of the
L~d Trust Alliance (L FA)'s 1999 National Land Trust Rally, being held tMs ye~ in Colorado,
October 14-17.
The Land Trust Alli~ce is ~ umbrella organintion thin provides support seB, ices tbr more than 1200
l~d ~sts nationwide. L~d ~sts -- local, regional. or statewide non-profit org~izations directly
involved in protecting l~d -- ~e well positioned to play unique roles in the consedation ~d
stewedship of the co~'s wildlife habitat, greenbelts, working l~scapes. watexshcds, and urban
open spaces. T~ough the use oF conses'ation easements and other tec~iques, open l~dS can be
protecied by ~ese grassroots co~uni~, org~izations.
The 1999 National Land Trust Rally will bring together land trust practitioners from across the count~.
Through a series of workshops, seminars, and field trips, participants will learn the most cu~ent land
conservation techniques. Rally provides a unique opportunity for land trusts to network with each other.
and its broad appeal is evidenced by the continuous gro~h in anendance from year to year. Rally helps
maintain the effectiveness of the land trust community because it provides the oppo~unity to gain critical
infomation, particularly those with limited resources.
Rally '99 promises t0 be an exciting event. Through a broad scope of educational events and workshops,
auendees, including LTA's government paRners, will benefit tremendously. Given the widespread suppo~
land ~usts receive from the Colorado communi~, hlly '99 will be a high visibility event with ample
oppo~unity for co~omte recognition and publicity.
We appreciate ~e oppomni~ to submit this propos~ to ~e City of Aspen ~d hope for your favorable
consideration. If you have ~y questions, please call me at (202) 638-4725. Th~ you again for your
consideration of ~is request.
Sipcerely,
P
Vice President of Development
131g F STREET NW SUITE 501 WASHINGTON, DC 20004.1106 202-638-4725 FAX 202-638-4730 WWW.LTA.Oi~G
A proposaltothe
City ofAspen
in support of the
1999 National Land Trust Rally
March 18, 1999
Contact:
John Chappell
Vice President
of Development
(202) 638-4725
1319 F STREET NW SUITE 501 WASHINGTON, DC 20004.1106 202-638.4725 FAX 202.638.4730 WWW.LTA,ORG
SUMMARY
At the suggestion of Will Shafroth of The State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust
Fund, the Land Trust Alliance (LTA) respectfully requests the City &Aspen to consider a
$2,500 grant in support of its 1999 National Land Trust Rally (Rally '99). Rally '99 will be
held in Snowmass, Colorado, on October 14-17. We are also approaching Snowmass and Pitkin
Counties for support.
LTA's annual National Land Trust Rally provides an opportunity for land trust practitioners from
across the country to learn and share the most current land conservation techniques through a
variety of workshops, fieldtrips, and seminars. In addition, Rally '99 is an excellent opportunity
for the City of Aspen to partner with LTA and publicize its leadership role in land conservation
to employees, local businesses, and the Aspen community.
ORGANIZATIONALBACKGROUND
The Land Trust Alliance is the leader and support organization for the nation's local and regional
private land conservation groups kno~:n as land trusts. Founded in 1982 by a handful of land
trust practitioners, LTA's mission is to address land trusts' common need for leadership,
networking, intbrmation, technical assistance, and more effective public policy. Fulfilling this
mission will ensure that land trusts have the skills and resources the>, need to can3, out their land
protection work on a sustainable basis.
LTA operates from a 23-person office in Washington, DC, plus small field offices in the'states of
Colorado, New York, and Washington. The organization is governed by a 19-p&rson Board of
Directors with strong ties to community land conservation. LTA's budget, $3.6 million this year,
is supported by hundreds of member land trusts, as well as by foundations, corporations,
individual donors, and program revenue. LTA provides an array of unique programs and
services for land trusts, including computerized Information Services, a library. of land
conservation literature, comprehensive national and regional training for land trust practitioners,
a quarterly journal of land conservation, and the promotion of public policies to advance the
voluntary land conservation movement. (Several &these programs are described more fully in
the attached material.)
When LTA was established, there were approximately 430 land trust organizations in the United
States. Today, the number is more than 1,200, about half of which are led solely by volunteers.
As an umbrella organization, LTA serves a very broad constituency, from small, volunteer,
grassroots land trusts to large, staff-driven organizations with international influence. Member
land trusts are geographically diverse and reside in every state of the union except Oklahoma.
LTA serv'ices are used not only by its members but by federal, state, and local government
agencies.
2
GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
Local governments across the country have partnered directly with land trusts to bolster efforts to
conserve more than 4.7 million acres of wetlands and wildlife habitat, greenways and trails,
productive forests and farms, and fragile ualural areas. Land trusts, in particular, are becoming
increasingly important to the quality of life and environmental health of America's communities.
In Colorado, which has a distinguished history of land protection, there are 29 land trusts that
collectively have conserved more than 95,953 acres of open space! As the land trust
movement spreads throughout the state, the value of partnership with municipalities and local
governments increases, both for the corporation and the community it serves.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
"Rally '99 will be a tremendous awareness-enhancer in Colorado,
bringing big picture land conservation to the media statewide and
building credibility of small local land trusts that are a part of this
bigger picture. Hopefully every Colorado land trust will be able to send
representatives to Snowmass. "
Kathy Roser, Past President, Cotorado Coalition of Land Trusts
LTA's National Land Trust Rally brings together conse~'ation practitioners and retated
professionals from across the country,. Each year LTA varies the location of its Rally to help
land trusts' staff.. volunteers, and board members in different areas of the country to more easily
attend the conference and to expose more land trusts to the innovative approaches taken to land
conservation in various regions.
The National Land Trust Rally is unique in that:
· it is the only conference &its size and geographic diversit>,' held in the United States
for land trust professionals;
· it is multi-disciplinary in its course offerings to meet a broad range of land
practitioner needs; and
· it brings together land trust practitioners, and federal, state, and local conservationists.
In 1985, the premier National Land Trust Rally offered approximately 20 workshops and three
field trips for 247 attendees. Rally '99, with an anticipated 1,100 attendees, has expanded well
beyond these numbers, demonstrating the growth of America's land trusts and this need for
-. increased services.
3
LTA's 1999 National Land Trust Rally will offer:
· 12 day-long seminars to cover fundamental topics in-depth, including ta.x strategies
for land conservation, effective negotiation skills, planned giving techniques, staff
dynamics, organizational development, maintaining and protecting conservation
easements, and a course for executive directors;
· over 100 shorter workshops on land protection tools and strategies, organizational
development, fundraising, public-private partnerships, land stewardship, and
community outreach;
· more than 20 educational field trips to some of Colorado's protected areas; and
· a networking opportunity for volunteers, staff, and board members of small, isolated
land trusts, which participants. have cited as one of Rally's most important benefits.
In short, Rally '99 will provide land trust professionals from across the country an opportunity to
network with each other, gather current, technical information through targeted workshops, and
gain hands-on knowledge of various working land trusts thorough a variety of field trips.
THE NEED
The budget'for LTA's 1999 National Land Trust Rally totals $447,445 (artached~.. While fees
and field trip revenue cover a significant portion of these costs, LTA must also rely on outside
funding to keep the Rally's basic registration affordable for all land trusts, while still providing
an outstanding conference uniquely aimed at a variety of needs.
A successful National Land Trust Rally will also benefit meeting participants and the community
in a variety of ways. With education as the central focus of the event, attendees will acquire the
skills necessary to address current land trust management issues, and therefore become more
autonomous and efficient This in turn will allow individual land trusts to be more responsive to
the needs of businesses and communities in Colorado and throughout the country committed to
land conservation.
GOVERNMENT PARTNER BENEFITS
As a Rally '99 GoVernment Partner at the $2,500 level, the City &Aspen will receive a
number of benefits, including publicity through LTA's publications and its Web site .
(www.lta.org), recognition in the Rally '99 program and LTA's Annual Report, and the
opportunity to utilize corporate exhibit space and to have its partnership displayed at key
4
locations throughout the Rally. A complete listing of sponsorship opportunities is appended to
this letter.
Additional benefits may be negotiated.
CONCLUSION
The 1999 National Land Trust Rally will be the largest, most comprehensive educational event
of its kind dedicated solely to the nation's land trusts. Rally brings together practitioners from
small, grassroots organizations as well as those from broad-based, national and international
organizations. Workshops and field trips at Rally '99 will provide extensive netwoi'king and
learning opportunities for all participants.
Rally '99 will provide sponsois a unique opportunity to demonstrate their environmental
leadership to a wide range of constituents through the use of LTA's public relations and
communications network. We hope the City of Aspen wilI look favorably upon our request for a
$2,500 grant to support this important event.
Attachments
Sponsorship Benefits
2. Rally '99 Budget
3. LTA 1997,4nnuaiReport
4. IRS Ruling Letter
5. Board of Directors
6. 1998 Land Trust Census Summary
7. LTA Key Staff Listing
8. L TA Landscape
9. Exchange
I0. List of Colorado Land Trusts
11. Rally '98 Program
M]~K)IL~UIVl
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, Qty Manager
THRU: Jeff Woo&, Parks Director
FROM: John D. Krueger, Trails Coordinato~fl'
DATE: April 29, 1999
RE: Resolution
Contract Approval for the 1999 Tr~il~ Improvement Program
CC: John Worcester, City Attorney
Tabat. ha Miller, Finance Director
SUMI~IARY: The Parks Depa~Lment is requesting Council approval of a contract with
Aspen Eartlwnoving LLC for the 1999 Trails Improvement Program. The 1999 Trails
Improvement Program includes numerous trail improvement projects around Aspen.
Specifically, fault), sections of trail will be removed and repaired and several new crusher fine
,type trails will be constructed.
The attached resolution and contract is between the City of Aspen and Aspen
Earthmoving LLC for the necessary, trail work. This contract is a time and material contract
sireliar to the one used the last two years. The budget for this year's work under this
contract is approximately $65,000.00. Work is currently scheduled for the following tr~il~
GoLf Course Trail
Ron Krajian Bridge Deck Replacement
Lot 44 West End Subdivision-Red Butte Trail Connection
Alpine Cottages Connector Trail to Snyder Park
Seal Coating of Asphalt Trails
This trail maintenance work needs to be performed this year to provide a safe trail system to
all users and provide some new trail connections to City property
DISCUSSION: This trail work is done every year as part of the annual maintenance
program performed on the ~ail system, This contract was formally bid. The bids were
evaluated and the successful bidder selected according to City policy.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The contract for the 1999 Trails Improvement Program is
part of the Parks Depa~huent Budget and the AMP for 1999 and. approved by the AFC
committee. The cost of the tmil~ program will be approximately $65,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION: The Parks Depa~l,~Lent Staff recommends the approval of the
resolution and contract for the 1999 Trails Improvement Prograr~
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #-,A% ,Seriesof1999, which
approves a contract been the City of Aspen and Aspen Earthmoving LLC and which
authorizes the City Manager to execute said document(s) on behalf of the City of Aspen".
C1TY MANAGER COMMENTS:
2
RESOLUTION #~,~
(Series of 1999)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND ASPEN EARTHMOVING LLC. SETTING
FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and ASPEN EARTHMOVING LLC. a
copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council, of the city of Aspen, hereby approves that contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Aspen Earthmoving LLC, regarding
the 1999 Trails Improvement Program, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of
Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
John S. Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that
the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the city of Aspen; Colorado, at a meeting held
· 1999.
-. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
(Time and Material)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on April 28, 1999, by and between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, hereinafter called the "City", and Aspen Earthmoving,
hereinafter called the "Contractor".°
WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the law,
specifications and other Contract Documents for the work herein described, and has approved
and adopted said documents, and has caused to be published, in the manner and for the time
required by law, an advertisement, for the project: 1999 TRAILS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,
and,
WHEREAS, the Contractor, in response to such advertisement, or in response to direct
invitation, has submitted to the City, in the manner and at the time specified, a sealed Bid in
accordance with the terms of said Invitation for Bids; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined,
and canvassed the Bids submitted in response to the published Invitation for Bids therefore,
and as a result of such canvass has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest
responsible and responsive bidder for the said Work and has duly awarded to the Contractor a
Contract For Construction therefore, for the sum or sums set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payments and Contract for Construction
herein mentioned:
1. The Contractor shall commence and complete the construction of the Work as fully
described in the Contract Documents.
2. The Contractor shall furnish all of the materials, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and
other services necessary for the construction and completion of the Work described
herein.
3. The Contractor shall commence the work required by the Contract Documents within
seven (7) consecutive calendar days after the date of "Notice To Proceed" and will
complete the same by the date and time indicated in the Special Conditions unless the
time is extended in accordance with appropriate provisions in the Contract Documents.
4. The Owner shall pay Contractor in current funds for the Contractor's performance on a
time and material basis, subject to the not to exceed amount set forth at section 5 hereof.
The time and material charges shall be based upon Contractor's Time and Material Bid.
CC6-981 .doc Page 1 *'CC6
5. The Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work described in the Contract Documents
and comply with the terms therein for a sum not to exceed the unit prices the unit prices
or as shown on the BID proposal.
6. The term "Contract Documents" means and includes the documents listed in the City of
Aspen General Conditions to Contracts for Construction (version GC97-2) and in the
Special Conditions. The Contract Documents are included heroin by this reference and
made a part F~ereof as if fully set forth here.
7. The City shall pay to the Contractor in the manner and at such time as set forth in the
General Conditions, unless modified by the Special Conditions, such amounts as
required by the Documents.
8. This Contract For Construction shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein or in the Contract Documents, this Contract For
Construction shall be subject to the City of Aspen Procurement Code, Title 4 of the
Municipal Code, including the approval requirements of Section 4-08-040. This
agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the City Manager.
or the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence)
following a resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor or City
Manager (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) to execute the same.
9. This agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the City and the Contractor respectively and their agents, representatives,
employees. Successors, assigns, and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the
Contractor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet his or her interest or
obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party.
10. This agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant
to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom the Contractor or the City may
assign this Contract For Construction in accordance with the specific written consent, any
rights to claim damages or to bring suit, action or other proceeding against either the City
or the Contractor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms,
covenants, agreements or conditions heroin contained.
11. No waiver of default by either party of any terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be
performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a
waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions heroin
· contained, to be performe. d, kept and observed by the other party.
12. The parties agree that this Contract For Construction was ma~le in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be kept
exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
13. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this
Contract for Construction, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and
reasonable attorney's fees.
CC6-981 .doc Page 2 "*CC6
14. ' This Contract For Construction was reviewed and accepted through the mutual efforts of
the parties hereto, and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or
presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of
the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of this Contract For Construction.
15. The undersigned representative of the Contractor, as an inducement to the City to
execute this Contract For ConstructiOn, represents that he/she is an authorized
representative of the Contractor for the purposes of executing this Contract For
Construction and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Contract
For Construction for the terms and conditions specified herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have executed this Contract For
Construction on the date first above written.
ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By:
Title:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Parks Department City Attorney
/: ~7 "':"""-
ATTESTED BY:
;"""' ............. '
Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Contractor is a Corporation. If a
partnership, the Contract shall be Signed by a Principal and indicate title.
· CC6-981 .doc Page 3 "CC6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council ~/
k
FROM: Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planner
DATE: May 4, 1999
RE: Approval of the Part I Design Build Contract for the Community Campus
Master Plan Improvements
CC: John Worcester, City Attorney
SUMMARY: On November 24, 1998 the City Council had granted approval of the
Community Campus Master Plan. The components of the Community Campus Master
Plan are as follows:
Moore Playing Fields
· 1 new baseball field
· 1 new soccer field
· 1 new softball field
· native area restoration and new wetlands
Rotary Park
· 1 new softball field
· 1 new soccer field
· new picnic areas and overlooks
· connection to Iselin Park
Iselin Park (note: The Pool/Ice facility is under a separate contract)
· - · 1 reconstructed softball field
· 1 new soccer field
, . · 1 new parking lot
Aspen School District Campus
· new school bus drop-off area and parking
· 3 new pedestrian/nordic overpasses
· new pedestrian walkways and planting
· 1 reconstructed soccer field and track
At this time we are requesting you to authorize Part I of the Design/Build Contract
for the amount of $264,643.00. Part I of the Design/Build contract covers detailed
design services for each of the above Components as outlined in Exhibit A.
The Parks Department has selected the Design Build Team of Randall &BIake, Inc., of
Denver, and DHM, Inc., of Carbondale, for Part I of the Design Build Contract. The staff
selection committee based their decision on the overall Design Build Team's design and
construction experience, the proposed fee structure, and the teams past working
relationship§.
Staff has chosen a Design Build format for the Community Campus Improvements based
on the following:
1. A Design Build format is more time efficient and cost effective due to
the fact that the contractor is involved with design decisions from the
beginning of the design process, and can implement a constant value
engineering process often resulting in construction cost savings.
2. The selection of a contractor for the Part II Design Build agreement
requires less time than a traditional bidding process.
3. There is a considerable cost savings (up to 6% of the total project
budget) associated with project management costs due to the fact that
the consulting design project manager shares the costs of construction
administration and construction observation with the contractor.
4. Detailed construction drawings are not necessary because the contractor
is involved early on in the design process requiring less time for the
production of construction documents.
