HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170418
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 18, 2017
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
II. Sign Code check-in
P1
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance and Administrative Services Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Health &
Sustainability
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 14, 2017
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2017
RE: Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests review of the draft Water Efficient Landscaping
Standards and approval to move forward with an ordinance that would adopt same. These
standards outline landscaping and exterior water use policies for property owners on new
construction and significant remodel projects and promote efficiency within the City of Aspen’s
water service area.
Staff is also requesting approval of a 12-month pilot program outlined within the draft standards
with the intent to check in with Council prior to full implementation of Aspen’s Water Efficient
Landscaping Standards.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On September 28, 2015 City Council adopted the Roaring
Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan and the City of Aspen Municipal Water
Efficiency Plan. In those plans, Aspen identified landscape regulations as an important next step
for water efficiency.
The City of Aspen received a grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in
the amount of $42,515 in the spring of 2016 and Council approved the acceptance of the State
grant and the creation of a new capital project for the water efficient landscape regulation project
on July 11, 2016.
BACKGROUND: Conservation is an important component of Aspen’s Integrated Water
Supply System and effective conservation practices enable the City to manage our water supplies
more efficiently. The City of Aspen has been promoting water efficiency since the mid-1990s.
The City approved its first water conservation plan in 1996. Aspen’s water utility currently has
limited storage and the water supply is most vulnerable from the late summer into fall when
vegetation is thirsty and resulting landscape irrigation demands are still high while stream flow
from melted snow pack is diminishing. This water conservation/efficiency program is focused
on efficient outside water use, which helps mitigate this vulnerability.
As identified in both the Regional and Municipal Water Efficiency Plans, Aspen is interested in
developing water efficient landscaping standards (Landscape Ordinance) that will promote water
P2
I.
Page 2 of 3
conservation, prevent water waste, and protect water quality. Managing outdoor landscaping
demands through land use regulations for new development is being considered throughout
Colorado and would provide the City of Aspen with an opportunity to reduce some of the impact
from future demands.
DISCUSSION:
Objectives: The water efficient landscaping standards and ordinance address landscaping
material and irrigation design and practices. Specifically: climate appropriate/water-efficient
vegetation and, where designated, use of firewise plant material; soil preparation and
amendments; water budgets; recirculating water features and efficiency measures; landscape
design plans; proper irrigation system design; correct installation of irrigation system and
plantings, water efficient irrigation controllers and shut-off devices; water efficient emission
technology; backflow prevention; master shut-off valves for irrigation systems; dedicated
landscape meters for large systems; hydrozone requirements; stormwater management;
landscape irrigation audit and approval letter; irrigation system maintenance schedule; irrigation
scheduling; irrigation management; and efficient irrigation practices. Overall, these standards
establish a structure for planning, designing, installing, maintaining and managing water efficient
landscapes in new construction and renovated/rehabilitated projects within the Aspen water
service area.
Goals:
• Promote the values and benefits of healthy landscapes while recognizing the need to invest in
efficiency.
• Establish a structure for planning, designing, installing, maintaining and managing water-
efficient landscapes in new construction and renovation/rehabilitation projects.
• Require better designed, more efficient, effective irrigation systems, and precise delivery of
water to the landscape, reducing water needed to maintain a healthy landscape.
• Use water efficiently without waste by setting an upper limit water budget and a low use goal.
Applicability:
The standards will apply to the following projects that use City of Aspen potable water:
· Landscaping, grading, installing or disturbing hardscapes, or making additions to
structures, etc. that have a disturbance area greater than 1,000 square feet and greater than
25% of the entire site.
· All new construction with internal work only that demolishes more than 50% of the
existing structure.
Process:
While the Water Efficiency Plan is being managed by the Utilities department, the creation and
implementation of a landscaping regulation required coordination and time commitments from
Parks, Engineering, Building, Community Development, Attorneys, Council Member Ann
Mullins, Pitkin County, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The process took over 10 months with
over a dozen stakeholder meetings and significant input from private industry involved in
landscape design, landscape installation and landscape maintenance.
Recommended Pilot Phase:
A 12-month pilot phase is recommended. During this pilot phase the standards, including
documentation, plan submittals and installation of plantings and irrigation infrastructure are
required. A “Maximum Applied Water Budget,” as calculated in the Water Efficient Landscape
P3
I.
Page 3 of 3
Worksheet (see Appendix A of the Water Efficient Landscaping Standards), as well as issues
that may arise during a post-installation site audit, will be part of the review but not part of
compliance. Staff is currently recommending a maximum applied water budget of 7.5 to 8.5
gallons per square foot per irrigation season. The pilot phase will assist staff in making a final
recommendation to Council at the end of the program on a maximum applied water budget. The
pilot phase will also advise staff on how processes and standards may need to be adjusted at the
end of the 12 months.
Benefits:
Depending on the final adopted water budget, implementation of the Water Efficient
Landscaping Standards is estimated to reduce irrigation water demand by 2 to 14 % as compared
to new plan submittals sampled in the past year. And, when compared to typical existing homes,
there is a potential landscape water use savings of up 60% when these properties refresh their
landscaping and irrigation systems. Using a water budget of 7.5 gallons/sq. ft./irrigation season
(14% savings) would put the City on target to achieve the 2015 Water Efficiency Plan projection
of a 50 acre feet per year of water savings by 2035.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Temporary labor costs associated with review of landscaping and
irrigation plans during the pilot phase are necessary and will be absorbed within the current
budget and development review fee structure. Based on information from and the results of the
pilot program, staff will return to Council to review costs and budgeting as may be appropriate
for full implementation of the Water Efficient Landscaping Standards.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council provide direction to move forward
with an ordinance that would adopt the presented Water Efficient Landscaping Standards and
would include a 12-Month pilot program prior to enforcement of water budget and auditing
issues. Staff will present results of the pilot program to Council prior to full implementation of
the Water Efficient Landscaping Standards.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose to not to proceed with an ordinance that would
adopt Water Efficient Landscaping Standards; or direct staff to move forward with full
implementation and enforcement of an ordinance that would adopt Water Efficient Landscaping
Standards without a 12-Month pilot phase.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Draft Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Exhibit B – March 1, 2017 Letter of Support from Colorado Water Conservation Board
P4
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
WATER EFFICIENT
LANDSCAPING
STANDARDS
The Water Efficient Landscaping Standards provide policies, guidelines,
and minimum criteria to governmental agencies, design professionals,
private developers, community groups, and homeowners for all new
development. These standards promote efficient development and use
of water within the City of Aspen’s water service area.
WORKING DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION
PURPOSES ONLY
April 11, 2017
P5
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Contents
1. OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2. APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................... 2
2.1 Applicability ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Exceptions ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Pilot Phase ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Variances and Existing Compliance ............................................................................................... 3
2.5 Appeals .......................................................................................................................................... 4
3. DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 4
4. DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................................................ 9
4.1 Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package ...................................................................... 9
4.2 Compliance with the Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package .................................. 10
5. LANDSCAPE CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Soil Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 11
5.2 Non‐Living General Landscape Design Criteria ........................................................................... 13
5.3 Landscape Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 13
5.4 Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................................ 16
6. IRRIGATION SYSTEM CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 17
6.1 Irrigation System Requirements ................................................................................................. 17
6.2 Hydrozone Requirements ........................................................................................................... 18
6.3 Irrigation Design Plan .................................................................................................................. 19
6.4 Landscape Irrigation Audit .......................................................................................................... 20
6.5 Approval Letter ........................................................................................................................... 20
6.6 Irrigation System Maintenance Schedule ................................................................................... 22
6.7 Irrigation Scheduling ................................................................................................................... 22
6.8 Irrigation Management ............................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX A – WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET ...................................................................... 24
APPENDIX B – RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST ............................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX C – CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY WILDFIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT MAPS ................... 34
P6
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
1. OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE
1.1 Objective
The Water Efficient Landscaping Standards provide policies, guidelines, and minimum landscaping
design, installation, maintenance, and management criteria to governmental agencies, design
professionals, private developers, community groups, and homeowners for all new development. These
standards promote efficient development and use of water within the City of Aspen’s water service
area. Implementation of these standards fulfills certain recommendations identified in the City of
Aspen’s Municipal Water Efficiency Plan (updated in 2015), the Roaring Fork Regional Water Efficiency
Plan (2015), and the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (2012).
1.2 Purpose
1.2.1 Promote the values and benefits of healthy landscapes while recognizing the need to invest
water and other resources as efficiently as possible.
1.2.2 Establish a structure for planning, designing, installing, maintaining and managing water‐
efficient landscapes in new construction and renovated/rehabilitated projects.
1.2.3 Use water efficiently without waste by setting a Maximum Applied Water Budget as an
upper limit for water use and reduce water use to the lowest practical amount.
2. APPLICABILITY AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1 Applicability
After June XX, 2017, these standards shall apply to the following projects that use City of Aspen
potable water:
2.1.1 Landscaping, grading, installing or disturbing hardscapes, additions to structures, etc. that
has a disturbance area greater than 1,000 square feet and greater than 25% of the entire
site.
2.1.2 All new construction with internal work only that demolishes greater than 50% of the
existing structure.