5. A strong partnership between the contractor and design team results in a
higher quality product and allows a greater degree of flexibility
between all the project team members.
BACKGROUND: In December of 1997 the Parks and Recreation Departments
initiated The Community Campus Master Planning Process. The main Goal of the
2
Community Campus Master Plan was to revitalize the Iselin and Rotary Park areas while
integrating the entire school campus and the Moore Playing Fields into a comprehensive
Community Campus. Critical pedestrian and auto connections were studied and a plan
was developed for a safer and more efficient layout. The Master Plan recommends
eliminating the automobile and busses from the school core to create a safer and more
pedestrian friendly campus, which is linked together by new trail systems and pedestrian
overpasses. The design team realized that the tree potential of the various sites could be
enhanced by creatirXg a plan, which captivates the essence of this sims dramatic
surroundings. This area is truly a gateway to one of the most cherished landscapes in the
Country, and we feel that the proposed master plan will dramatically improve on the
facilities we already have, and create new recreational facilities that our residents and
guests will use and enjoy in the immediate future.
In order to design the Community Campus so that it truly met the broad needs of the
community, a Citizen's Task Force was appointed by Council. The Task Force was
empowered by Council to make recommendations on improvements to The Community
Campus including analyzing the surrounding open spaces for recreational opportunities,
aesthetic and environmental enhancements, and evaluating possible traffic/transit and
pedestrian improvements.
The Community Campus Master Plan has been presented to a multitude of groups for the
last 8 months. We have worked closely with the Aspen School District, the Maroon
Creek Caucus, sports and recreation groups, the Hines Corporation, and many other
various user groups from passive to active. Staff has presented the Master Plan to City
and County Officials and almost every City related organization such as the Rotarian's,
the Senior Citizens and ACRA, all of which have shown a strong support for the Plan.
DISCUSSION: With the passage of the Revenue Bond on Tuesday Staff is prepared
to proceed with the Part I design services for Implementing the Community Campus
Master Plan Improvements. The Moore Playing fields Component is the first phase of
the Community Campus Improvements Project. Design Work (As per the Meadowood
legal agreement) will begin immediately following Council Approval with an anticipated
construction completion date set for the spring of 2000. Staff has prepared detailed
schematic drawings for the Moore Playing Fields and it is our intention to hire RBI, Inc.
and DHM for Part II of the agreement (mid June) after a more detailed construction cost
estimate is prepared. The following is a tentative schedule for the other phases of work: ::
3
This is the construction schedule (PART II of the Design Build Contract)
Project Construction start Construction finish Budget
Moore Playing Fields spring 1999 spring 2000 $1,000,000
Rotary Park (const. staging area) summer 2001 fall 2001 $500,000
Iselin Park spring 2000 fall 2000 $500,000
Aspen District School Campus spring 2000 spring 2001 $1,000.000
Total=S3,000,000
Note: Approximately 9% of the total budget ($3,000,000) is allocated for design fees and
project management costs (Part I Costs).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Design Build Team of RBI~ Inc. and DHM,
Inc. propose to complete the Scope of Services covered under the Part I Agreement for
the not-to-exceed price of Two-hundred Sixty-four Six-hundred Forty-three
Thousand Dollars, ($264,643.00). The May 4th Revenue Bond Election allocates
$7,000,000.00 toward the Community Campus Improvements. $3,000,000.00 will be
used for Parts I and II of the Design Build agreement for site design and construction as
outlined in the SLIMMARY section above. The remaining $4,000,000.00 will be used
for the design and construction of the new Moore swimming pool which wilt be under a
separate contract. Please see a detailed cost breakdown for each phase of work for Part I
of the Contract (Exhibit A).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending Council approval of the Part One
Design Build Agreement for Design services for each phase of the Community Campus
Master Plan Improvements as outlined above.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Part I Design Build Agreement
between the City of Aspen and The Design Build Team of Randal and Blake, Inc. and
DHM, Inc. for design services for the Community Campus Master Plan for a not to
exceed amount of Two-hundred Sixty-four Six-hundred Forty-three Thousand
Dollars ($264,643.00).
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Exhibit A- Breakdown of Part I costs for design services for each
phase of the Community Campus Master Plan.
Exhibit B - Resolution #4 Series of 1999
Exhibit C - Part One Agreement for Design/Build Project
Exhibit D - Insurance Certificate
,85/~/99 13:36 N0.588
'..
"EXHIBIT "A"
PART I DEGIGUIgUIT, D CONTRACT
Exhibit
FeD Propanel Summary Bid Form
NauJahr &
M~oore Playing Flalde NOI OHM GGM END Dotmen AIrman TOTAL
She Inventory 2,780 1 .S 42 600 SO0 6~ S. 122
S~hematic ~s~. 9~00 ~BOO 2.1DO T.O~O 16.500
Subtotal 22,49D 12,362 6,120 2,~D SQO ],SOD 45,572
ReToty Park
She ~enforV 1.825 1.332 1,200 ~0 4,857
S:hemet~Oes~te 9,28~ :2.016 2.44a 1,000 24.736
Oes~gn DevdQpm~t 8.680 6.eO0 2.600 5OO 2,000 20,480
E~pen;es 1.3OO ~
Subrole1 2t,O;5 20.4~8 6.140 2.OQO~ 2.000 5%673
IHlin PI~
Site I~vento~ 3,20Q 1,3~2 1.200 5,7~2
Schemetic Deign 9,930 11.678 2,440 600 24,546
Design Dayelement 9,680 8.8Og 2.500 5DO 2.000 21.480
~total 24,010 ~0,158 6,140 tooa 2.000
~ChOOI Campus
Site Inventory 2,2D0 1,332 2.400 Z.5DG
Schematic Des~ 14,400 28,348 7.800 a.5~
oe$i;~oe~lQ;m~ 9,640 18.220 7.800 10,500 2,500 48,6;Q
l.tDO ~ 1.55Q
$ubt~tal 27,440 ~6,250 I8,OOO f9,500 Z. 50O
GRAND TOTAL 95,625 99.216 3~.aOO 5,O0O 2O.OOO 9,OOO; 254.543
ASSUMPTIONS:
P~ki~g Ioz ~l Nidl ~ Moore Plgy~g f~l~s dex~ned J~d ce~lt~cled ~T
Electrical e~ineer~ b eat ~6cl/ted
WellNAil ~cluded M iae~ F~IdS pre~ct only, eat N plr~Xint for wetlzndl ~clud~d
NO Structural design for W~l)l b ~clu~d
Geotothnic;I ~veltiglTi~ 6Pl Npotting b not
Signora. ;~ ~ & site ~9 IT Ise~ Rec~eiin Center ire ~t ~ded k thl above
(Series of 1999)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND RANDALL & BLAKE, INC.. SETTING FORTH THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS REGARDING THE PHASE ONE AGREEMENT FOR
DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the
City of Aspen, Collarado and Randall and Blake Inc. a copy of which contract is
annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between
the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Randall & Blake Inc., regarding the Part One
Agreement for Design/Build Services a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said
contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
John S. Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
tree and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ,1999.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ':
05/04/~9 15:25 RBI LITTLETON ~ 197B~285128 N0.122 POO2x006
Exhibit C
PART ONE AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN/BUILD PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on May 501999, by and between
the CiTY OF ASPEN, Colorado, heroinafter called the "City', and Randall&
Blake. Inc. URBI), heroinafter called the "Design/Builder.
WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the
faw, specifications and other Contract Documents for the work heroin described,
and has appreved and adopted said documents, and has caused to be
published, in the manner and for the time required by law, an advertisement, for
the project entitled: Community Campus Master Plan, and,
WHEREAS, the Design/Builder, in response to such advertisement, or in
response to direct invitation, has submitted to the City, in the manner and at the
time specified, a sealed proposal in accordance with the terms of said Invitation
for Proposals; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law. has publicly
opened, examined, and canvassed the proposals submitted in response to the
published Invitation for Proposals therefore, and as a result of such canvass has
determined and declared that it is in the City's best interest to award to the
Design/Builder this Pan 1 Agreement therefore, for the sum or sums set forth
heroin;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payments and Part 1
Agreement heroin mentioned:
1. The Design/Builder shall commence and compJete the Work as
fuily described in the Contract Documents.
2. The Design/Builder shall furnish all of the materials, supplies, tools,
equipment, labor and other services necessary for the Work described heroin.
3. The Design/Builder shall commence the Work required by the
Contract Documents within seven (7) consecutive calendar days after the date of
"Notice To Proceed' and will complete the same by the date and time indicated
in the Special Conditions uniess the time is extended in accordance with
appropriate provisions in the Contract Documents.
05/04/9~ 15:25 RSI LITTLETON ~ 1~70~2~5128 N0.122 P005/006
4. The Design/Builder agrees to perform all of the Work described in
the Contract Documents and comply with the terms fiereln for a sum not to
.exceed two hundred and sixty four thousand and six hundred and forty fires
dollars ($264,643.00), exclusive of assumptions in Exhibit "A".
5. The term 'Contract Documents" means and includes the
documents listed in the City of Aspen General Conditions for Part 1 Deslgn/Build
Proiects, the Special Conditions. if any, and Design./Builder'S Cost Proposal (see
attached Exhibit "A"). The Contract Documents are included heroin by this
reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth here.
6. The City shall pay to the Design/Builder in the manner and at such
time as set forth in the General Conditions, unless modified by the Special
Conditions. such amounts as required by the Documents.
7. This Part 1 Agreement shall be binding upon all paffies hereto and
their respective heirs. executors, administrators, successors. and assigns.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained heroin or in the Contract
Documents, this Part 1 Agreement shall be subject to the City of Aspen
Procuremerit Code, Title 4 of the Municipal Code, including the approval
requirements of Section 4-08-040. This agreement shall not be binding upon the
City unless duly executed by the City Manager or the Mayor of the City of Aspen
(or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) following a resolution of the
Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor or City Manager (or a duly
authorized official in his/her absence) to execute the same.
8. This agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the
benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Design/Builder respectively and
their agents, representatives, employees. Successors, assigns. and legal
representatives. Neither the City nor the Design/Builder shall have the right to
assign, transfer or sublet his or her interest or obligations hereunder without the
written consent of the other party.
g. This agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to
confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom the
Design/Builder or the City may assign this Part 1 Agreement in accordance with
the specific written consent, any rights to claim damages or'to bring suit, action
or other proceeding against either the City or the Design/Builder because of any "
breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or
conditions heroin contained.
10. No waiver of default by either party of any terms. covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed; kept and observed by the other party shall be
construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms,
. . covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed
by the other party.
05/04/B~ 15:25 RBI LITTLETON ~ 1970~205128 N0.122 P00~/00~
11. The parties agree that this Part 1 Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed.
Venue is agreed to be kept exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
12. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Part I Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its
costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
13. This Part 1 Agreement was reviewed and accepted through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto, and the parties agree that no construction
shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any
alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of this
Part 1 Agreement.
14. The undersigned representative of the Design/Builder, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Part 1 Agreement, represents that he/she
is an authorized representative of the Design/Builder for the purposes of
executing this Part 1 Agreement and that hetshe has full and complete authority
to enter into this Part 1 Agreement forthe terms and conditions specified herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have executed this Part 1
Agreement on the date first above written.
A'FrESTED BY: CiTY OF ASPEN, COLOP, ADO
By:
Title:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Engineering Department City Attorney
ATTESTED BY: DESIGN/BUILDER:
05/04/9B 15:26 RBI LITTLETON ~ 1B70~205128 N0.122 P005/006
Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Design/Builder is a
Corporation, If a partnership, the Agreement shall be signed by a Principal and
indicate title.
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
(To be completed if Design/Builder is a Corporation)
STATE OF C~t-,,w, X,,, )
) ss.
CoUNTYO )
Onthis ~ .dayof ~\~tq, ,19~c{ ,before
me appeared
of
~~ ~ ~k ~ and that
the seal affixed to said instrument is the ~orate sea~ of said corporation, and
that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said ~r~ration by
authod~ of its board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged said
inst~ment to be the free act and deed of said ~rporation.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTAR~AL SEAL the day and year in this ce~ificate
first above wd~en.
Notary Public ':"
Address
Exhibit D
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council Members /
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Nick Adeh, City Engineer ~
DATE: May 5, 1999 ~
Reference: On-Call Engineering Services for Design & Construction Management Work
SUMMARY: We have advertised and interviewed several consulting engineering fn'ms who provide
professional engineering services in all aspects of municipal design and construction practices. Our
needs are in the following disciplines:
1. Street, transportation and traffic
2. Drainage and flood control
3. Water and wastewater
4. Geodetic Services (Land surveys)
5. Structural Engineering
6. Construction Management
I have attached a matrix sheet listing the consultants and the respective practice disciplines that they will
be expected to perform. Each consulting firm will be retained to perform under individual agreement.
The agreement is intended for on-call services with $0.00 commitment until a project is identified. This
practice is similar to our past agreement terms and conditions approved by the City Council in 1996.
DISCUSSION: These agreements stem from the needs of various City departments planning and
implementing capital improvement projects where professional engineering services are requirement to
produce construction drawings and bid documents and to save staff time and resources by avoiding
countless RFP efforts for individual projects.
I recommend award of professional service contracts to these firms in order to allow the City to
implement its projects professionally and with consistent quality.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: This project has no financial impact on the 1999 Asset Management
Plan and no funds are requested.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
PC: Ed Sadler, Asset Manager
Ross Soderstrom Project Engineer
~so~io~ No. A~
(series of 1999)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS TO
ENGINEEING CONSULTANTS FOR THE CITY'S DESIGN AND FIELD ENGINEERING
WORK, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council professional services agreement
for six (6) consultants for various engineering disciplines including street & transportation, drainage
and flood control, water and wastewater, geodetic engineering, structural engineering, and
constraction management.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the contract between the City of
Aspen, Colorado, and selected consultants, a list of their names and phone numbers of which is
annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreements for on-call engineering services on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated: ,1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a
meeting held ,1999.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
1999 CONSULTANT SELECTION
April 29, 1999
CONSULTANT DISCIPLINE
LONCO: Brenden Kelly or Steve F~anks @ Transportation Design
303/620-0098 Structural Design
Construction Management Services
LORiS: Pete Lods or Betsy @ 303/-!-!.~-2073Transportation
Structural Design
Construction Management Services
WRC; Andy Andrews @ 303/757-8513 Drainage Design
Construction ManagementServices
McLaughlin: Ron McLaughlin @ 303/458-5550 Water
Wastewater
Construction Management Services
SGM: Dean Gordon @ 970/945-1004 Surveying
Construction Management Services
Sopris Engineering: Yancy Nickel or Mark Geodedic Services (Land Surveying)
Beckier @ 970r704-0311 Construction Management Services
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(Under $25,000 Total Compensation Per Project)
This Agreement made and entered on the. date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF
ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and , ("Professional").
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Work Professional shall perform in a competent and professional
manner the Scope of Work as set forth at F_x'bi~)][ "A' attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a
~i~,l, en Notice to Proceed from the Cit3' and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously
as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orde~y progress of the Work in a timely
manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than
· Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the C'W~s approval, a schedule for the
perfonnance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and
which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review
and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This
schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the
Professional.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional
on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by
Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at ~hibit "B" appended hereto. Except as
otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed
$0.00. Professional shall submit, in ~irnely fashion, invoices for work performed. The Cny shal/review
such invoices and, ff they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with
Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
4. Non-Assim,.abilitv. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal
services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of
the other. Sub-Contracing, if anthorizec[, shall not relieve the Professional Of any of the responsibilities
or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responm~le to the City for
the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of
whom Shall, for this pllrpose be deelrled to be an age'flt or employee of the Professional to the extent of
the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which
may be due to any sub-conh actor.
5. Termination. The Professional or the C~, may t~rrinate this Agreement,
without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party,
specifying the effective date of the t~.~inalior~ No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the
termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys,
~i 1-971 .doc Page 1
drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant
to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall
not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of
this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments tO the Professional for the
purposes of set-off unfil such time as the exact mount of damages due the City from the Professional
may be determined.
6. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The ProfessiOnal warrants that s/he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the
Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or
person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, ~ or any
other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this
7. Independent Con~actor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understgod
by'the parties that nothing contained in this agreemere shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who
agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behs/f of the City. No agent,
employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant
of the City. City is imerested only in the results obtained under this conla~'t. The manner and means
of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by
City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and
unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional.
Professional shall be solely and entirely respom'ble for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents,
employees, servants and subcorm'actors during the performance of this co~Cu~c't. Professional shall
indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responm~ility for
payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contn'butions imposed or required under unemployment
insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and'or Professional's
employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to hereirL
8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmJess the City,
ks officers, employees, insurers, and seW-insurance pool, ~'om and against all liability, claims, and
demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily
injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind
whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or
damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is flairned to be caused in whole or in part by, the act,
omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other lank of the Professional, any
subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, represent~ve, or agent of the Professional
or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim
of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subeonia 'actor of the Professional. The
Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against,
any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the
City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs inca~rred by the City in
connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is detemfined by the final judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or clamage was caused in whole or in part by the
PSI-9?l.doc Page 2
act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the
Professional for the portion of the judgment attn'butable to such act, omission, or other fault of the
City, its officers, or employees.