2.2 Exceptions
The standards do not apply to:
2.2.1 Projects that do not have water supplied or conveyed by the City of Aspen.
2.2.2 There may be special circumstances, including but not limited to the following, in which
portions of the standards shall not apply. In these circumstances, applicants shall follow the
variance process described in Section 2.4 below.
P7
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
a. Irrigation of public parks, sports fields, golf courses, and schools.
b. Landscapes where tree preservation is required under the local tree ordinance.
c. Landscapes including public right‐of‐way.
d. Registered local, state or federal historical sites.
e. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system.
f. Mined‐land reclamation projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system.
g. Stormwater treatment facilities that require irrigation.
h. Wildfire mitigation areas planned to establish defensible space.
2.3 Pilot Phase
A 12‐month pilot phase will begin June XX, 2017. During the pilot phase, all of the standards and
documentation described in this document will be required but City will not deny a project Certificate of
Occupancy for failure to meet the Maximum Applied Water Budget standard or based on results of the
post‐installation site audit report. The City encourages efforts be made, to the extent possible, to meet
the Maximum Applied Water Budget standard during the pilot phase. Enforcement of these standards
will begin starting June XX, 2018, including inspections, audits, and certifications.
2.4 Variances and Existing Compliance
2.4.1 Variances
The City may grant variances to the Water Efficient Landscaping Standards when practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships exist that cause inconsistencies with the purpose and intent of the
standards.
Requests for variances from the standards, policies, or submittal requirements of this document
shall be submitted in writing with appropriate documentation and justification to the City Utilities
Director. Variance requests must, at a minimum, contain the following:
· Criteria under which the applicant seeks a variance;
· Justification for not complying with the standards;
· Proposed alternate criteria or standards to comply with the intent of the criteria;
· Supporting documentation, including necessary calculations;
· The proposed variance’s potential adverse impacts for adjacent landowners; and
· An analysis of the variance request, signed by a qualified landscape professional or qualified
irrigation design professional, depending on the topic of the request.
P8
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Upon receipt of a complete application for a variance, the City Utilities Director shall prepare a
statement to recommend that the variance be approved or denied or to request a modification of
the proposed variance.
2.4.1 Existing Compliance
The City may grant a determination of compliance for existing projects meeting the minimum
standards.
Requests for determination of compliance shall be submitted in writing with appropriate
documentation and justification to the City Utilities Director. Requests for determination of existing
compliance must, at a minimum, contain the following:
· Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package; and
· Irrigation audit report performed by a third party certified landscape irrigation auditor.
Upon receipt of a complete application for a determination of existing compliance, the City Utilities
Director shall prepare a statement to recommend that the determination be approved or denied or
to request a modification of the proposed determination.
2.5 Appeals
Any appeal from an order, requirement, decision, or determination of the City Utilities Director made
pursuant to the Water Efficient Landscaping Standards shall be taken within fifteen (15) days following
the date of such order, requirement, decision, or determination by the filing of a written notice of
appeal with the Administrative Hearing Officer. The notice of appeal shall state in detail the action
appealed from, the grounds for the appeal, and the relief sought. The Administrative Hearing Officer
shall, within thirty (30) days following the filing of the notice of appeal, review the record of the action
taken by the City Utilities Director, and provide a decision to the Applicant in writing. The Administrative
Hearing Officer may reverse or affirm wholly or partly the order, requirement, decision or determination
appealed from and shall enter such order as it deems appropriate under the circumstance.
3. DEFINITIONS
Application rate: the depth of water applied to a given area, usually expressed in inches per hour.
Applied water: the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape (supplemental to
precipitation).
Approval Letter: the document showing the project has been installed and inspected per the approved
irrigation design plan.
Automatic controller: a mechanical or solid state timer, capable of operating landscape irrigation
stations and setting the schedule (days and length of time) for water application.
P9
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Backflow prevention device: a safety device used to prevent pollution or contamination of the water
supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system.
Check valve or anti‐drain valve: a valve located under, or incorporated within, a sprinkler head or other
location within the irrigation system, to hold water in the system so it minimizes drainage from the
lower elevation sprinkler heads when the system is off.
Certified irrigation designer: a person certified to design irrigation systems by an accredited academic
institution, Irrigation Association’s Certified Irrigation Designer program, American Society of Irrigation
Consultant’s Professional Irrigation Consultant designation or other irrigation designer program labeled
by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense program.
Certified landscape irrigation auditor: a person certified to perform landscape irrigation audits by an
accredited academic institution, a professional trade organization or other program labeled by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense program.
Distribution uniformity: the measure of the uniformity of irrigation water over a defined area.
Disturbance area: disturbance is defined by the external area of the building where the ground is
disturbed which includes but is not limited to soil grading, landscaping, removing impervious area,
adding impervious area, replacing impervious area, layback areas, and stock pile areas.