9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at
its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims,
demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such
imurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law.
The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed
pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of ks
failure to procure or maintain insurance.in sufficient mounts, duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages
shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance accepUble to the City. All coverages shall
be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the
Professional portoant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary
retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous
coverage.
(i) Worlcrnen~ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the porformance of work under this contract, and
Employers' Liabili(v insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease
- policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each
employee. Evidence of ~nli~ed self-insured status may be substituted for the Workmen's
Compensation requirements of this paragraph,
(ii) Commercial General Liabili(y insurance with minimum combined single limits
of ONE MIIJ.ION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MIll.ION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and
operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage
(including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for conwactual and
employee acts), blanket corru~,-mal, independent corru~,ctors, products, and completed
operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision,
('fti) Comprehensive Automobile Liabili(y insurance with minimum combined single
limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MIII-!ON DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.1210) aggregate
with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in
performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests
provision, ff the Professional has no owned amomobiles, the requirements of this Section shall . -
be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this coiCu act.
PS1-971.doc Page 3
(iv) Professional Liabilify insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MIII ION
DOLLAKS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MtI.I,ION DOLLAKS ($1,000,000)
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's
- officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy requii'ed above shall be primary insurance,
and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any
insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contn'butory insurance to that provided by
Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall comain any
exclusion for bodily injury or property damage ariing from completed operations. The Professional
shall be solely responsible for any dadu~'ble losses under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's
insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum
limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify
this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled,
terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the
City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of co,Cuact upon
which City may immediately terminate this conlract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any
such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection
therewith, and all monies so' paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City
may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presen~y $150,000.00 per
person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as ~om time to time
mended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees.
10. Citys Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of
the Colorado Interg0vernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA
Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIKSA policies and manual are kept at the City of A~en
Finance Departmere and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City
makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall
provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIKSA.
~1-971.doc Page 4
"' 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement
contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereef and there are no
verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter
thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing.
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the
respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested,
to:
City: Professional:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street Street Aclclres$
Aspen, Colondo 81611 City, State & Zip Code
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex,
marital status,' affectional or sexual orientation, family respons~ility, national origin, ancestry, handicap,
or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract.
Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of Civfs municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining
to non-discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any t~n~, covenant, or condition hereof shall
not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other tenn. No term, covenant, or
condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the wt'itten consent of the City, and forbearance
or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not colte a waiver of any t~n~; covenant,
or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete
performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke
any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by hw despite any such forbearance or indulgence.
15. ExecutiOn of Am'eement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all
parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
16. ~ Terms.
(a) It is a~reed tl~ neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions~
conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate ~itten instrument fully executed by the parties.
Co) If any of the provisions of this agreemere shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or
limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof
P'g 1-971 .doc Page 5
and thai after execution no ~erafion, change or moc~ficafion shall be made except upon a writing
signed by the parties.
(d) This agreement ~11 be governed by the laws of the Sta~e of Colorado as from
fime to time in e~ect
IN WITNESS WHF]~OF, the parties hereto have exectxted, or cansed to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the
date hereim'ter vaitte~
ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
By:
Tit/e:
Date:
PROFESSIONAL:
WITNESSED BY:
By:
' ' Date:
PS1-971.doc Page 6
~IT "A' to Professional Services Agreement
Scope of Work
(To be completed prior to execution of Agreement)
1-971 .doc Page 7
EI(ltFRIT "B' to Professional Services Agreement
Rate Schedule
(To be completed prior to execution of Agreement)
F~l-971.doc Page 8
',ZIG
IVtemo
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru= Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worchester, City Attomey
Steve Barwick, AssiStant City Manager
Jack Reid, Streets Superintendent
From= Tabatha Miller, Finance Dirc~
Date: 05/06/99
Re= Reimbursement Resolution
SUMMARY: The attached Reimbursement Resolution will allow the City to reimburse
itself for expenditures for the Street's Improvement Project made pdor to any possible
financing arrangement. The resolution will give the City the option of finding alternative
financing or asking the voters to approve debt related to the Koch Street's Plan in the future.
VV]thout the resolution, the City could not reimburse itself from financing proceeds for
amounts already expended.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the reimbursement resolution by appreving the consent
calendar.
· Page 1
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1999)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO DECLARING ITS
OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE ITSELF WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A
FUTURE TAXABLE OR TAX-EXEMPT BORROWING FOR CERTAIN
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY;
IDENTIFYING SAID CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND THE FUNDS TO BE
USED FOR SUCH PAYMENT; AND PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER
MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City"), in the County of Pitkin and the State of
Colorado (the "State"), is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to
constitution and laws of the State; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "Council") is the governing body of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to make
certain capital expenditures on the Project defined in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City currently intends and reasonably expects to participate in a taxable
or tax-exempt borrowing to finance such capital expenditures, including an amount not to exceed
$5,000,000 for reimbursing the City for the portion of such capital expenditures incurred or to be
incurred subsequent to the date which is 60 days prior to the date hereof but before such
borrowing, within 18 months of the date of such capital expenditures or the placing in ser¢ice of
the Project as hereinafter defined, whichever is later (but in no event more than 3 years after the
date of the original expenditure of such moneys); and
WHEREAS, the Council hereby desires to declare its official intent, pursuant to
26 C.F.R. § 1.150-2, to reimburse the City for such capital expenditures with the proceeds of the
City' s future taxable or tax-exempt borrowing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Declaration of Official Intent The City shall, presently intends and
reasonably expects to finance certain road improvements (the "Project") with moneys currently
contained in its General Fund.
Section 2. Dates of Capital Expenditures. All of the capital expenditure covered by
this Resolution were made not earlier than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution.
Section 3. Issuance of Bonds or Notes. The City presently intends and reasonably
expects to participate in a taxable or tax-exempt borrowing within 18 months of the date of the
expenditure of moneys on the Project or the date upon which the Project is placed in service or
abandoned, whichever is later (but in no event more than 3 years after the date of the original
02-39322.01
expenditure of such moneys), and to allocate an amount of not to exceed $5,000,000 of the
proceeds thereof to reimburse the City for its expenditures in connection with the Project.
Section 4. Resolution Number. This is the first resolution of the City concerning all or
a portion of the project described in paragraph 1 hereof adopted on or after JUly 1, 1993.
Section 5. Confirmation 'of Prior Acts. All prior acts and doings of the officials, agents
and employees of the City which are in conformity with the purpose and intent of this
Resolution, and in furtherance of the Project, shall be and the same hereby are in all respects
ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 6. Repeal of Inconsistent Resolutions. All other resolutions of the Council, or
parts of resolutions, inconsistent with this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extend of such
inconsistency.
Section 7. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the 10th day of May 1999.
[SEAL] CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By
Mayor
Attest:
By
City Clerk
02-39322.01
· MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director
FROM: Brian Flyrm, Environmental Ranger
Rick Magnuson, Community Safety Officer
DATE: May 10, 1999
RE: Wildlife Protection Ordinance
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The summer of 1998 was a very active year for wildlife,
especially for bears. Five bears were killed due to their interactions with humans and trash.
Citizens brought concern after concern to the city and asked that something be done to help
reduce the potential conflicts between humans and wildlife. It is apparent that there is a need to
protect our wildlife and the need to coexist with them in a way that prevents wildlife from
being jeopardized.
In response to the citizens' concerns a valley wide task force was set up which included several
different agencies: Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), US Forest Service (USFS), City of
Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village and Wilderness Workshop. Several meetings were
held and it was decided that Snowmass Village would enact the ordinance first, followed by
Aspen, and then the County would take any necessary measures. With the help of the Bear
Task Force we drafted the wildlife protection program and all its components.
We believe this approach is necessary to prevent the deaths of a number of bears. It will reduce
the number' of conflicts between humans and wildlife caused by feeding on improperly stored
garbage.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This ordinance passed on first reading on April 12, 1999.
DISCUSSION: A three-part program has been recommended by the bear task force in order to
help protect bears and other wildlife.
t) Education: A) The annual mailing by the Aspen Police department "Living With Bears"
brochure. B) In conjunction with the CDOW, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village and the City
of Aspen, a video is being produced which will run on local television stations. C) Meetings
will be held to educate property management companies on how to prevent wildlife from
being attracted to their trash. D) An insert will accompany the next City Newsletter. It will
explain the importance of this program and what individuals, homes, and businesses can do
to help protect wildlife.
2) We would like to budget a fund for providing grants of up to $50 for people who may have
a hardship in complying with the ordinance. Money would come 'from savings we gained
through reorganization of the Environmental Health Department.
3) City staff will help any citizen who has questions about how to comply, by visiting with
them and discussing options. Enforcement will be used only if efforts to work with the
involved party to find solutions fail.
· There are several ways for individuals, businesses, condominiums, and renters to comply
with the new ordinance. Please see Attachments A and B.
· Randy Cote, Wildlife Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, has asked us to include
his letter of support since he was unable to attend the meeting. Please see Attachment C.
· Using wildlife resistant containers or enclosures will greatly improve the overall cleanliness
of the alleys and streets. Proper containers will prevent trash from being blown around or
scattered by animals, and from collecting in our streets and alleys.
· This ordinance will help reduce the spread of disease because more dense populations wili.
not be supported by this extra food source.
· Other cities and resorts that have similar laws or are currently using wildlife resistant
containers include: Sun Valley, ID; Snowmass Village, CO; Whistler, B.C; Banff, B.C; West
Yellowstone, MT; Town of Vail, CO; Des Moines, IA; Monterey, CA; Berkley, CA; Amarillo,
TX; and countless National Parks, Public Lands and other Governmental Agencies.
· Between the months of April through NOvember 1998, animal control handled 270 calls: · 117 of 270 calls were bear related
· 88 of the 270 calls dealt directly with wildlife and trash; 31 of the 88 were bears; 57 of the
88 other wildlife
· 13 of 117 calls were bear nuisance calls
· 153 of the 270 calls dealt with other wildlife (foxes, skunks, raccoons)
· 16 of the 153 calls reported sick or diseased animals.
· Over 55 hours were spent on bears and human conflicts alone
· We reconunend having a two-month grace period starting when the law goes into effect. ' '
Since the first reading one minor change has been made. It is the addition of a section that
provides yet one more alternative that homeowners and businesses can use to comply.
Section 12. 08.020 Wildlife Resistant Refuse Containers or Enclosures Required.
Except for a container with a minimum of seven (7) days per week pickup, any refuse container,
regardless of size, that receives between the dates of April 15th and November 15th, inclusive,
refuse which is edible by bears or other wildlife shall be either (1) an approved wildlife resistant
refuse container or (2) a refuse container which is stored within a building, house, garage or
approved wildlife resistant dumpster enclosure.
This language allows people to use containers that are not wildlife~resistant, if they have daily
pickup, since then it is not likely that bears or other animals will find the container to be a good
food source.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Because we believe that education is the key io making th'is
change easy for citizens, we are asking for $2000.00 for education purposes. $1,500.00 is the cost
of the City Newsletter insert. This will go to every city resident with the next newsletter this
spring. A draft of this educational insert is included as Attachment D. $500.00 will help pay for
the production of the educational video and advertisements in local papers. We request that
this money be taken from the savings to the city created by the county's proportional fund ling of
the Environmental Health Department, (the fund set aside by Council for environmental
projects). Financial costs to homeowners and businesses vary greatly depending on their type of
service, frequency of pickup, and type of container. There are inexpensive options and these are
discussed in Attachments A and B.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES: Continue with the educational program and hope that citizens will take it
upon themselves to provide proper trash storage. People could be required to retrofit their
trash containers only after wildlife has been attracted to their trash. This could be accompanied
with a fine of $250.00.
PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends the following motion:
"I move to approve Ordinance 13, series of 1999, which provides for the adoption of a new
chapter for the Aspen Municipal Code entitled "Wildlife Protection."
"I move to add to the next appropriation ordinance the funding of $2,000 for public infc~rma tttm
and $5,000 for hardship grants, using existing savings from reorganization of the Environmental
Health Department.
·. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A
Individuals:
A) Call Their local trash hauler and have the current garbage containing device switched to a
wildlife resistant container:
1) One company's Dumpster service will increase $12.50/month for 1 year and then return
to original rate. *
2) One company's Dumpster service will increase $20.00 to $40.00 /month. *
3) Purchase a wildlife resistant container (depending on size and make) $500.00 to
$1000.00.
4) Rent a wildlife resistant container from local trash hauler (depending on the company
and size) $30.00 to $40.00 increase to current service.
5) Using a Dumpster, neighbors can jointly pay for service and share the total cost, thus
reducing truck traffic, and pollution.
* (Depending on current service contract with hauler)
B) Build an enclosure around the area where trash will be stored: 1) Customers with existing enclosures can retrofit that enclosure in a way that prevents
access by wildlife (metal bars, lids)
2) Storage for one container $300.00 - $600.00 (cost of wood, time and containers) *
3) Storage for two containers $600.00 - $800.00 (cOst of wood, time and containers) *
* (Depending on current service contract with hauler)
C) Trash can be kept inside until the morning of pick-up. It can be stored in the house, garage,
shed, or other similar structure that will prevent wildlife from reaching garbage.
1) No cost to owner
2) No cost for new containers
D_J Increase current service to (7) seven or more days per week.
Attachment B
Condominiums, Communal Shared Trash Areas or Businesses:
A) Call Their local trash hauler and have the current garbage containing device switched to a
wildlife resistant container: (depending on current service contract with hauler)
1) One company's Dumpster service will increase $12.50/month for 1 year and then return
to original rate. *
2) One company's Dumpster Service will increase $20.00 to $40.00/month. *
3) Purchase a wildlife resistant container (depending on size and make).
· (Depending on current service contract with hauler)
B) Build an enclosure around the area where trash will be stored:
1) Customers with existing enclosures can retrofit that enclosure in a way that prevents
access by wildlife (metal bars, lids)
2) Storagefor one container $300.00 - $600.00 (cgst of wood, time and containers)*
3) Storage for two containers $600.00 - $800.00 (cost of wood, time and containers) *
· (Depends on the type of materials and time)
C) Increase current service to (7) seven or more days per week.
Construction Areas:
A) Provide a separate container for food trash or other items that might entice wildlife to feed.
· . B) This separate container will need to be removed daily from the site, or stored inside a secure
structure on-site.
City of Aspen
The City of Aspcn would like to update you on some wildlife issues we have been dealing with recently.
Last year wc experienced a large increase in the mount of bear sighrings around town. In response to those events
and the more severe problems cxpericnced by Snowmass Village, we have developed a Wildlife Protection Program
which will aJ]ox~ us to live more harmoniously with our Ioc~I wildlife. The main attraction for bears and other
avim~ls is our careless handlin~ of trash. Please comply with the new ordjn~nce and reduce the negative impacts
on wildlife.
A copy of the regulations is available upon request. The key elements are
s~lmm~lrized us follOWS;
1. Bci'wcen the dates of April 15th and November 15e,, all trash covt~ners
regardless of size that arc placed outside and receive refuse tint could be
edible by bears or othcr wildlife must be wildLife resistant containers. A
wildlife resistant containcr is a fully enclosed metal container with a metal
lid thai has a latohing device.
2. ff a refuse container is not wildlife resistant it must be kept In a wildlife resistant enclosure. These structarcs
must have four full sides, a roof and the doors need to have a stordy-latching device.
3. Wildlife resistant containers and enclosures must be approvcd by the City of Aspcn~s COmm~lllipJ' Safety Office
Or the En,~ironmentai Ranger to ensure that the enclosures are of sufficient design and strength to prevent
access by bean and other wildlife.
4. Containers and dumpslcr enclosures must be kept closed and secure when refuse is not beIng delx}sited and, if
damaged, they must be repaired in a timely fashion,
5. Residents who have curbside trash pick-up can only put the col)t~qlne~rs out on the day Of piCk-lip and the el]lpty
containers must be hack inside by 5:00 PM.
6. Orgartizcrs of large outdoor special events must m~ce sure that their event site is cleaned up at the close at
each day's activities. Thc trash that is collected must be removed from the event site.
7. All construction sites must have a separate wash container for refuse that could be cch])lc by bears or other
wildlife. ff the container is not ,,~ildlifc resist,~t, it must be emptied at the end of each work day and securely
stored in side a job trailer or other building.
8. Feeding ofwildlffe is prohibited. A person will be considered to be
In violation of this regulation ff they carelessly leave or store any
refuse or food produc~ in a manner that would tend to be an attraction
to wildlife, Birdfeeders must be hung in a way that does not allow
access to the contents by bcars and other wildlife.
9. There will be a sufficient grace period for compliance with the
o~n~nea. fithere is a significant hardship in complying with the ordinance the responsible party may
contact the Community Safety Office or Environmental Ranger for consu/tation and belp.
Penait~' Assessment for failure to comply with any section of the Wildlife Protection Ordinance: First
Offense: $~0.00, Second Offense: $2.50.00, Third Offense: Mandatory Court Appearance
ORDINANCE NO. l~, SERIES OF 1999
. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO,'AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE
ADDITION OF A CHAPTER ENTITILED "WILDLIFE PROTECTION,"
WHICH PROTECTS WILDLIFE BY REQUIRING THE USE OF
WILDLIFE RESISTANT CONTAINERS AND WILDLIFE RESISTANT
DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES.