Ecological restoration project: a project where the site is intentionally altered to establish a defined,
indigenous, historic ecosystem.
Emission device: a component of the system that disperses water to the landscape and includes
sprinklers, bubblers, emitters, microsprays, etc.
Established landscape: the point at which plants in the landscape have developed roots into the soil
adjacent to the root ball. Typically, most plants are established after one or two years of growth.
Establishment period: the first year after installing the plant in the landscape or the first two years if
irrigation will be terminated after establishment. Typically, most plants are established after one or two
years of growth. Native habitat mitigation areas and trees may need three to five years for
establishment.
Evapotranspiration: the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil and other surfaces and
transpired by plants during a specified time. See below for “reference ET”.
Flow meter or sensor: an inline device installed at or near the supply point of the irrigation system that
produces a repeatable signal proportional to flow rate. Flow meters must be connected to an irrigation
controller, or monitor capable of receiving flow signals and operating master valves. This combination
flow meter/controller may also function as a landscape water meter or sub meter.
Flow rate: the rate at which water flows through pipes and valves (gallons per minute or cubic feet per
second).
P10
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Graywater: untreated wastewater that has not been contaminated by any toilet discharge, has not been
affected by infectious, contaminated, or unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not present a threat from
contamination by unhealthful processing, manufacturing, or operating wastes. "Graywater" includes,
but is not limited to, wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom washbasins, clothes washing
machines, and laundry tubs, but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers.
Hardscapes: a landscape feature that is made of any durable material (pervious and non‐pervious).
Hydrozone: a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs that are served by a
valve or set of valves with the same schedule. A hydrozone may be irrigated or non‐irrigated. For
example, a naturalized area planted with native vegetation that will not need supplemental irrigation
once established is a non‐irrigated hydrozone.
Infiltration rate: the rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per unit of time
(inches per hour).
Irrigation audit: an in‐depth evaluation of the performance of an irrigation system conducted by a
Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor. An irrigation audit includes, but is not limited to: inspection,
system tune‐up, system test with distribution uniformity or emission uniformity, reporting overspray or
runoff that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The audit shall be conducted
in a manner consistent with the Irrigation Association’s Landscape Irrigation Auditor Certification
program or other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “WaterSense” labeled auditing program.
Irrigation efficiency: the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount
of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system
characteristics and management practices. Greater irrigation efficiency can be expected from well
designed and maintained systems.
Irrigation Design Plan: the documents including the scaled drawing plan and any required forms showing
calculations that are reviewed, approved and for which a permit could be issued.
Irrigation survey: an evaluation of an irrigation system that is less detailed than an irrigation audit. An
irrigation survey includes, but is not limited to: inspection, system test, and written recommendations to
improve performance of the irrigation system.
Irrigation water use analysis: a review of water use data based on meter readings and billing data.
Landscaped area: the entire parcel less the building footprint, driveways, non‐irrigated portions of
parking lots, hardscapes‐ such as decks and patios, and other non‐porous areas. Water features are
included in the calculation of the landscaped area. Areas dedicated to edible plants, such as orchards or
vegetable gardens are not included.
Landscaping and/or landscape improvements: plantings of grass, shrubs, trees or similar living plants,
with minimal use of other ground surface treatment such as decorative rock, bark, or stone. These inert
materials are allowed to be used in conjunction with live material in planting beds, but do not count
toward the calculations of required landscaping and/or landscaping improvements.
P11
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Landscape water meter: an inline device installed at the irrigation supply point that measures the
volume of water into the irrigation system by using a flow totalizing device to record water use.
Lateral line: the water delivery pipeline that supplies water to the emitters or sprinklers from the valve.
Low flow irrigation or drip irrigation: the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system
of tubing or lateral lines and emitters such as point source emitters, dripper lines, microsprays and
bubblers. Low flow irrigation systems apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of
plants.
Main line: the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the valve or outlet.
Master shut‐off valve: a lockable automatic valve installed at the irrigation supply point which controls
water flow into the irrigation system. When this valve is closed, water will not be supplied to the
irrigation system.
Maximum Applied Water Budget: the upper limit of annual applied water (supplemental irrigation
water) for the established landscaped area as specified in Appendix A. It is based upon the area’s
reference evapotranspiration and is adjusted for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major
influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to the landscape.
Microclimate: the climate of a small, specific area that may contrast with the climate of the overall
landscape area due to factors such as wind, sun exposure, plant density, or proximity to reflective
surfaces.
Mulch: any organic material such as leaves, bark, straw, compost or inorganic mineral materials such as
rocks, gravel, pebbles, or decomposed granite left loose and applied to the soil surface for the beneficial
purposes of reducing evaporation, suppressing weeds, moderating soil temperature, and preventing soil
erosion.
New construction: for the purposes of these standards, a new building with a landscape or other new
landscape, such as a park, playground, or greenbelt.
Non‐residential landscape: landscapes in commercial, institutional, industrial and public settings that
may have areas designated for recreation or public assembly. It also includes portions of common areas
of common interest developments with designated recreational areas.
Operating pressure: the pressure at which the parts of an irrigation system are designed by the
manufacturer to operate.
Overhead sprinkler irrigation systems: systems that deliver water through the air (pop‐ups, rotors, etc.)
Overspray: the water that is delivered beyond the target area.
Permeable: any surface or material that allows the passage of water through the material and into the
underlying soil.
P12
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Project applicant: the individual or entity submitting a plan to request a permit, plan check, or design
review from the City. A project applicant may be the property owner or designee including the
contractor.
Rain sensor or rain sensing shutoff device: a component which automatically suspends an irrigation
event when it rains.
Reclaimed water, recycled water, or treated sewage effluent water: treated or recycled waste water of a
quality suitable for non‐potable uses such as landscape irrigation and water features. This water is not
intended for human consumption.
Record drawing: a set of reproducible drawings which show changes in the work made during
construction and which are usually based on drawings marked up in the field and other data furnished
by the contractor.
Recreational area: areas of active play or recreation such as sports fields, school yards,
picnic grounds, or other areas with intense foot traffic.
Reference evapotranspiration or ET: a standard measurement of environmental parameters which
affect the water use of plants. ET is typically expressed as the depth of water in inches or the volume of
water in gallons used by an irrigated landscape area over a period of time, as represented in Appendix A,
and is based on an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of four‐ to seven‐inch tall, cool‐
season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is used as the basis of determining
the Maximum Applied Water Budget. One inch is approximately 0.623 gallons per square foot.
Remote control valve: a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system.
Residential landscape: landscapes surrounding single or multifamily homes such as duplexes.
Runoff: water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied and flows from the
area. For example, runoff may result from water that is applied at too great a rate (application rate
exceeds infiltration rate), run times are set too long or a valve is stuck open, when there is a severe
slope, etc.
Smart irrigation controller: an automatic timing device with nonvolatile memory used to remotely
control valves that operate an irrigation system. Smart irrigation controllers are able to self‐adjust and
schedule irrigation events using either evapotranspiration (weather‐based), soil moisture data or flow
data or a combination of methods.
Soil moisture sensing device or soil moisture sensor: a device that measures the amount of water in the
soil. The device may also suspend or initiate an irrigation event.
Sprinkler head: a device that sprays water through a nozzle.
Static water pressure: the pipeline or municipal water supply pressure when water is not flowing.
P13
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
Station: typically an area served by one valve; for very large properties, a station could control two or
more valves in a given “zone”.
Sub meter: a metering device to measure water applied to the landscape that is installed after the
primary utility water meter.
Turf or turfgrass: a surface layer of earth containing mowed grass with its roots. Annual bluegrass,
Kentucky bluegrass, Perennial ryegrass, fescue, and Tall fescue are cool‐season grasses. Bermudagrass,
Blue Grama, and Buffalo grass are warm‐season grasses.
Valve: a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system.
Watering window: the period in which irrigation is allowed (e.g. time of day, days of the week, amount
over a period of a week, etc.).
Zone: typically, an area served by a single control valve, sometimes referred to as a “station”. Zones are
comprised of plant materials and soil types with similar water requirements.
4. DOCUMENTATION
The following documentation is required for all projects subject to the Water Efficient Landscaping
Standards. The City of Aspen reserves the right to conduct audits as deemed necessary, at the expense
of the customer, if there is indication that the criteria have not been followed.
4.1 Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package
The Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package shall include the following six (6) elements:
4.1.1 Checklist of all documents in Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package.
4.1.2 Project information
a. Date
b. Project contacts for the project applicant, landscape and irrigation system installer, and
property owner
c. Project address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s))
d. Total landscape area and total irrigated area (square feet)
e. Project type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, homeowner‐installed)
f. Water supply type (e.g., potable, recycled, well)
P14
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
g. For Pitkin County residents only: Recorded Site Plan and Activity Envelope.
4.1.3 Applicant signature and date with statement, “I agree to comply with the requirements of
the Water Efficient Landscaping Standards and submit a complete Landscape and Irrigation
Documentation Package”.
4.1.4 Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
4.1.5 Landscape Design Plan with Soil Information
a. All applicable soil criteria and standards shall be noted on the landscape design plan.
b. A soil analysis report and associated information shall be provided if the project
applicant chooses to appeal the standard soil amendment criteria.