WHEREAS, five bears were killed in 1998 due to their interactions with humans
and trash, and
WHEREAS, citizens of the City of Aspen, Colorado, voiced their concerns
regarding wildlife to the City and asked that something be done to help reduce
the potential of conflicts between humans and wildlife, and
WHEREAS, there is a need to protect our wildlife and the need to co-exist with
wildlife in a way that prevents wildlife from being jeopardized, and
WHEREAS, in response to the citizen concerns, a valley wide task force was set
up which included CDOW, USFS, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass
Village and Wilderness Workshop, and
WHEREAS, meetings were held in which it was decided that Snowmass Village
would pass awildlife protection ordinance first (which has been done) and that
Aspen would then follow suit, and
WHEREAS, the Bear Task Force drafted the idea of a wildlife protection program
and all its components, and
WHEREAS, the health, welfare, and best interests of the community necessitate the
adoption of a wildlife protection chapter, and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt for the benefit of the City of Aspen
the following code addition.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the
addition of a new chapter, 12.08 Wildlife Protection, which shall read as follows:
CHAPTER 12.08
WILDLIFE PROTECTION
12.08.010 Definitions.
.The definitions and terms used in this Chapter are defined as follows:
(1) WiIdhfe means any non-domestic mammal indigenous to the Roaring Fork
Valley including but not limited to bear, deer, elk, raccoon, coyote, beaver, skunk,
badger, bobcat, mountain lion, porcupine and fox.
(2) Wildlife resistant refuse container means a fully enclosed metal container with a
metal lid. The lid must have a latching mechanism which prevents access to the
contents by wildlife. Wildlife resistant refuse containers must be approved by a City
Community Safety Officer or Environmental Ranger.
(3) Wildhfe resistant dumpster enclosure means a fully enclosed structure consisting of
four sides and a roof with one side accommodating a door. The sides of the
structure must extend to the ground and the door carmot have more than a
two-inch gap along the bottom. Ventilation openings shall be kept to a minimum
and must be covered with a heavy gauge steel mesh or other material of sufficient
strength to prevent access. The door shall have a latching device of sufficient design
and strength to prevent access by wildlife. Wildlife resistant dumpster enclosures
must be approved by a City Communify Safety Officer or Environmental Ranger.
(4) Special event means an outdoor gathering such as a concert, conference or
festival.
(5) Enforcement officer means any Aspen Police Officer, Community Safety Officer,
Environmental Ranger.
(6) Refuse container means any trash can, dumpster, or similar device used for the
collection and storage of solid waste.
12.08.020 Wildlife Resistant Refuse Containers or Enclosures Required.
Except .for a container with a minimum of seven (7) days per week pickup,
any refuse container, regardless of siZe, that receives between the dates
of April 15~' and November 15~', inclusive, refuse which is edible by bears or
other wildlife shall be either (1) an approved wildlife resistant refuse container
or (2) a refuse container which is stored within a building, house, garage or
approved wildlife resistant dumpster enclosure.
12.08.030 Maintenance and Operation of Wildlife Resistant Refuse
Containers and Dumpster Enclosures.
A. Wildlife resistant refuse containers and dumpster enclosures must be kept
closed and secure when refuse is not breing deposited.
B. If a container or enclosure is damaged. allowing access by wildlife, repairs
must be made within one (1) week after written notification by a Community
Safety Officer or Environmental Ranger.
12.08.040 Residential Refuse Disposal.
A. All residential containers that receive refuse edible by wildlife must be secured
inside the home or garage. Residents unable to keep their refuse container
inside the home or garage shall store their refuse in a wildlife resistant refuse
container or enclosure approved by a City Community Safety Officer or
Environmental Ranger.
B. Residents with curbside pickup shall place their refuse containers at the curb,
alley, or public right-of-way only on the morning of pickup. After pickup the
containers must be re-secured inside the home, garage or wildlife resistant
enclosure by 6 p.m.
12.08.050 Special Event Refuse Disposal.
Outdoor special event sites shall be kept free from the accumulation of refuse
edible by wildlife. Refuse must be collected frpm the grounds at the close of
each day's activities and shall be deposited in wildlife resistant containers or
enclosures or be removed to an appropriate disposal site.
12.08.060 Feeding of Wildlife.
A. No person shall knowingly leave or store any refuse, food product, pet food,
grain or salt in a manner which would constitute a lure attraction or
enticement of wildlife.
B. Bird feeders are allowed. However between the dates of April 15th and
November 15th, all feeders must be suspended on a cable or other deyice so
that' they are inaccessible to bears and the area below the fee~ers must be kept
flee from the accumulation of seed debris.
12.08.070 Construction Site Refuse Disposal.
All construction sites must have a designated container that receives refuse
edible by wildlife.~ This container shall be either a wildlife resistant refuse
container, or a container that is emptied at the end of each workday and then
securely stored inside a trailer or building.
12.08.080 Interference with Enforcement Officer.
No person shall interfere with, molest, hinder or impede the enforcement
officers in the discharge of their duties as herein prescribed or violate any of
the provisions of this Chapter.
12.08.090 Enforcement.
A. Enforcement officers may issue a warning notice or summons and complaint
to any person in violation of this Chapter.
B. An enforcement officer shall have the right to inspect property concerning any
wildlife concern or potential wildlife attractant.
12.08.100 Penalty Assessment.
Violation of any provision of this chapter by any person, firm or corporation,
whether as owner or occupant, shall be unlawful and subject to the penalty
provisions in section 1.04.080 of this Code.
Section 2.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of any other
ordinance, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such other
ordinance.
Sec~ior~ 4.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ,1999,
at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena,
Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED AND READ as provided by law by the City Council of the City
of Aspen on the day of ,1999.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed, and approved this day of ,1999.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
TO: Mayor and City Cotmcil
THRU: Amy Margerurn, City Manager ~
John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development DireCto
RE: Land Use Code Amendments ·
Second Reading--Public Hearing
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUMMARY: At the work session on the Land Use Code on March 1, 1999, staff
reviewed the numerous proposed changes to the Land Use Code that are a result of the
simplification process. With the assistance of the City Attorney, staff has worked to
make the land use code easier to use and simpler to understand and apply. The idea
behind this simplification is to ensure longevity; that is, the code can stand as the
framework for future amendments and changes in philosophy without ending up
complicating the code.
In staffs opinion, this simplification will build more public trust as it cleans up
ambiguous language which often puts the Director in a position of interpreting what was
meant. We believe the code now says what it should say, i.n clear understandable
language.
The code has also been formatted in-house which will make future amendments easier to
put in place immediately, vs. waiting for it to be codified someplace out of state.
The code, even as simplified, remains a code. It reads like a code, has legal implications
as do all codes. However, with the reorganization, the code is more logical and much
easier to follow.
The major changes the City Council will notice in this simplification is the format. It is
now much easier to find the applicable sections of the code. Likewise, the language has
been rewritten in laymen's terms wherever possible. We have included some drawings
which more clearly depict the intent of the language. We have taken the regulatory
language out of the definitions section and made definitions read as definitions.
There have also been some minor substantive changes in this re-write. Please refer to
Exhibit A, John Worcester's memo of March 1, 1999, which highlights these changes.
Finally, it should be clear to the City Council that this is just the first step in improving
the Land Use Code. Staff has numerous substantive changes that we will be proposing
throughout the remainder of the year which have already been included in our 1999 Work
Program. Please refer to John's memo, page 9 that highlights the areas which require
additional study.
Because of the numerous changes that have been made to the Code, staff will only
attempt to analyze the amendments as a whole rather than line by line. If there is specific
language which the City Council is not comfortable with, we would recommend that it be
addressed as a separate issue in a subsequent amendment process. Staff is very anxious
to begin using this document and hopes that the City Council will feel likewise.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Community Development Department.
BACKGROUND: The simplification of the code has been underway for several years.
Staff finally brought the document before the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Coxranission in a work session held March 1, 1999. Few Commissioners were present for
that work session, so staff also discussed it at the next P & Z meeting on March 8, 1999.
At that meeting, there was general consensus that the document was much improved and
there were few areas of concern. Staff then proceeded with scheduling the amendments
for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P & Z
recommended approval of the amendments, along with a few additional changes '
recommended by staff, by a vote of 5 to 0 on April 6, 1999
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, a
development application for an amendment to the text of the Municipal Code shall be
reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing,
and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a
public hearing.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Please refer to John Worcester's
memo which highlights the procedure and amendments being proposed. One item which
John did not address in his memo is a revision which was made to the Nonconforming
section of the code. Please refer to Pan 300 Nonconformities, Section 26.312.030 (F) (2)
Ability to restore. At the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
at the direction of Council, the code now reads that a nonconforming structure which is
purposefully demolished or destroyed must come into conformance with the current
provisions of the code. In order to provide some relief from this requirement, an
applicant could appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission through a Special Review
of the circumstances.
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION: At the public hearing on April 6~, staff proposed a few
additional changes to the code to address some issues which have recently come up.
These are addressed in more detail below.
2
Powers and Duties. The Design Review Appeals Committee is composed of.three
members from the HPC and three members of the P & Z to hear appeals from the
Residential Design Standards, more commonly known as Ord. 30. The committee meets
once a month. Unfommately, DRAC's meetings often get cancelled due to a lack of a
quorum, usually due to conflicts of interest. As a result, an applicant can be put off for up
to another month until the next available meeting date.
Currently, ifun applicant has another land use related case before either the HPC or the
P&Z, that commission is allowed to serve as DRAC and make decisions on the case.
However, the language does not specify that an applicant can go directly to one or the
other commission with their appeal as a stand alone case.
In order to improve customer service, Staff recommends that this be modified to allow an
applicant to be given a choice such that they could go before the DRAC, the P&Z, or
HPC for review. This would reduce the mount of time it would take an applicant to get
a decision on their design without unduly holding up their building permit. In oi'der to
clarify this, Staff and the Commission are making the following recommendations for
additional modification to the code:
Chapter 26.212 Planning and Zoning Commission, Section 26.212.010 Powers and
Duties, adding items (P) and (Q); and Chapter 26.220 HPC, Section 26.220.020 Powers
and Duties, items (J) and (K), both of which would read as follows (consistent with
DRAC duties):
· To hear, review and approve variances to the Residential Design
Guidelines, pursuant to Chapter 26.410;
· To hear and decide appeals from, and review any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by, any administrative official charged
with the enforcement of Chapter 26.410, including appeals of
interpretation of the text of the Residential Design Standards. The
Commission may only grant relief from the Residential Design Standards.
A variance from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an
approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by
another decision making administrative body.
Subdivision Exemptions for Lot Line Adjustments. In Chapter 26.480 Subdivision,
Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, an applicant is allowed to apply for an adjustment to a
lot line under certain conditions. Under Section 26.480.040 Procedures for review, it
clearly specifies that a lot line adjustment is an administrative pmcedu[e, signed off by
the Community Development Director. However, under the exemptions section,
condition (c), "It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship", is
rarely found to be the situation as more often than not, it is for the convenience of
neighboring property owners. As a result, the Director can rarely make this finding in
order to sign off on a revised plat. The alternative is that an applicant would then have to
go through a full-blown subdivision process in order to make a minor adjustment.
Most jurisdictions do have a process which allows minor modifications to lot lines and/or
plats through either an exemption process or "minor subdivision" review. Because the
city does not have a "minor subdivision" procedure, Staff and the Commission are
recommending that the code language to Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, Subsection (A)
(c). be deleted and condition (e) be modified as follows (new language in BOLD):
e. It is demonstrated that the lot lin,e adjustment will not affect the
development rights, including any increase in FAR, or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new
lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the
corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and
the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the
adjustrnent.
Staff believes that the above modifications will allow an administrative review to be
accomplished more easily, reducing the necessity for unnecessary subdivision review in
these cases. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Conunission recommend that these
above-mentioned modifications be incorporated into the land use amendments as
proposed. These above-noted modifications will be incorporated into the final Land Use
Code, upon approval of Ordinance 10, Series of 1999.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Because many of the land use code provisions dealing with
housing issues have been moved to the Housing Guidelines, Council will need to adopt
the Housing Guidelines simultaneously with the Land Use Code Revisions. The first
reading on the Housing Guidelines has also been scheduled for May 10'b. Staff is
recommending that the council adopt the land use code revisions, but that they not
become effective until July 1, 1999 or until 15 days after approval of the final Housing
Guidelines, whichever comes later. This will ensure adequate time for coordination with
the Housing office and recodification of the simplified code.
REVIEW STANDARDS: Chapter 26.92, Amendments To The Land Use Regulations
And Official Zone District Map, at Section 26.92.020 provides nine (A-I) standards for
the City Council' s review of proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Code.
These standards and staffs evaluation of the potential amendments relative to them are
provided below, with the standard in bold followed by the staff "response."
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
RESPONSE: Adoption ofthe'proposed code amendments would not be in conflict with
any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. In fact, the amendments will help clarify
and minimize known conflicts in the existing code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any elements of
the AACP. The AACP is intended to be the guide for future development while the Land
Use Code is used as a tool to achieve that vision. To the best of staffs knowledge, the
amendments are consistent with the cornmtmity's plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood
characteristics.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not site specific to a particular
neighborhood. The amendments will clarify the intent of the code and requirements of
zone districts m~d land uses. Staff believes the amendment would result in more
consistency in land use decisions, which will ultimately be compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
RESPONSE: The proposed code amendment wilt not have any effect on traffic
generation.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical fucilities~
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments would not have an effect on infrastructure or
infrastructure capacities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not have an effect on the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Staff believes the proposed amendments present a more reasonable and
rational approach to the functioning of the land use code.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendments are not site specific, but will affect the entire
community equally.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
RESPONSE: Staff believes that the proposed amendments would serve the public
interest and be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council recommend approval
of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999 Amendments to the Land Use Code on Second
Reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 10,
Series of 1999 Amendments to the Land Use Code."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Memo from John Worcester dated March 1, 1999
Exhibit B - Land Use Code, as amended (previously distributed in binder format)
Exhibit C - P&Z Resolution No. 99- 06
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1999
g:\planning\~pen\cases\text\codcamcndcc2nd.doc
6
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1999)
AN ORDIZNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CrrY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
REPEALING TITLE 20, RESIDENT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM, AMENDING T1TLE 26, LAND USE REGULATIONS, OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE, PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF,
AND REPEALING ALL OTHER ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the
Aspen Municipal Code to incorporate Title 20 of the existing Municipal Code within the land use
regulations and to re-codify the entire land use code to simplify its format and content; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make certain substantive amendments to the land
use code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
That Title 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 2.
That a certain document entitled Land Use Code, three (3) copies of which are on file and
open for inspection by the public in the office of the City Clerk, be and the same is hereby
adopted as Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code and the same is hereby referenced, and made a
part hereof as if fully set forth in this ordinance.
Section 3.
That all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4.
That nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability
under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and in the same shall
be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Furthermore, the provisions of this
ordinance shall not apply in the following specific circumstances:
a) To the development of any property for which a vested right, as defined by
· - Colorado law, has been obtained prior to the effective date hereof.
b) To the construction of any dwelling unit pursuant to any building permit which
was applied for prior to or on April 6, 1999.
c) If, however, subsequent to and in reliance upon development reviews of a project
by City staff or other review bodies, an applicant has so substantially changed his or her position
or incurred extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to
amend such plans, then the Community Development Director may issue such permit. Any
person aggrieved by a decision in this regard by the Community Development Director may
appeal to the City Council pursuant to Section 26.316 of the newly enacted Land Use Code.
Section 5.
That any person violating the provisions of this re-enacted Chapter 26 of the Aspen
Municipal Code shall be subject to prosecution in the Municipal Court and upon conviction may
be subject to the general penalty provisions set forth at Section 1.04.080 of the Municipal Code
(a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or imprisonment for a period of up to one (1) year, or both at the
discretion of the Court). Each day that a violation occurs or continues shall constitute a separate
offense and nothing herein shall preclude the City from instituting sugh necessary proceedings to
enjoin, abate, or correct any violation.
Section 6.
This ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 1999, or within fifteen (15) days
following the adoption by the City Council of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1999, approving the
1999 Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, whichever date is later.
Section 7.
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 any ordinance repealed
or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 8.
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 9.
A public heating on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of ,1999, at
5:00 o'clock pm in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Prior to such
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR
POSTED ON FIRST READING on the .... day of ,1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATI'EST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
INTRODUCED and FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the __
day of ,1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JP~,V-05/05/99-G:\john~word~ords~landusecode.doc
Memorandttm I~r. ~.. I
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor, and Members of Council
FROM: City Manager
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Office
DATE: March !, 1999
Rig: Re-codification of the Land Use Code
Please find enclosed a draft copy of the Aspen Land Use Code which has been re-codified in an
effort to simplify it and make it more "user-friendly." Staff is scheduled to meet in a joint session
with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 1, 1999 to review the
proposed changes to the Land Use Code. This memo is intended to give you a background, reasons
for suggesting a re-codification of the Land Use Code, and to explain the proposed changes that are
reflected in the draft document.