4.1.6 Irrigation Design Plan
4.2 Compliance with the Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package
4.2.1 Prior to construction, the City of Aspen shall:
a. Provide the project applicant with the standards and procedures for permits, plan
checks, or design reviews.
b. Review the Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package submitted by the project
applicant.
c. Approve or deny the Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package.
d. Issue a permit or approve the plan check/design review for the project applicant.
4.2.2 Prior to construction, the project applicant shall:
a. Submit a Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package to the City of Aspen.
b. Receive the authorization to proceed.
4.2.3 Upon approval of the Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package by the City of Aspen,
the project applicant shall:
a. Receive a permit or approval of the plan check or design review and retain record to
include the date of the permit in the Approval Letter.
P15
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
b. Submit a copy of the approved Landscape and Irrigation Documentation Package along
with the record drawings, and any other information to the property owner or his/her
designee.
5. LANDSCAPE CRITERIA
Unless otherwise specified, the criteria within this section shall apply to all applicable projects. The City
of Aspen reserves the right to conduct inspections as deemed necessary, at the expense of the project
applicant, if there is indication that the criteria have not been followed.
5.1 Soil Criteria
5.1.1 Soil Amendment
a. Topsoil of irrigated grasses (including turf), shrubs, perennials, and annuals shall be a
sandy loam to a depth of at least 6 inches (6”) containing at least 5 percent (5%) organic
matter by volume.
b. Tree soil should have a minimum depth of 3 feet (3’). Both topsoil and subsoil layers
shall be sandy loam. The top soil shall be at least 6 inches (6”) and have 5 percent (5%)
organic matter by weight and subsoil shall have at least one to three percent (1 ‐ 3%)
organic matter by weight.
c. A minimum of four (4) cubic yards of organic matter soil amendment per one‐thousand
square feet of landscaped area shall be required as necessary to meet the 5 percent
(5%) organic matter specification.
d. Soil amendment organic matter shall consist of either Class I and Class II compost.
e. Soil Evaluation and Improvement
The following soil evaluation procedure may be utilized if the project applicant chooses
to appeal the standard soil amendment criteria and/or if the City of Aspen requires
verification of the soil amendment. The soil evaluation determines the condition of the
soil related to texture, acidity, salts, and plant nutrient availability.
i. The applicant must discuss the appeal with the City of Aspen to determine the
procedures and submittal requirements.
ii. The applicant shall submit an explanation in narrative form explaining the appeal
and attach any information including site‐specific data and the following soil
analyses:
(a) A soil analysis shall be conducted by a professional soil scientist at a certified
soils laboratory.
P16
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
(b) Soil sample(s) shall be taken after over‐lot grading, if applicable, and prior to
landscaping.
(c) The soil sample must represent a uniform area. Differences in texture (sand, silt,
clay), color, slope, degree of erosion, drainage, past management practices,
types of plant materials designed for each area should be taken into account
when collecting the sample. The soil scientist shall determine the sample sites,
depth and frequency necessary to reflect a representative sample of the site
and to coincide with the plant material intended for the area in the design.
Recommended sampling frequency is no less than one (1) sample per
five‐thousand (5,000) square feet. Any sampling less than this frequency shall be
justified by the soil scientist.
(d) The soil analysis shall determine the organic and inorganic composition of
native/indigenous soil in landscaped areas, and shall include:
· Soil texture;
· Total exchange capacity;
· Conductivity;
· Organic matter;
· Acidity; and
· Content of nitrogen (NO3, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, Iron, Copper,
Manganese and Lime).
iii. The soil analysis shall include specific recommendations based on the soil test
results for the type of plant material to be grown in each landscaped area. The type
and volume of soil amendment shall be determined by the soil scientist and be
consistent with the indigenous soil and the needs of the plant materials in each area
of the landscape.
iv. Upon receipt of the information, the City of Aspen shall approve or deny the soil
amendment. If the amendment is denied, the City of Aspen shall provide
information to the project applicant regarding additional requirements.
5.1.2 Soil Preparation
a. Amendment shall be tilled to a minimum depth of six inches (6”).
b. Site shall be graded to within two‐tenths of a foot (2/10th’) of the grading plan.
c. Site shall be free of rocks and debris over one inch (1”) diameter in size. Rocks and
debris 0.5 inch (0.5”) to one inch (1”) shall not exceed 5 percent (5%) by volume and
gravel 0.6 inch (0.6”) to 1.25 inches (1.25”) shall not exceed 5 percent (5%) by volume.
Particles such as concrete, brick, glass, metal, wood or plastic greater than one inch (1”)
shall not be allowed. The total volume of these materials smaller than one inch (1”)
shall not exceed 5 percent (5%).