Backl~round: We have all heard the complaints from citizens that the Aspen Land Use Code is
too complicated, hard to read, cumbersome to use, unintelligible, contradictory, and too long. We
have also heard that the procedures and processes set forth in the Land Use Code to obtain
development approvals are too cumbersome, contradictory and unclear, expensive to follow,
counterproductive, and simply take too long to complete.
City Council has, for a number of years, asked staff to simplify the code. This goal has been
identified as a high priority for Council since 1995 when it budgeted $10,000.00 for the 1996 fiscal
year to hire an outside consultant to help work on the project. For a variety of reasons, not the least
of which was the big task involved in re-codification, it has taken staff over two years to get to this
point.
Jed Caswall, the former Aspen City Attomey, was retained to review the entire Land Use Code,
prioritize areas that needed to be changed, survey current users of the Code to identify masons for
the current dissatisfaction with the Code, and to suggest ways to simplify the Code. In March, 1996,
a public meeting was held with a number of land use planners, architects, and other users of the
Code to elicit comments on ways to improve the Code. At that meeting a number of conclusions
. were reached which helped guide the work of m-codification. The most important points (not in any
order of importance) were as follows:
* The Code is complicated for two basic reasons: (a) it is extremely difficult to read;
and Co) the procedures required for development approval are too complex and cumbersome. The
solution to the first problem is simply to reformat the Code, combine sections, re-write confusing or
conflicting sections, re-organize the chapters and s~ctions, add a good index, and generally make it
more understandable. The solution to the second problem is to make substantive changes to the
Code to simplify the process and procedures required of applicants.
* The Code should continue to be written with professionals in mind. The Code can
be written so that it can be understood, but must function as a "land use code" which necessarily
introduces jargon and legal concepts, procedures, and regulations that are not part of the average
citizens' daily life. If a document needs to be written so the average citizen can understand the
process, it should be a separate document written specifically with that audience in mind.
* The reason the Code is so complicated with respect to process and procedures is
that Aspen, unlike most municipalities its size, has decided to regulate a significant number of
issues. Few communities the size of Aspen have regulations for historic preservation, growth
management, environmentally sensitive areas (8040 green line, stream margin, etc,), or the number
of regulations relating to development mitigation (affordable housing, parks, school districts), and
design review. Few, if any, communities the size of Aspen have the number of zone districts that
.are defined in the Land Use Code. (There are twenty-eight zone or overlay districts in Aspen, not
counting SPA' s, PUD's, and historical overlay districts! Ten for residential development alone.)
* The initial focus of any attempt to simplify the Code should try to avoid making
substantive changes. Combining proposed changes that merely make the Code user-friendly with
proposed substantive changes will hold up the effort while all the stakeholders in Aspen debate the
merits of the substantive changes. Identify substantive changes that would make the Code simpler,
but start with as many non-controversial changes as possible. Once the Code is easier to read and
understand, then a commitment to make important substantive changes, one at a time, is necessary.
A wholesale effort to substantively change the Code will cause interest groups to oppose various
changes, or the final product will be more complicated than the existing Code. Most people simply
do not understand the Code today because it cannot be comprehensively read in its present form.
* All land use codes need to be re-codi~ed (and re-written) periodically. Any set of
laws or a code that is constantly updated, amended, and revised needs to be reviewed in its entirety
periodically. As amendments are proposed and adopted, few of them get properly integrated into
the existing code. This leads to confusing and conflicting regulations and procedures, duplicative
language and sections, a lack of proper cross referencing, and a worthless index. Anyone who tried
to read the state's uniform election code before its recent re-codification will understand the
problem.
Chan~es to the format of the Code: The first reaction that everyone who opens the proposed re-
. ~ codi~ed Code should have is that it looks different. It has the appearance of being organized in
some logical fashion and individual sections and paragraphs can be easily read. You will note that
the re-codified Code uses bold, underlined, and italic letters. Paragraphs, sections, and subsections
· ' are indented in outline form. Each page contains not only a page number, but a reference to the
Code section printed on the page, and the date the page was revised (to help keep the Code book
current). Whole paragraphs of incomprehensible verbiage were reduced to simple mathematical
equations or drawings. These were simple, albeit tedious, changes which make finding and reading
the appropriate regulations immeasurably easier than our current Code. These changes alone should
go a long way to address the complaints about our current Code being too difficult to read and
understand.
The next major formatting change was the re-organization of the Code. You will note that the Code
has been separated into seven "Pare." Each Part of the Code attempts to gather different chapters
and sections of the Code into logical groupings. Not a vet3, innovative concept, but one that is
nonetheless lacking in our current Code. CI'he Housing Replacement ordinance, for instance, is not
even in the Land Use Code. It was codified in a totally separate Chapter of the Municipal Code.) As
important as an index is, a new user of the Land Use Code should be able to find what they are
looking for by reading through the Table of Contents. Chapters within each Part have been
organized similarly. Thus, for example, Part 300 which sets forth various chapters on General
Procedures and Regulations, starts with regulations of general applicability, followed by regulations
that may affect all development applications, and then those regulations of general applicability, but
of specific interest. Much of the time involved in producing this draft of the re-codified Code was
spent reorganizing paragraphs, sections, and chapters by moving them around to more logical Parts
and Chapters of the Code.
Highlight of urouosed chan~es to the Code. This section of the memo attempts to point out the
major changes made to the language of the Code.. Pointing out all the changes would be next to
impossible without writing a treatise as long as the Code itself. Each chapter of our existing Code
has been saved showing the changes made to them with highlighted text or strikethough characters.
These chapters are available upon reques~ to anyone that is interested in seeing the actual changes.
Most of the proposed changes to the Code are not substantive. Those that are substantive are
pointed out below. Substantive changes that staff has identified as advisable, but which are not
included in this current draft are discussed at the end of this memo. The substantive changes that
are in the current draft are being proposed either because they could not be avoided, or are not
considered controversial. Those that could not be avoided are generally those that were needed to
implement past Code interpretations of the Community Development Department Director in
accordance with his/her responsibilities to do so under the Code, those that were needed to correct
conflicting language in the Code, those that implement the clear intent of the existing Code, or
changes to process and procedures which improve and simplify the process. Again, this memo
attempts to highlight these changes below.
Part 100 - General Provisions:
.This part of the Code has been almost entirely m-written, particularly the definitions contained in
Section 26.104.100. Most of the existing terms were re-written in their entirety, new terms were
added, and others were deleted (there are a number of terms defined in the existing Code which do
not appear anywhere else in the Code). A good deal of time and attention was given to this section
in the re-codification since this section of the current Code is the source of much of the confusion in
trying to understand the Code. Many of the existing definitions contain substantive regulatory
provisions which do not belong in a definitions section. That is, users of a code do not normally
mm to a definitions section to find regulatory language. Only those readers that know regulatory
· " language can be found in the definitions section are likely to turn to that section. In essence, the
definitions section was used in the past as a "dumping ground" for substantive regulatory language
that didn't seem to fit elsewhere in the Code.
In the draft re-codification, all regulatory language was removed from the definitions section and
replaced in the appropriate section within the Code that deals with the subject matte~' or in the
"Supplementary Regulations" section (Part 500).
The following definitions were added to the Code: Affordable housing guidelines; artists studio;
Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); Aspen metropolitan (metro) area; category housing; child
care center; cave point; essential public facility; farmers market; flood hazard area; flooding; HPC;
historic significance; non-conforming lot or parcel; plat; principal building; reconstruction;
recreational vehicle; rehabilitation; relocation; renovation; residential multi-family housing;
specially planned area (SPA); scale; street, private; street, public; street, unopened; tattoo parlor;
wireless telecommunications (TCC).
The following definitions were deleted from the Code: base flood; character; bath facilities; BOA;
compatible; final plat; grade, finished', housing replacement program; parcel of land; shop craft
industry; special flood hazard area; vet clinic.
Other changes relating to definitions result from the attempt throughout the new Code to make
reference to the Affordable Housing Guidelines instead of either restating a regulation in the Land
Use Code or defining terms'and methods of calculations that should more properly be included in
the AH Guidelines, as amended from time to time. For example, the definition of a "working
resident" has been taken out of the Code and the reader is referred to the AH Guidelines. The added
advantage of this effort is that the City Council and the BOCC will have an opportunity to review
these definitions, methods, and regulations as part of their annual review of the AH Guidelines and
to ensure that the City and County regulations for affordable housing are consistent in the
metropolitan area without having to continuously and simultaneously amend all relevant portions of
the Land Use Code.
The following definitions were changed in a substantive manner:
Demolition
Current = Demolition means to tear down completely, to do away with or to raze. For the purposes
of this definition a building shall be deemed to be demolished if less than fifty (50) percent of the
existing primarily residential structure remains in place. Renovation shall not be considered
demolition. The removal of a dwelling unit in a multi-family structure shall be considered
demolition.
Proposed = To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy fifty percent (50%) or more of an existing
structure as measured by exterior surface wall area, also the removal of a dwelling unit in a multi-
- ~ family building or its conversion to non-residential use.
· . Lodge
Current -- Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district or a
building presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms
for the purpose of providing lodging facilities on a short or long-term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services and
on-site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental units.
Proposed -- Same as hotel, except that lodge rooms in a lodge may have a kitchen in certain zone
districts and may be rented on a long term basis.
Remodel
Current -- Remodeling means any act which changes one or more of the exterior architectural
features of a structure designated as a H, Historic Ove~ay District.
Proposed = A construction project comprising revisions within or to elements of an existing
structure, as distinct from additions to an existing structure.
Top of slope
Current = Top of slope means a point or a line connecting at least three (3) points determined by
the point of intersection of two fifty foot lines, one line being the level of the existing grade above
the slope and the other line being the angle of the existing slope, both lines measured on a site
section drawing.
Proposed = A line generally running somewhat parallel to a stream or river from which
development must be setback and which delineates the bank of the river or stream or other riparian
area as determined by the City Engineer.
Anyone attempting to compare the existing Code definitions with the proposed definitions should
read the new definitions together with Chapter 26.575, "Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations"
in order to fully understand the changes being proposed.
Part 200 - Administration - Decision Makin~ Bodies
Not too many changes were made to the chapters of this part. Some of the duties of the decision-
making bodies were amended to reflect changes made over the years in the Code, but never
codified in this part.
Part 300 - General Proceduri~s and Rel~ulations.
This section of the proposed Code received significant attention and time. The attempt in
recodifying this Part was to make uniform the general procedures that apply to all development
applications, to simplify and clarify the language used to describe the general procedures, and to re-
write the Part in a more logical sequence. It is this Part in the existing Code which has caused the
most confusion and complaints about conflicting requirements, onerous and redundant procedural - -
requirements, and lack of clarity.
Chapter 2~5.304 has been almost entirely m-written. Duties of the Community Development
Department, the applicant, and decision-making bodies are spelled out much more clearly. Included
in this chapter is a description of the usual steps required of all applicants from the time they file an
application to the time they receive a development order (and are eligible to apply for a building
permit). ·
Section 26.304.060(B)(1) was added to grant the Community Development Director authority to
alter the usual review procedures when appropriate. The operative language is that the Director may
modify the procedure~ for reviewing development plans and applications to combine or modify
such procedures where 'more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously and
such "modification or combination would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of
time, expense and clarity." All public noticing requirements for combined or modified procedures
would still be required as if a full review procedure was being followed.
Section 26.304.060(B)(2) was also added provide greater flexibility in the approval process. This
approval is submitted. The idea here is to allow various boards and commissions and the City
Council to schedule a new type of meeting with the applicant and interested members of the public
to review an application before it gets too far into our normal development review process. This
new meeting may be very useful in reviewing complex or potentially controversial projects, or
projects which one can anticipate will generate a lot of community interest. The sketch plan review,
if it is suggested by the Coma'nunity Development Director, would have to take place before any
other formal review steps are taken on the application, would require full public notice, and the
record of the prc~ceedings would become part of the formal record of the application review process.
At the conclusion of a sketch plan review, everyone in attendance would be given an opportunity to
discuss the proposed project application with the applicant, but no formal decisions by any decision
makers would be allowed.
· Chapter 26.308 and other portions of the Code relating to "vested rights" has been rewfitten for
enhanced clarity. A major substanti've change is the fact that the proposed Code would enable
practically all development approvals to automatically receive a vested right. No longer will an
applicant be required to apply for vested rights and thereafter proceed under a different set of
procedures to fox~nalize the vested fights. The trade-off for this automatic receipt of vested rights is
that all applications for development that are entitled to vested rights would be required to follow
certain procedural steps to perfect the vested fights. (All resolutions and ordinances would be
required to contain the "magic words" that create vested rights, all resolutions and ordinances
would need to be published by the City Clerk in accordance with the state statute relating to vested
rights, and applicants would receive a formal "development order" spelling out their rights.) None
of these additional steps or requirements should be significantly noticeable to applicants. In
addition, this Chapter sets forth regulations and standards for extension and exemptions from the
expiration of development orders.
Chapter 26.310 - Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map has been
~ ~ simplified and the procedures clarified. The main substantive change to this Chapter is the addition
of Section 26.310.020(C) which authorizes the City Council to adopt amendments to the Code by
emergency ordinance when it is deemed appropriate. The existing Code ignores this basic City
· ' Council power set forth in the City Charter. By adding this section, the Code makes clear that the
6
City Council may adopt emergency ordinances, even when they amend the Land Use Code.
Another major change is Section 26.310.05 which spells out in greater detail the "pending
ordinance doctrine" which has been the source of some confusion in the past.
Chapter 26.314 - "Variances," was amended to allow the HPC or the P&Z to grant variances, but
only when the Community Development Director authorizes such action because an application
will be reviewed by one of those bodies as part of a consolidated application process. Thus, for
example, if an application is to be reviewed by the P&Z for a stream margin review the Community
Development Director may authorize the P&Z to review a variance request at the same time and
avoid having the application reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. In that the BoA may have
particular expertise in these matters, applicants may appeal an adverse variance decision by the
P&Z to the BoA.
Chapter 26.316 - "Appeals," was re-written to clarify and make uniform all the various appeal
provisions of the existing Code. In this fashion, any person desiring to appeal an administrative
decision can quickly refer to a single section of the Code for the proper procedure. The procedures
for differing appeals was also made uniform.
Part 400 - Develol~ment Review Standards and Procedures. This section of' the re-codified
Code contains all the procedures and standards of review specific to particular applications for
development. Each Chapter has been re-written to eliminate conflicting language, to clarify the
requisite procedures, and whenever possible, to make uniform the procedures required.
Chapter 26.410 - "Residential Design Standards" has not been significantly changed as that chapter
is currently under review by staff and the P&Z for amendments.
Chapters 26.415 and 420 - "Historic Preservation," were completely rewritten to clarify and
simplify the procedures and language. The final hearing before the HPC for any significant
development, including demolition or partial demolition, will require notice by publication, posting
and mailing to neighbors. In addition, new language was added to ensure City Council is notified of
HPC actions prior to the expiration of the appeal period.
Chapter 26.435 - "Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas" was re-written to clarify the
procedures, and to include the substantive review standards for each type of development within
this Chapter (mountain plane views, Hallam Lake, stream margin, and 8040). The current
requirement that property owners dedicate a trail easement tO the City as a condition of approval for
a stream margin review has been deleted as it is legally indefensible in most cases.
Chapter 26.470 - "GMQS" has been completely re-written, but no major substantive changes have
been made. This chapter is a consolidated version of two separate chapters in our current Code:
residential GMQS and Commercial GMQS. There really is no reason to have these separated. It
merely .adds redundant language to the Code, and leads to confusion as to the different requirements
of the chapters according to whether the development is residential or commercial.
Chapter 26.480 - "Subdivisions" was re-written and major sections relating to Engineering
standards were eliminated. The Engineering standards~ which have little relevance to most
development applications in the City, have been moved to a separate Chapter devoted entirely to
these Engineering Department standards and procedureS. (See Chapter 26.580 - Supplementary
Regulations - Engineering Department.) Section 26.480.090 was revised significantly to make the
Code conform to the state's condominiumization statutes.
Part 500 - Supplementary Remalations. This part of the proposed Code includes a consolidation
of existing supplementary regulations, regulatory language deleted from many of the definitions in
the existing Code, regnlatory language deleted from the zoning districts, and miscellaneous
regulations found throughout the existing Code. By combining and consolidating much of the
regulatory language now found throughout various sections and chapters in our existing Code, it
will be possible to do "one stop shopping" for answers. For example, a reader of our current Code
must read multiple sections of the existing Code (if s/he can find them)' to get answers relating to
accessory dwelling units, parking requirements, and affordable housing mitigation requirements.
Hopefully, the proposed 'Code will eliminate this problem by consolidating all of these subjects
under proper chapters and sections.
Please note that "Off-street parking requirements," "affordable housing," "accessory dwelling
units," and the "resident multi-family replacement program," can now be found in their own
chapters or sections of the Code.
Chapter 26.575 - "Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations" contain a number of new sections.
These sections were created primarily to combine regulatory language found throughout our
existing Code and to locate them in one simple-to-find chapter.