P17
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
d. Site shall be free of dirt clods over three‐quarter inch (3/4”) diameter in size. Dryland
seed areas may contain dirt clods up to two inch (2”) diameter in size.
i. Stockpiling ‐ Stripping and stockpiling of indigenous soil (topsoil) shall be required
during construction (except as waived by the City of Aspen). The replacement of this
soil, plus additional soil amendments, are critical to successful plant material
establishment, ongoing health, and efficient use of water through the life of the
project.
e. The soil shall have no herbicides, heavy metals, biological toxins or hydrocarbons that
impact plant growth or exceed the EPA’s standards for soil contaminant.
f. All applicable soil criteria and standards shall be noted on the landscape design plan.
Written verification of approved soil amendment type and volume is required. Projects
with inadequate soil amendment and preparation will not be approved.
5.1.3 Soil Inspection
a. Soil inspections prior to installation of plant material may be conducted by the City of
Aspen as deemed necessary and shall include a review of adherence to all criteria and
performance standards.
b. Written documentation reflecting approved volume and type of soil amendment is
required upon inspection.
5.2 Non‐Living General Landscape Design Criteria
5.2.1 Organic Mulch
a. Shall be applied at one (1) cubic yard per eighty (80) square feet at a depth of four (4)
inches, and as appropriate to each species.
b. Shall be applied to the soil surface, not against the plant stem or high against the base
of trunks to minimize disease.
c. Organic mulch material includes bark and wood chips. Avoid mulch consisting of
construction debris such as pallets.
5.2.2 Inorganic Mulch
a. Inorganic mulch includes rock, gravel, or pebbles.
b. Rock mulch shall have a minimum depth of two inches (2”).
5.3 Landscape Criteria
P18
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
5.3.1 Plant Material1
a. All irrigated landscaped areas must be included in the water budget calculation and the
total irrigation water need for all zones cannot exceed the Maximum Applied Water
Budget of XX gallons/season/square‐foot of irrigated landscape area (YY inches/season)
[note: the City is currently considering a maximum budget of 7.5 to 8.5 gal/sf/season or
approximately 12 to 13.6 inches/season]. Aside from the use of invasive and/or noxious
plant species, any plant can be utilized in the landscape plan. The City of Aspen
Recommended Plant List provides water use categories that can be used for calculating
the plant water need. An estimate of the plant water need, in gallons per square foot
per season, must be provided for any plants that are not currently included in the
recommended plant list. See Appendix A for details regarding the Maximum Applied
Water Budget calculation and Appendix B for the Recommended Plant List.
b. Each hydrozone shall have plant materials with similar water use.
c. Plants shall be selected and planted appropriately based upon their adaptability to the
climatic, soils, and topographical conditions of the project site. To encourage the
efficient use of water, the following are highly recommended:
i. Selection of plants from the Recommended Plant List included in Appendix B, in
keeping with the character of the community, and particularly water‐conserving
plant and turf species.
ii. Protection and preservation of native species and natural vegetation.
iii. Selection of plants based on disease and pest resistance.
iv. The use of invasive and/or noxious plant species is strongly prohibited2.
v. Selection of trees based on applicable local tree ordinance or tree shading
guidelines.
vi. Recognize the horticultural attributes of plants (i.e., mature plant size, invasive
surface roots) to minimize damage to property or infrastructure (e.g., buildings,
sidewalks, power lines).
1 See also:
Pitkin County Revegetation Guide http://pitkincounty.com/documentcenter/view/2937;
Pitkin County Riparian Revegetation Guide http://www.pitkincounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/2938; and
Pitkin County Approved Seed Mixes http://pitkincounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/2936.
2 See: Pitkin County Noxious List & Weed Management Plan http://pitkincounty.com/430/Noxious‐Weed‐
Information;
P19
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
vii. Consider the solar orientation for plant placement to maximize summer shade and
winter solar gain.
d. Turf is not allowed on slopes greater than twenty‐five percent (25%) where the toe of
the slope is adjacent to an impermeable hardscape and where 25% means 1 foot of
vertical elevation change for every 4 feet of horizontal length (rise divided by run x 100 =
slope percent).
e. Avoid fire‐prone plant materials and highly flammable mulches. See Appendix B for a
recommended list of plants to best prepare for wildfire3 and Appendix C for the City and
Pitkin County Wildfire Hazard Assessment Maps.
i. A landscape design plan for projects in fire‐prone areas shall address fire safety and
prevention.
ii. All landscape plantings for properties located in the Moderate or High Wildfire
Hazard zone of the City must be firewise (see Appendices B and C).
iii. Properties located outside of the City limits should consult with Pitkin County.
f. The architectural guidelines of a common interest development, which include
community apartment projects, condominiums, planned developments, and stock
cooperatives, shall not include conditions that have the effect of prohibiting the use of
low‐water use plants as a group.