Part 600 ' Iml~aet Fees and Dedications. The Park and School Lands dedication sections were
consolidated into this separate part for ease of use. The affordable housing impact fee section found
in the existing Code has been deleted. The fee structure and methodology for calculating the
affordable housing impact fee will be 'inserted in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. It was felt by
staff that this makes sense as so many other substantive provisions are now being proposed to be
located in the AH Guidelines. The added advantage beside a "one stop" place to find All
regulations is that this will provide the City Council and the BOCC an opportunity to review these
regulations on an annual basis as part of the annual review of the AH Guidelines.
The Park Development impact fee was amended to include the potential for affordable
housing and historic landmarked properties to be exempt from the fees. The current code allows the
City Council to waive the fees if it wishes to help subsidize an AH project or to provide an
additional incentive for historic landmarking.
Part 700 - Zone Districts. Although staff was tempted to make many changes to this part of the
Code, no major substantive changes are proposed at this time. Most of the changes proposed are
attempts to make this part of the code easier to read. As mentioned above, regnlatory language
found in the existing zone district chapters were moved and consolidated in the "Supplementary
Regulations" Chapter of the Code. Many of the dimensional requirement charts contained in the
existing Code are duplicative of other charts found in prior sections of the Code. Whenever
possible, these charts were deleted and cross referenced to identical charts found earlier in the Code.
This eliminates many pages and helps to clarify the Code requirements.
- - The requirements for the AI-FPUD zone district were greatly simplified. The 70% affordable
housing requirement was clarified by specifically stating that the 70% figure refers to the project's
8
total bedrooms as opposed to units. The category mix that is required will be set forth in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Additional Substantive Chan~,es suggested for future action.
There are a number of substantive changes to the Code which staff, P&Z, and the City Council have
discussed in recent months. Some of these amendments should provide additional opportunities for
simplifying the Code. In addition, as staff and the public work with a re-codi~ed version of the
Code, other changes which are identified that would simplify either regulatory language or
procedures, will be brought to Council for consideration. Such presumably minor changes to the
Code will be much easier to propose as it will be much easier for staff to review and analyze all
such proposals. Part of the problem in the recent past has been a reluctan~ by anyone to change the
existing Code for fear that a small change in one part of the Code would have unforeseen
consequences to other sections. There has also been the feeling that since the Code has been
scheduled for a major re. codification, minor changes could wait.
Following is a list of amendments to Code provisions that are currently under active consideration
or which staff would like to propose in the near future:
*Accessory Dwelling Units (presented to P&Z in work session; awaiting scheduled joint work session between P&Z and CC--1 st quarter)
*Growth Management Quota System (3rd and 4th quarter) *Historic Preservation Program (includes Inventory and Guidelines: 1 st through
4th quarters)
*Design Review Standards aka Oral. 30 (l st quarter) *Takings determination standards and procedures (City attorneyyEs work program) *Consolidate SPA and PUD chapters of the code (general LUC revisions-- lst
through 4th quarters)
*Lodge preservation Amendments (presented to P&Z in work session; awaiting
scheduled joint work session between P&Z and CC--1st and 2nd quarters)
*Outdoor Lighting Regulations (1 st quarter) *FAR, Height, and dimensional requirements regulations (3rd and 4th quarters)
AACP Follow-up regulation amendments (lst through 4th quarters as well as
2000 work program)
Conclusion. The re-codification of the Code that is being proposed should go a long way to
satisfy critics of our current Code. The formatting changes alone should make the Code easier to
use and read. The many re-writes that occurred to whole chapters of the Code should help make the
Code easier to understand and implement in a consistent and fair fashion. The proposed changes to
review procedures should help streamline application reviews by staff and decision-making bodies
and eliminate due process errors. There is a continuing commitment by staff to continue finding
ways to simplify the Code whenever possible. By adopting the proposed re--codified Code, future
amendments to simplify the Code will be easier to identify and recommend to Council.
Accordingly, this effort should be viewed as a necessary first step. The City's land use code will
never be "simple," but it should not be needlessly cumbersome, confusing, and conflicting. "'
In its continuing effort to make the Code user friendly to non-professionals that occasionally delve
into land use planning issues, the Community Development Department will undertake to write and
make available educational brochures that explain the more complicated areas of our land use code.
If anyone has a question regarding the proposed re-codification of the Code before, during, or after
any meeting scheduled to discuss the proposed amendments, please do not hesitate to contact
anyone in the Community Development Department or the City Attorney's Office.
JPw-O2/26/99-M.\city\cityatty\1and-use\fina1\memo.doc
26.100.050
(d) paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee.
d. All development not classified as "tourist accommodations," "residential" or "commercial and office"
development All development not limited by the provision of Section 26.100.040 shall be exempt from the
grog management competition and scoring procedures.
e. Historic landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created
through a Historic Landmaxk Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.031XA)(5).
3. Corninfinity Development Director exemptions that are deducted f'mm ale pool of annual development
allomaents and from the metto area development ceilings. The enlargement of an historic landmark that develops,
on a maximum cumulative basis, not more than one residential dwelling or three hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast,
boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. Although exempt from competition, units exempted by the
Communlly Development Director pursuant to this section shall be deducted from the respective annual
development allotment established Ixam~ant to Section 26.100.040 and from the melro area development ceilings
established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
B. Exemption by Growth Management Commission.
1. General.
a. Application for exemption. No development shall be considered for an exemption by the Growth
Management Commission until a completed application for exemption has been submitted to the Community
Development Director.
b. Procedure. After the Community Development Director has determined that the application for exemption
is complete, pursuant to Section 26.52.050, the applic~on shall be forwarded to the Growth Management
commission for review and consideration at a hem'ing, for which notice has been given puB-'uant to Section
26.52.060('E)(3)(a). After considering the request, the Growth Management Commission shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny the application for exemption, based on the applic~.tion's compliance with all applicable
standards. In the event that there are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for exempt
development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the sm.ndards of Section 26.100.060(B).
2. Growth Management Comm i~ion exemptions 1/~ are not deducted f~om the pool of annual development
allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. The following exemptions shall not be deducted from
the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.100.040 or from the metro
area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
a. Historic landmarks.
(1) Exempt development.
(a) Enlargements for additional dwelling and tourist accommodations units. The enlargement of an
historic landmark that develops more than one residential dwelling or more than three (3) hotel, motel, lodge.
bed and brea~ast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitDry units shall be exempted fxom the growth management
competition and scoring procedures by the Grovah Management Commission if all of the standards of Section
26.100,050(B)(2)(a)(2) axe met.
(b) Erdargements formixed-use development. The enlargement of an historic landmark formixed-use
as a commercial, oilice or lodge development and ~ adds a residential dwelling unit, that increases the bullding's
or parcel's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage shall be exempted from the growth
management competition and scoring procedures by the Growth Management Commission if all of the standards
of Section 26.100.050(B)(2)(a)(2) are met.
(2) Standards for historic landmark exemptions. To be eligible for the historic landmark exemptions
of this section, the applicant shall demonstrate thin as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's
comm'.lnlty impacts will be addressed as follows:
~A_~ s~> 670
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 26.92, AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, OF THE
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS OF TITLE 26, THE LAND USE CODE
Resolution No. 99-06
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the procedures and provisions set forth in Chapter 26.92
of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Community Development Department has formally
proposed amending numerous Sections of the Aspen Municipal Code in an effort to
simplify the format and intent of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.92.030, Procedure for Amendment, of the
Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for amendment to the text of the
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with
conditions, or disapproval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared the proposed
amendments and recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Contmission; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendments and did conduct a properly noticed public hearing on April 6, 1999;. and,
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the proposed text amendments,
agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in
Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 92 (Text Amendments), the Planning
and Zoning Commission has, by vote of five to zero (5-0), recommended that City
Council adopt the proposed amendments as addressed in the City Att0mey's
memorandum prepared by John Worcester and dated March 1, 1999, together with the
proposed amendments as put forth in the reformatted document attached as Exhibit B,
with some additional changes as addressed at the hearing and outlined below.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Section 1:
That the Commission formally recommends that City Council amend Section 26 Land
Use Code, of the Aspen Municipal Code to read as presented in the reformatted document
attached as Exhibit B.
Section 2:
- · That the additional changes be made to Exhibit B:
Chapter 26.212 Planning and Zoning Commission, Section 26.212.010 Powers and
Duties, adding items (P) and (Q); and Chapter 26.220 HPC, Section 26.220.020 Powers
and Duties, items (J) and (K), both of which would read as follows (consistent with
DRAC duties):
· The hear, review and approve variances to the Residential Design
Guidelines, pursuant to Chapter 26.410;
· To hear and decide appeals from, and review any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by, any administrative official charged
with the enforcement of Chapter 26.410, including appeals of
interpretation of the text of the Residential Design Standards. The
Commission may only grant relief from the Residential Design Standards.
A variance from the Residential Design Standards does not grant an
approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by
another decision making administrative body. and
Section 26.480.030 Exemptions, Subsection (A) (c). be deleted and condition (e) be
modified as follows (new language in BOLD):
e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the
development rights, including any increase in FAR, or permitted
density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new
lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the
corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and
the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the
adjustment.
APPROVED by the Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing on April 6,
1999.
Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission:
Jackie LotMan, Deputy City Clerk Bob Blaich, Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORI~:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
g:\planningXaspcnXrcsos.doc\p&zXluc.doc
P&Z Resolution 99- 06
V|lc,
A,pen
Memorandum I
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: John P. Worcester
DATE: May 10, 1999
RE: Burlingame Ranch Annexation Ordinance - Second Reading
Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance which, if adopted; would annex
the Burlingame Ranch Property to the City of Aspen. This matter is before you for Second Reading
and Public Hearing.
The petition for annexation was filed with the City Clerk on January 20, 1999. On January 21,
1999, City Council adopted a resolution finding substantial compliance with Section 31 - 12-107( 1 ),
C.R.S. A public hearing was held on March 8, 1999, at which time Council determined that the
proposed annexation was in compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.
Attached for your information please find a copy of the Bu~ingame Ranch Annexation Report
prepared by the City Community Development Department for the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners. The report was prepared in accordance with state law as the area proposed to be
annexed is greater than ten acres. Appended to the report is a copy of a map of the area proposed to
be annexed.
City staff will be present at the public hearing to answer any questions you might have on the
proposed annexation and potential impacts the annexation will have on City operations.
The decision to annex property to the City is a legislative act and is entirely within your
discretionary powers. You may annex, or not, for any reason, or no reason at all.
ACTION REQUIRED: A Motion to approve Ordinance No. I ~ , Series of 1999.
JPW-05/05/99-G:\john\word\memas\burlingame.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1999)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE C1TY COUNC/L OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS' THE "BURLINGAME RANCH"
ANNEXATION.
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1999, the City Manager of the City of Aspen did file, on behalf
of the City of Aspen, with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory
to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been
reviewed by the City Attomey's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the
information prescribed and set forth in §31 - 12-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area proposed to be annexed,
exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented in writing to the annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution Number 6, Series of 1999) at its regular
meeting on January 21, 1999, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in
substantial compliance with the provisions of §31-i2-107, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 18, Series of 1999) at its regular
meeting on March 8, 1999, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for
Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the
annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation,
commonly referred to as the "Burlingame Ranch", and as shown on the annexation map, is hereby
annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows:
(a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation
ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
(b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation
map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
(c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this
anneiation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the
Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado.
Section 3.. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend
the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this
annexation ordinance.
Section 4. That 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. That 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.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ,1999, in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
,1999.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST~
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
JPW-04/21/99-G: \john\word\ords\burlingame.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attomey ·
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Mitch~Haas, Planner/~
RE,: Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area,
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
DATE: May 10, t999
SUMMARY: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines "Floor Area,"
as it relates to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or ~Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose principal use is residential the
following shaH apply: The allowable floor area for an attoehed accessory dweHing
unit shah be excluded up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet of
allowable floor area or fifty (50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit
whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure
by a distance of no less than ten (]O) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred
fifty (450) square feet, shah be calculated at ~fty (50) percent of allowable ~oor area
up to seven hundred (700) square feet of floor area. Any element linking the
principal structure to the accessor), unit may be no more than one (1) story tall, six
(6)feet wide and ten (l O) feet long.
This definition indicates that an ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no
less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet is
entitled to an FAR bonus. Ventures West has submitted a request for interpretation arguing
that the term "footprint" refers to the ADU itself (its floor plan), and not necessarily to where
the structure in which the ADU is incorporated meets the ground (plan view). They explain
that the language of the definition, as they read it, indicates that the footprint of the ADU (not
the encompassing structure) must not exceed 450 square feet to qualify for the FAR bonus.
Ventures West purports that the word "footprint" is commonly used to describe the bottom
perimeter of an architectural unit such as a room, a floor, a pool, etc., i~n whatever base it
may rest, not necessarily just the Found. They go on to explain that, "The inclusion of the
underlying structure to 450 square feet just because it is the part of the structure that meets
the Found is certainly not implied in the common use of the word footprint, nor is it a
reasonable assumption that it would be." "As we [Ventures West] read the code, all that is
clear is that the footprint of the ADU is restricted to 450 square feet (net livable) regardless
of whether it is on grade, below Fade, or part of a structure above grade." (See Exhibit A.)
INTERPRETATION: Staff of the Community Development Department has routinely and
consistently administered the above-cited definition as requiring that detached structures
containing ADUs have a maximum footprint of 450 square feet to be eligible for an FAR
bonus. In doing so, the term "footprint" has been interpreted to mean "the structure as drawn
in plan view, or the conglomeration of all points of intersection between the structure and
finished Fade." In other words, the term "footprint" as used in the "Floor Area" definition
has always been interpreted as a reference to the footprint of the structure in which the ADU
is incorporated, and not to the floorplan.of the unit itself. (See Exhibit B.)
BACKGROUND: In designing a residence with an allowable FAR of6,114 square feet, the
applicant assumed an "au.tomatic" FAR bonus of 50% of the ADU's floor area, and used all
of the site's allowable FAR (plus the bonus and exempted areas such as subgrade
spaces/basement and garages). The original proposal would have located the ADU above the
detached two-car garage. When it was realized that the FAR bonus w6uld not be "automatic"
(i.e., without the imposition of "mandatory occupancy" on the deed restriction as a sort of
quid pro quo for a bonus being included with the conditional use approval), the applicant was
left with the following options: 1) redesign the proposal to fit within the allowable FAR for
the site --- this would have required either elimination of approximately 288 square feet of
FAR from the proposed residence of nearly 10,000 gross square feet, or relocation of the
ADU to a subgrade space so that most of its area would be exempt from FAR calculations;
2) redesign the proposed detached structure to have a footprint of 450 square feet or less; 3)
apply for a code amendment to change the 450 square foot footprint provision to allow a
larger footprint; or, 4) seek a code interpretation of the term "footprint," and if necessary,
appeal the interpretation to Council.
The applicant chose to relocate the proposed ADU to a subgrade space in order to avoid
having all of its gross square footage count toward the site's total allowable FAR. Staff still
found the proposal to meet the review criteria for an ADU as a Conditional Use, and
recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission feels
that, although not precluded by the Land Use Code, subgrade ADUs are not consistent with
the direction and recommendations of the AACP. Accordingly, rather than approve the
subgrade ADU, the Commission felt it would be better for the ADU to be located in the
unused, vaulted space above the detached two-car garage. Consequently, the Planning and
Zoning Commission encouraged the applicant to appeal the Community Development
Director' s Code Interpretation to Council, thinking that the interpretation somehow precluded
or discouraged location of the ADU above-grade.
DISCUSSION: In interpreting the code language, staff struggled with the following
questions. Why would the maximum "footprint" (floor plan) of the ADU itself be limited to
450 square feet when a 700 square foot unit is permissible? Or, how can a bonus of up to
350 square feet of floor area be possible if the unit's maximum footprint is 450 square feet?
Answer: if the applicant's interpretation is correct, the 350 square foot bonus and/or a 700
square foot unit would only be possible for two-story ADUs. Is the City simply attempting to
encourage two-story ADUs? Staff thinks not. Similarly, is the City discouraging detached
ADUs above two-car garages in order to, instead, encourage the development of these units
only above one-car garages or on grade? Again, staff thinks not.
Based on the ADU-related information found throughout the City Code and on staff's 5
understanding of the ADU program's purpose, staff concludes that the 450 square foot
footprint provision must relate to where the ADU-containing structure meets the ground, and
not to the perimeter of the unit's floor plan. For instance, the criterion for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to grant the FAR bonus/variation for a detached ADU is a finding that
"such variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence.. ." Such a
criterion (one related to compatibility in character to the primary residence) would be
arbitrary and capricious in relation to the floor plan of a unit within a larger building. That is,
under the applicant's interpretation, such a criterion would seek to answer the question of, "Is
this room or unit within the detached building compatible with the character of the primary
residence?" Further, the variance criterion would be unrelated to the issue of detached
accessory dwelling units being in harmony with the letter and spirit of the City definition for
2
"Accessory use or accessory structure," which includes such phrases as: "incidental to;"
"subordinate to;" 'and, "is subordinate in area, extent, and purpose. . ."
CONCLUSION: While staff is comfortable basing its conclusion on the foregoing lines of
reason, it may be added that the term "footprint" is commonly used in architectural circles to
refer to a structure as drawn in plan view, or the conglomeration of a!l points of intersection
between the structure and finished grade. This interpretation has been consistently applied in
the past. In fact, in recent discussions with various architects, none. disagreed with this
interpretation and none believed the term applied to individual rooms, floors, etc. All
architects staff has conferred with generally understand the term "footprint" to refer to where
a structure meets the ground.
With regard to the Planning and Zoning Commission's feeling that staffs interpretation
somehow precluded or discouraged location of the ADU above-grade, staff can only respond
by pointing out that relocation of the ADU to a subgrade space was required only because the
applicant was not willing to either eliminate 288 square feet of FAR from the principal
residence, or make the garage smaller. On the other hand, staff agrees with the applicant
insomuch as it is nearly impossible to provide a functional two-car garage with a footprint of
under 450 square feet. Thus, while staff stands by its interpretation, staff also feels it might
be worthwhile to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the "automatic" FAR
bonus applying to detached ADUS above a two-car garage with a maximum footprint of five-
hundred fifty (550) square feet if Council should be so inclined. A maximam footprint of
550 square feet (22' x 25') would accommodate a reasonable two-car garage while still
ensuring that the detached structure is "incidental to," "subordinate to," and "subordinate in
area, extent, andpurpose" to the primary structure/residence.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council uphold the Community
Development Director's interpretation of Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" finding that the term "footprint" as used in the
subject definition refers to a structure as drawn in plan view, or the conglomeration of all
points of intersection between the structure and finished grade.
In addition, it is recommended that Council direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment
that would allow an FAR bonus for detached ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum
footprint of five-hundred fifty (550) square feet,
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to uphold the Community Development Director's
'March 24, 1999, Code Interpretation regarding the definition of "Floor Area, G. Accessory
Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion," as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal
Code."
"I also move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow an FAR
bonus for detached ADUs above a two-car garage with a maximum footprint of five-hundred
fifty (550) square feet."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A --- Request for Interpretation
Exhibit B --- Director's Interpretation
Exhibit C --- Request for Appeal of Interpretation
ARCHiTECTURAl, DESIGN & CONSTRUCTIO~I
March 5, 1999
Ms. Julie Ann Woods F.A}]D DELIVERED
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Woods:
As we discussed on the phone, this letter is a request for an
"interpretation of code". The portion of code in question is
Section 26.40.090 (E), which defines the condition by which the
applicant qualifies for the FAR bonus for an ADU. Please see the
attached copy. The language, as we read it, indicates (among other
things) that the footprint of the ADU must not exceed 450 (net
liveable) square feet to qualify for the bonus FAR. Sara Thomas
has indicated that not only must the ADU footprint be less than 450
square feet, but also that the footprint of the underlying
structure (in our case a garage) must also be less than 450 square
feet. Apparently the word "footprint" is being interpreted as
where the structure to which the ADU is attached meets the ground.
The word "footprint" is commonly used to describe the bottom
perimeter of an architectural unit such as a room, a floor, a pool,
etc. on whatever base it may rest, not necessarily jus~ the ground.
We speak in .terms of the second story footprint, the footprint of
furniture, such as a desk or dresser on the floor, etc. In order
to be clear, we often say the "footprint of the first floor" when
referring to "the building footprint" of a house, as the second
story may have a different "footprint". Is the footprint of the
cupola on top of the ADU the footprint of the garage?
We are told that the City does not define the word footprint in its
definitions elsewhere. How could a person not intimately familiar
with the code, its intent and its history have any idea that the
City would be using this uncommon, unusual, restrictive
interpretation of the word "footprint". We can only reliably know
what we read.
David Muckenhirn
Post Office Box 8352 · ,~spen, CoJorado 81612 · lelephone 970.925,8889 · Fax 970.925.4006 · Cel]ujcsr 970.379.1077
Ms. JulieAnn Woods
March 5, 1999
Page 2
If the intent of the code is to restrict the footprint of an ADU to
include the footprint of its underlying structure, why does it not
say so? The inclusion of the underlying structure to 450 square
feet just because it is the part of the structure that meets the
ground is certainly not implied in the common use of the word
footprint, nor is it a reasonable assumption that it would be.
As we read the code, all that is clear is that the footprint of the
ADU is restricted to 450 square feet (net liveable) regardless of
whether it is on grade, below grade or part of a structure above
grade.
Should you insist that the footprint of the garage also needs to be
less than 450 square feet, our only viable alternative at this
point is to move the ADU underground, beneath the garage. This is
not an alternative that the Housing Department, the P & Z
Commission, nor we desire. Why would you interpret the code in
such a manner to encourage the ADU to be underground?
We appreciate your consideration of this matter, as we have
obviously relied on what we consider the general and common use of
the word footprint and the literal words of the code. Thank you.
Sincerely,
DM/ca
david\J awoods. O0 1
C. James Morse
Mitch Haas
Sara Thomas
John Worcester, Esq.
, LI XaISt"T
ASPEN/'PITKIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART}IE&x]~ ~'~.,;~
CODE INTERPRETATION
-,:.. ~,= .'~-,,,.,
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Floor Area, G.
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion."
EFFECTIVE DATE: March ! 7, 1999
WRITTEN BY: ~~itch Haas, Planner
APPRoVED sY: ATE:
Ju oods.
1 uniW evelo men irec r
SUMMARY: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines "Floor Area," as it
relates to an "Accessor,:' Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion" as follows:
G. Accessory Dwelling Unit or Linked Pavilion. For the purpose of calculating floor
area ratio and allo~'able ~oor area for a lot whose principal use is residential the
following shall apply: The allowable floor area for an attached accessory dwelling
unit shah be excluded up to a mazimum of three hundred tiff2>' (350,) square pet of
allqwable floor area or fifty (50j percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit
whichex'er is less. An accessory dwellbzg unit separated~om a principal structure
by a distance of no less than ten (10)feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred
fifty (450,) square feet, shall be calculated at ~f.~ (50,) percent of allo~'able ~oor area
up to se~'en hundred (700) square pet of floor area. Any element linking the
principal structure to the accessory unit m~' be no more than one (1,) story tall si.,:
(6)feet wide and ten (JOj feet long.
This definition indicates that an ADU separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less
than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet is entitled to an
FAR bonus. Ventures West has submitted a request for interpretation arguing that the term
"footprint" refers to the ADU itself (its floor plan), and not necessarily to where the structure in
which the ADU is incorporated meets the ground (plan view). Ventures West purports that the word
"footprint" is commonly used to describe the bottom perimeter of an architectural unit such as a
room, a floor, a pool, etc., on whatever base it may rest, not necessarily just the ground.
BACKGROUND: Under the provisions of Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units, it is
explained that an FAR bonus of up to 50% of the size of the ADU may be granted for an attached
ADU if it is above grade and contains a "mandatory occupancy" term on the deed restriction (as
interpreted from the phrase "available for rental"). Under Section 26.04.100. Definitions, as cited
above, it is explained that an attached ADU may be granted a 50% FAR bonus, and that a detached
ADU may be granted a 50% FAR bonus if it is separated from a principal structure by a distance of
no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of four hundred fifty (450) square feet.
By combining the knowledge gained from the two aforementioned code sections, one can conclude
that an attached ADU may be Fanted a 50% FAR bonus if it is above Fade and carries a mandatory
occupancy deed restriction while a detached ADU may be granted a 50% FAR bonus if it is above
grade, separated from a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet, and has a
footprint of no more than four hundred rift3, (450) square feet. Further, pursuant to Section
26.40.090(B)(2), Review Standards for Detached ADUs, it is explained. that "Ifhere the proposed
development varies from the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning
and Zoning Commission 'shah find that such variation is more compatible in character with the
primary residence than the development in accord with the dimensional requirements." Sub-section
(c) goes on to state that FAR is one of the dimensional requirements that can be varied pursuant to
this criterion.
Based on the information contained in the preceding paragraph, staff concludes that the 450 square
foot footprint provision must ~elate to where the ADU-containing structure meets the ground, and
not to the "footprint" (or floor plan) Of the unit itself. That is, the criterion for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to grant the FAR bonus/variation for a detached ADU is a finding that "such
variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence.. ." If the 450 square foot
footprint provision related only to the unit's floor plan, the variance criterion would be arbitrary,
capricious and, moreover, unrelated to the issue of detached accessory dwelling units being in
harmony with the letter and spirit of the City definition for "Accessor), use or accessory structure,"
which includes such phrases as: "incidental to;" subordinate to;" does not change the basic
character of the premises, as determined by the principal use or structure;" and, "is subordinate in
area, extent, and purpose ..."
While staff is comfortable basing its conclusion on the foregoing line of reason, it should be added
that the term "footprinf' is commonly used in architectural circles to refer to the structure as drawn
in plan view, or the conglomeration of all points of intersection bem'een the structure and finished
grade. This interpretation has been consistently applied in the past. In fact, in recent discussions
with various architects, none disagreed with this interpretation and none believed the term applied to
individual rooms, floors, etc. All architects staff as conferred with generally understand the term
"footprinf' to refer to where a structure meets the Found.
INTERPRETATION: With regard to the City definition for "Floor Area, Accessor>,' Dwelling Unit
or Linked Pavilion" and the requirement that detached ADUs have a maximum footprint of 450
square feet to be eligible for an FAR bonus, the term "footprint" is hereby interpreted to mean "the
structure as drawn in plan view, or the conglomeration of all points of intersection between the
structure and finished Fade." In other words, the term "footprint" as used in the "Floor Area"
definition refers to the footprint of the structure in which the ADU is incorporated, and not to the
floor plan of the unit itself.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Request for Interpretation submitted by Ventures West
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCtiON
Ms. Julie Ann Woods
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611 ItAND DELI~'ERED
Dear Ms. Woods:
This letter is a request to appeal to the Aspen City Council the interpretation of Code by
the Planning Director approved March 24, 1999, regarding the ADU footprint (Section
26.40.090). This appeal is precipitated at the encouragement of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. It appears that the general consensus is that the Code interpretation does
not meet the intent of the Code, and is counterproductive. The applicant feels that the
Code as interpreted is not what the Code states.
In brief, the issue is as follows: The Planning Department has stated in its response to the
applicant's request for a code interpretation, "that an ADU separated from a principal
structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint of 450 feet
is entitled to a FAR bonus". The Planning Department has interpreted this to mean that
any underlying structure to the ADU (in this case a 600 square foot garage) must also
have a maximum footprint of 450 square feet. The applicant feels that the code simply
does not say this, that it does not refer to the footprint of the underlying structure but only
to the footp~ni of the ADU alone.
As a result of this Code interpretation and because the applicant does not desire to reduce
the garage to a maximum of 450 square feet, the applicant has moved the ADU from
above the garage to below the garage. This is a solution that neither the Planning and
Zoning Commission, the Housing Authority nor the applicant desires. For more specific
background details, please refer to Exhibit A, the applicant's request for code
interpretation and to Exhibit B, the Planning Department's response.
Additionally, in subsequent discussions the question has arisen as to how appropriate the
450 square foot area is and as to whether it should be increased to 550 or 600 square feet.
Sincerely,
DlNl/kjs
Ot~vid t, tuckonhirn
Post Office Box 8352 · Aspen, Colorado 81612 · Telephone 970.925.8889 · Fax 970.9:~5,4006 - Cellular 9Z0.379.1077
TO: The Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Direct0r~- '
RE: Appeal of Code Interpretation: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Sign",
and Section 26.36.030, "Procedure for sign permit approval, (B) Exempt
signs, (6) Fine An."
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUMMARY: Section 26.04.100, Definitions, of the Municipal Code defines "Sign" as
follows:
Sign means any object, device, display, symbol, light or structure,
fixed to, painted on, placed on or incorporated in, the building
surface of structure, or displayed from or within a building or
structure, or freestanding upon the site which is designed to be
visible from outside and used, intended or designed to convey or
direct information or a message to the public concerning the
identification of the premises or to advertise or promote the
interests of any private or public firm, person, organization,
service or product..
This definition is broad and encompassing and could be interpreted in a multitude of
ways. Herb Klein, esq., representing Charles Cunniffe and Charles Cunniffe Architects
(CCA), submitted a request for interpretation arguing that the backlit photo
transparencies of homes on display in the window of Charles Cunniffe's office are simply
photos with no written words, and that such an object should not be considered a sign.
He further states that "Furthermore, without conceding that the photos are a sign, CCA
believes that the photographs it displays are a form of art and may be considered to be an
exempt sign under 26.36.030(B)(6)." This cited section of the code identifies signs that
may be exempt from obtaining a sign permit, but must still comply with all other
applicable provisions of the code. Section 26.36.030(B)(6) does identify that "fine art" is
considered exempt from obtain a sign permit, and reads as follows:
6. Fine art. Works of fine art which in no way identidS; or
advertise a person, product, service or business.
Mr. Klein purports that the photos simply represent the art that has been created, and that
since they do not have any written words on them, they do not convey any message that
one would typically expect to be contained within a sign. The specific request by Mr.
Klein is an "...interpretation by the Planning Director and if necessary, the City Council,
as to whether or not they believe that CCA's photographs are a sign or in the alternative,
that if the photos are a sign, that they are exempt as art."
INTERPRETATION: Photo display boxes, such as the one located at the Charles
Cunniffe offices, have historically been viewed by the Community Development
Department as signs and have been required to meet all standards of the sign regulations,
including the provision in Section 26.36.070 prohibiting signs from being illuminated by
the use of internal or rear illumination. Staff has not interpreted photo displays of this
kind as fine art as they are used to specifically identify a product or business. The
community Development Director has concluded that the photo display board is a sign,
and therefore must comply with all provisions of 26.36, including obtaining a sign permit
and complying with the sign illumination requirements. (See Exhibit B).
BACKGROUND: Based on a complaint from a resident, the Zoning Enforcement
Office followed up with a citing of a violation to the sign code for an internally
illuminated (backlit) display board located in the window of Charles Curmiffe's offices
located at 610 E. Hyman Ave. The Zoning Officer concluded that the display box, which
displayed residences designed by the architecture office, was indeed a sign, and was in
violation of Section 26.36.070 Sign Illumination. She informed the owner that the sign
could remain, but a permit must be applied for and the sign could not be internally
illuminated. The owner then requested an interpretation from the Community
Development Director (see Exhibit A) requesting that the sign be considered "fine art"
and therefore be exempt from the necessary permits. Upon advise of legal counsel, the
Director also concluded that the backlit display is indeed a sign, as defined in the code,
and is subject to the requirement that signs not be internally illuminated. Exhibit B is a
copy of the Community Development Director' s interpretation. Upon receipt of this
interpretation, the applicant, tb_rough his attorney, has petitioned the City council to
consider an appeal from the Director's decision (Exhibit C).
DISCUSSION: A number of "sign code" enforcement complaints have been received
by the Community Development Department in recent months, which pertain, not to
actual signage, bnt rather t0window displays and merchandising. Staffdoes agree that
the definition of sign is so broad in scope that window displays, as well as any
merchandise that is visible to the public, can technically be considered as signage. The
conflict arises when staff is asked to enforce and regulate window displays under the sign
code criteria. As the sign code prohibits moving parts, neon lighting or backlit lighting
we have been asked to regulate items such as a moving bicycle wheel in the window of
The Hub, a small rotating "chef' in the window of Charcuterie, and a backlit panel in the
window of Gucci. At a recent City Council meeting, a neon cowboy located at a gallery
On Hyman Avenue was also discussed as a possible violation of the sign code.
Staff is concerned that if"merchandise" is actually considered as signage, then all aspects
of the sign code should apply to displays, not just the regulations regarding lighting and
moving parts. However, if we were to apply all provisions of the sign code to window
displays then virtually every business in town would be violating the sign code in that
most would be exceeding the allowed size and number of signs.
If it is determined that window displays are not to be considered as signage, the current
sign definition could be amended to be more narrowed in scope. If it is determined that
w'mdow displays still need to be regulated in regards to lighting, moving parts, etc., a
code section could be added that is specific to window displays and merchandising,
separate from the sign code regulations. Adding language to the upcoming code
2
amendment for lighting standards which would address the use of neon or backlighting
in commercial window displays, could also be considered.
CONCLUSION: While staff is comfortable basing its conclusions on the current
definition of "signs", we do recognize that an amendment to more specifically address
signs vs. window displays may be appropriate. The interpretation of photo display boxes
being considered signs has been consistently applied in the past.
Thus, while staff stands by its interpretation, staff also feels it might be worthwhile to
· pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for the a more specific definition of
sign, separate from window display of merchandise, as well as new language under the
new lighting standards that would address illumination of window displays, if City
Council agrees. City Council should also consider whether it wants to regulate moving
parts within a window display.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council uphold the Community
Development Director's interpretation of Section 26.04.100, Definitions, "Sign" finding
that the term "sign" as used in the subject definition does refer to the backlit photo
display case located within the Charles Curmiffe office, that is designed to be visible
from the outside and intended to convey information or to promote the interests of the
Charles Cunniffe Architectural firm's product. Further, that the subject sign should not
be considered fine art under Section 26.36.030(B)(6) which would be exempt from a sign
permit.
In addition, it is recommended that Council direct staff to pursue a simple code
amendment that would allow for the a more specific definition of sign, separate from
window display of merchandise, as well as new language under the new lighting
standards that would address illumination of window displays.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to uphold the Community Development
Director's March 15, 1999, Code Interpretation regarding the definition of "Sign," as
provided in Section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and find that the subject
sign should not be exempt under Section 26.36.030(B)(6) as fine art."
"I also move to direct staff to pursue a simple code amendment that would allow for a
more specific· definition of sign, separate from window display of merchandise, as well as
new language'under the new lighting standards that would address illumination of
window displays."
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A --~ Request for Interpretation
Exhibit B --~ Director's Interpretation
Exhibit C --~ Request for Appeal of Interpretation
G:/planning/aspen/memos/signinUp.doc
· ~¥h~t"F
~W OFFICES OF
HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
HERBERT S. KLEIN SU~
JACQUEUNE L ~RDNBR SUITE 2B
' FEB .
, ~ C/ty A~0me~s
David Hoefer, ~sq. i~
Assistant City ~ttorney ...- Offic~_~,~
City of Aspen
130 S Galena S~.
Aspen, CO 816~1
~e: Charles C~nniffe A.~chitects - ~lleged Sign Violation
Dear David:
This office reDresents Charles Cunniffe and Charles Cunniffe
Architects ("CCA"). ~r. C~nniffe referred to me your letter of
~ebruary 5, ~999, wherein your office alleges that CCA is in
violation of 626.36.070(A) of the City Code which relates to
prohibited illuminated signs. This allegation relates to CCA'S
placement in the window of its office of ~ack-lit photo
transparencies of homes which it has designed. The photos do not
have any written words on them and are simply photos of homes
designed by CCA.
Apparently, Sarah Oates, the City Planning Technician,
believes that these photographs constitute a "sign" under the City
code. I have reviewed the Code definition of "sign'l f6und in
§26.04.100 and also the relevant sections of the sign code found in
§26.36.010, et. seq. I have also walked by CCA's offices at night
and observed its photographs as well as the appearance of
storefronts nearby andin other parts of town. Quite frankly, I
find it difficult to agree with your assertion that CCA'S
photographs constitute a sign. It is true that the photographs are
illuminated from the rear because they are transparencies and can
only be viewed in this manner. ~owever, simply having an object
illuminated from the rear does not make it a sign.
When the definition of "sign" is scrutinized, it appears to be
extremely broad and possibly unenforceable because of its breadth.
In particular, the definition of "sign" states, generally, that any
object which conveys information to advertise or promote any firm,
person, service or product is a sign. Does this mean that the
sweatshirts in the window of the Gap are signs? How about the
lamps lit up at night in the window of the Aspen Lighting Studio,
are they signs? What about the photos of homes for sale in every
realtor's office in town, are they signs? Is an antique urn
displayed in a shop window and illuminated from all sides a sign?
Is that diamond necklace in the Hyde Park window, illuminated from
the rear a sign? Is a photograph of 'a house designed by an
architect a sign? As you can see, the City's definition of sign is
David Hoefor, Esq.
February 16, 1999
Page 2
So broad that it could include all of these objects. Historically,
the City has not treated these objects as signs even though they
seem to fit within the definition. Why then, is CCA being singled
out ?
Furthermore~ without conceding that the photos are a sign, CCA
believes that the photographs it displays are a form of art and may
be considered to be an exempt sign under §26.36.030B6. It is well
recognized that architectural work is an art form. These photos
simply represent the art that has been created. Since these
photographs do not have any written words on them, they do not
convey any message that one would typically expect to be contained
within a sign. The photographs are attractive and certainly not
offensive in any respect. Simply walking down the street at night
ought to provide you with an appreciation of the "stretch" that the
City Planning Technician has attempted in order to include CCA's
photographs within the definition of sign and then to assert a code
violation based upon the prohibited illumination of a sign.
It seems that rather than precipitously taking this matter to
court, it might be better to seek an interpretation under
§26.112.010 by the Planning Director and if necessary, the City
Council, as to whether or not they believe that CCA's photographs
are a sign or in the alternative, that if the photos are a sign,
that they are exempt as art. We, therefore, request that such
interpretation be made by the Planning Director. I would think
your office would support such determination so' that if the
Planning Director or, on a subsequent appeal, the City Council
determines that CCA's photographs are not signs or are exempt as
art, a prosecution will be avoided. On the other hand, if through
the appeal process the City Council determines that CCA' s
photographs are signs, we will at least have had an opportunity to
discuss and fully evaluate how council interprets the definition of
a sign in light of the breadth of the current code section.
Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation in this
matter. I would appreciate a response to this letter and an
indication as to whether or not the City will process this response
as a request for an interpretation.
Very truly yours,
HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
bt~~S. Kle n/
By:
Her i
sg\cuPa~iffe\102. l~r
cc: Charles Cunniffe
CODE INTERPRETATION ?' ncU4'/Y':.,,~t' .. :
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 26.36 (SignS), Section 26.04.100
(Definitions - Sign)
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 1999
WRITTEN BY: Sara Thomas, City Zoning Officer
APPROVED BY: ;:~/j_f--- ~. d DATE:
SUMMARY: Mr. Herb Klein submitted a code interpretation request to the Community
Development Department on February 22, 1999 to determine if the si.~n code regulations
were applicable to the backlit photo display box that was recently erected outside the Charles
Curmiffe Architects office building.
BACKGROL~'ND:
Section 26.04.100 of the Municipal Code reads as follows:
Sign means any object, device, display,' symbol, light or structure, fixed to, painted on, placed
on or incorporated in, the building surface of structure, or displ~'ed from or within a
building or structure, or ffeestanding upon the site which is designed to be visible from
outside and used intended or designed to convey or direct information or a message to the
public concerning the identificatic. n of the premises or to advertise or promote the interests
of any private or public firm, person, organization, service or product..
Mr. Klein states in his interpretation request that the Community Development Department
should consider the photo display as fine art, and not as a sign.
Section 26.36,030 (B) (6) - Exempt Signs - defines "free art" as follows:
6. Fine art. Works of ~ne art which in no way identijS/ or advertise a person, product,
service or business.
Exempt signs, including fine art, are exempt from having to obtain a sign permit, but are still
required by Section 26.36.030 to comply with all other provisions of the sign regulations.
INTERPRETATION: Photo display boxes, such as the one located at the Charles
Cunniffe offices, have historically been viewed by the Community Development Department
as signs and have been required to meet all standards of the sign regulations, including the
provision in Section 26.36.070 prohibiting signs from being illuminated by the use of
internal or rear illumination. Staff has not interpreted photo displays of this kind as fine art
as they are used to specifically identify a product or business. Staff concludes that the
photo display area at the Charles Curmiffe Architects office is a sign and therefore must
comply with all provisions of Section 26.36, including obtaining a sign permit and
complying with the sign illumination requirements.
PROFESSlO LCORPOnA ON C,
HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STRE="T
MILLARD J. Z~Mb'F' SUFE 203
ASPEN, COLOPADO 81611
OF COUNSEL: TEL: (970) 925-8700
JACQUELINE L. GARDNER FAX: (970) 926-3977
"also admitted in New York
April 14, 1999'
jutie Ann Woods
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Charles Cunniffe Architects Alleged Sign Violation
Petition to City Council Appealing Community Development
Director's Code Interpretation.
Dear Julie:
This office represents Charles Cunniffe and Charles Cunniffe
Architects ("CCA"). I have received your code interpretation dated
March 15, 1999, which was provided to me by Sara Thomas' letter
dated March 16, 1999, concerning this matter and am now submitting
this letter as the "Petition" called for by Section 26.112.010 F,
constituting an appeal of your decision to the City Council. The
decisions being appealed are your determinations that (I) the color
transparencies of houses which Mr. Cunniffe has designed are signs
within the City Land Use Code ("LUC") definition found at LUC
26.04.100; and (2) these photos are not exempt from the sign code
as "fine art" pursuant to LUC 26.36.030.
Enclosed is a letter to the City Council constituting the
Petition. Please forward this on to the Council and contact me so
that we can establish a date when a hearing can be held with
Council on this matter.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPOF~ATION
By: Her~'
sg\cunniffe\104.1tr
Enclosure
PROFESSIONAL CORPORA'RON
HE=.BERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 20~ NORTH MILL STREET
MJLLARD J, ZIME'T' SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COUNSEL: TEL: {970) 925-8700
jACQUELINE L, GAF:IDNER FAX: (970) 925-39?7
· aiso admitted in New York April 14, 1999
Honorable City C6uncil Members
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Charles Cunniffe Architects - Alleged Sign Violation
Petition to City CouncilAppealing Community Development
Director's Code Interpretation
Dear Council Members:
This office represents Charles Cunniffe and Charles Cunniffe
Architects ("CCA"). CCA has been cited for a violation of
~26.36.070(A) of the City Code which relates to prohibited
illuminated signs. This allegation relates to CCA's placement in
the window of its office of back-lit photo transparencies of homes
which it has designed. The photos do not have any written words on
them and are simply photos.of homes designed by CCA.
I sought and have received a code interpretation from Julie
Ann Woods, 'Community Development Director dated March 15, 1999,
which was provided to me by Sara Thomas' letter dated March 16,
1999, and am now submitting this letter as the "Petition" called
for by' Section 26.112.010 F, constituting an appeal of the
Director's decision to the City Council.
The decisions being appealed are her determinations that (1)
the color transparencies of houses which Mr. Cunniffe has designed
are signs within the City Land Use Code ("LUC") definition found at
LUC 26.04.100; and (2) these photos are not exempt from the sign
code as "fine art" pursuant to LUC 26.36.030.
The first question which requires a determination is whether
or not these photos are a "sign". If the first question is
determined in the affirmative, then the secondquestion which needs
to be determined is whether these photos are exempt from the sign
code as "fine art". Unfortunately, the Director's determination of
the first question did not explain why She believed that these
photos are a "sign" and simply states that the Community
Development Department ("CDD") has historically viewed similar
photo display boxes as being signs. There is no reasoning or
analysis of the LUC provided nor any explanation as to why the CDD
has historically taken this position. With respect to the second
question, the CDD position is that these photos are not within the
Honorable City Council Members
April 14, 1999
Page 2
definition of "fine art" because they "specifically identify a
product or business".
I have reviewed the Code definition of "sign" found in
§26.04.100 and also the relevant sections of the sign code found in
§26.36.010, et. seq. I have also walked by CCA's offices at night
and observed its photographs as well as the appearance of
storefronts nearby and in other parts of town. Quite frankly, I
find it difficult to agree that CCA's photographs constitute a
sign. It is true that the photographs are illuminated from the
rear because they are transparencies and can only be viewed in this
manner. However, simply having an object illuminated from the rear
does not make it a sign.
When the definition of "sign" is scrutinized, it appears to be
extremely broad and if applied to this situation it will be
challenged as unenforceable for this reason. The definition
states, generally, that any object which conveys information to
advertise or promote any firm, person, service or product is a
sign. Does this mean that the sweatshirts in the window of the Gap
are signs? After all, they prominently have the word "Gap" on
them. How about the lamps lit up at night in the window of the
Aspen Lighting Studio, are they signs? They are objects which
convey information about what is sold there, and they are
internally illuminated. What about the photos of homes for sale in
every realtor's office in town, are they signs? Is an antique urn
displayed in a shop window and illuminated from all sides a sign?
Is that diamond necklacein the Hyde Park window, illuminated from
the rear a sign? Is a photograph of a house designed by an
architect a sign? As you can see, the City's definition of sign is
so broad that it could include all of these objects. Historically,
the City has not treated these objects as signs even though they
seem to fit within the o~erly broad definition.
We submit that CCA's photos are not signs and have fewer
indicia of information displayed by other objects which the City
has not interpreted as being signs. For example, there is no
lettering or logo identifying CCA on the photos. They are simply
photos of houses designed by CCA. In that regard they are similar
to the wares displayed in store windows all over town, and are less
like signs than those like the Gap which puts its name in big
letters right on the front of its sweatshirts, or the jewelers
whose name appears on the display which holds the jewelry item.
Therefore, we believe these photos are not signs within the intent
of the sign code.
If despite the foregoing reasons why these photos are not
signs, you determine they are signs, then the second question must
be addressed, e.g. are these photos fine art and deemed an exempt
Honorable City Council Members
April i4, 1999
Page 3
sign under §26.36.030B6. It is well recognized that architectural
work is an art form. In fact, the Council recently dealt with this
issue in a similar vein and determined that architects should be
allowed to have offices in the neighborhood commercial zone because
their work is similar in character to the allowed use for artists
studios. Since these photographs do not have any written words on
them, they do not convey any message that one would typically
expect to be contained within a sign. These photos simply
represent the art that has been created and are as much art as are
the photos or watercolors of Aspen's victorian houses which appear
in many shop and gallery windows.
In conclusion, the photographs are attractive and certainly
not offensive in any respect. Simply walking down the street at
night ought to provide you with an appreciation of the "stretch"
that the CDD has undertaken to include CCA's photographs within the
definition of sign and then to assert a code violation based upon
them as prohibited illuminated signs.
Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation in this
matter. I would appreciate your scheduling a hearing on this
matter so that we can make a presentation of our positicn and
provide you with additional information at that time.
Very truly yours,
KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONALCORPORATION
By:
Herbert S. Klein, Esq.
sg\cuP, niffe\103.
cc: Charles Cunniffe
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 0~
RE: Burlingame Ranch Rezoning - Information Item
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUMMARY:
As part of the statutor)~ requirements of annexation, the City of Aspen has an
obligation to zone the Burlingame Ranch property witEin 90 days of final annexationL
This memorandum, however, does not contain a formal recommendation for zoning
the Burlingame Ranch and does not require any action by City Council.
This is an information item discussing the existing zoning, as the property exists in
Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen zoning which is currently under consideration
by the Community Development Department. Also described is the public hearing
process necessary for the initial zoning.
EXISTING & PROPOSED
Attached are two maps describing the existing and proposed zoning. The existing
Pitkin County Zoning consists of~wo zone districts: Agricultural/Forestry/Residential
(AFR-2 and AFR-10). These two districts allow virtually identical uses with differing
density. (The 2 and 10 designation refers to'the required acres &lot size.) Both
zones allow for a single-family residence of 15,000 square feet in size.
The zoning which the Community Development Department is considering consists
of two zone districts: Conservation (C) and Rural Residential (RR). Following is a
brief description of the two districts:
Conservation (C):
Purpose. The purpose of the Conservation (C) zone district is to provide areas of low
density development to enhance public recreation, conserve natural resources,
encourage the production &crops and animals, and to contain urban development.
Permitted uses. Detached residential dwelling; park, play field, playground and golf
course; riding stable; cemetery; crop production, orchards, nurseries, flower
production and forest land; pasture and grazing land; dairy; fishery; animal
production; husbandry services (not including commercial feed lots) and other farm
and agricultural uses; railroad right-of-way but not a railroad yard; home
occupations; and accessory buildings and uses.
Conditional uses. Guest ranches; recreational uses including a riding academy, stable,
club, country club and golf course, ski lift and other ski facilities; sewage disposal
area; water treatment plant and storage reservoir; electric substations and gas
regulator stations (not including business or administration offices); and accessory
dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.40.090.
Rural Residential (RR):
Purpose. The purpose of the Rural Residential (RR) zone district is to allow utilization of
land for low density, long term residential purposes with the recreational,
institutional, public and other compatible uses cus~omarily found in proximi~ to
those uses allowed as permitted uses or conditional uses.
Permitted uses. Detached residential dwelling; farm building and use, provided that all
such buildings and storage areas are located at least 100 feet from pre-existing
dwellings on other lots; nursery; greenhouse; home occupations; and, accessory
buildings and uses.
Conditional uses. Public building; public and private academic school; church; radio
tower; recreation club; day care center; open use recreation site including ski runs,
ski lifts and other skiing facilities and structures; sewage disposal; water storage and
reservoir; electric substation or gas regulator station (not including building for
offices, repair or storage); accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section
26.40.090; and, veterinary clinic,
ZONING PROCESS:
The City is required by State Statute to assign zoning to newly annexed properties
within 90 days of the final annexation. The City Council makes the final
determination with respect to zoning property by adopting an Ordinance at a public
hearing after considering public testimony, a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and a recommendation by the Community Development
Director. The recommendation mhde by the Planning and Zoning Commission also
includes a public hearing and an opportunity for members of the public to comment.
The public hearing with the Planning and Zoning CommissiOn is scheduled for June
1, 1999, at a meeting beginning at 4:30 p.m. in the basement of City Hall. The
consideration by City Council will follow and will most-likely occur in mid-July. A
more definite City Council schedule will be available from the Community
Development Department in June,
ATTACHMENTS: A - Current Zoning Map
B - Proposed Zoning Map
2
L t -; ,,, Burlingame Ranch
;: ~ ~, ",Current Zoning
fr __.:, ,,:\ ' , 'i L
:':'~ ., !:,.
---L , ' ' ' ,~- !AFR-10
'~ ~,~ ,~' /,, >
!/ ~-~, -' , /. / ,,,, // ~
-, X~<~ { ,
~.%~. '~ ~/ -<-=AFR-2PUD]~.
~~'~'~. ~AFR-2 ',% ~.~
~' ~' ":~ ~j S
f k .'
Q~,,,-" ,. o '-"~- _ ,'-_ .... - .....
~ N ~ Communit~ ae~lopme~t Depadmenl