5.3.2 Water Features
a. Recirculating water systems shall be used for water features.
b. Where available, recycled water is recommended as a source for decorative water
features.
c. The surface area of a water feature shall be included in the high water use hydrozone
area of the water budget calculation.
d. Pool and spa covers are highly recommended.
5.3.3 Stormwater Management
a. Stormwater management practices minimize runoff and increase infiltration which
recharges groundwater and improves water quality. Implementing stormwater best
3 See: City of Aspen Firewise Plant Materials recommendations:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/wildfire/FireWise%20Information_Landscaping‐
Plants%20(2).pdf
P20
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
management practices into the landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff
and to increase on‐site retention and infiltration are encouraged.
b. Project applicants shall refer to the City of Aspen for information on any applicable
stormwater ordinances and stormwater management plans.
5.4 Landscape Plan
The landscape design plan, at a minimum, shall:
5.4.1 Delineate and label each hydrozone by number, letter, or other method.
5.4.2 Identify each hydrozone as low, moderate, or high water use. Temporarily irrigated areas of
the landscape shall be included in the low water use hydrozone for the water budget
calculation.
5.4.3 Identify recreational areas.
5.4.4 Identify areas permanently and solely dedicated to edible plants.
5.4.5 Identify areas irrigated with recycled water.
5.4.6 Identify type of mulch and application depth.
5.4.7 Identify soil amendments, type, and quantity.
5.4.8 Identify type and surface area of water features.
5.4.9 Identify hardscapes (pervious and non‐pervious).
5.4.10 Identify location and installation details of any applicable stormwater best management
practices that encourage infiltration of stormwater. Stormwater best management practices
are encouraged in the landscape design plan and examples include, but are not limited to:
i. Infiltration beds, swales, and basins that allow water to collect and soak into the ground.
ii. Constructed wetlands and retention ponds that retain water, handle excess flow, and
filter pollutants.
iii. Pervious or porous surfaces (e.g., permeable pavers or blocks, pervious or porous
concrete, etc.) that minimize runoff.
5.4.11 Identify any applicable rain harvesting or catchment technologies (e.g., rain gardens,
cisterns, etc.).
P21
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
5.4.12 Contain the following statement: “I have complied with the criteria of the Water Efficient
Landscaping Standards and applied them for the efficient use of water in the landscape
design plan”.
5.4.13 The signature of a licensed landscape architect, or licensed/certified landscape contractor.
6. IRRIGATION SYSTEM CRITERIA
This section applies to landscaped areas requiring permanent irrigation. For the efficient use of water,
an irrigation system shall be planned and designed according to the most current version of the
Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices, by the Irrigation Association and the American Society
of Irrigation Consultants.
6.1 Irrigation System Requirements
6.1.1 Backflow prevention devices shall be required to protect the potable water supply from
contamination by the irrigation system and comply with local plumbing codes.
6.1.2 Manual shut‐off valves (such as a gate valve, ball valve, or butterfly valve) shall be required,
as close as possible to the point of connection of the water supply and to isolate sections of
mainline on larger systems, to minimize water loss in case of an emergency (such as a main
line break) or routine repair.
6.1.3 Master shut‐off valves (lockable) and flow sensors, integrated with the automatic irrigation
controller are required on all projects.
i. City of Aspen staff reserve the right to operate this valve in times of water shortage or for
non‐compliance with the City’s Water Shortage Ordinance or Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance.
6.1.4 Dedicated landscape water meters/sub‐meters shall be installed for all non‐residential
irrigated landscapes of 5,000 square feet or more.
6.1.5 Smart irrigation controllers labeled by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense
Program or with published reports posted on the Smart Water Application Technologies
website are recommended for residential projects and required for all non‐residential
projects. If a flow meter is used, then the controller shall be able to use inputs from the flow
meter/sensor to control irrigation if flows are abnormal.
6.1.6 Sensors (e.g., rain, freeze, wind, and/or soil moisture etc.), either integral or auxiliary, that
suspend or alter irrigation operation during unfavorable weather conditions or when
sufficient soil moisture is present shall be required on all irrigation systems.
6.1.7 The irrigation system shall be designed to prevent runoff, low head drainage, overspray, or
other similar conditions where irrigation water flows onto non‐targeted areas, such as
adjacent property, non‐irrigated areas, hardscapes, roadways, or structures. Restrictions
P22
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
regarding overspray and runoff may be modified if the landscape area is adjacent to
permeable surfacing and no runoff occurs or if the adjacent non‐permeable surfaces are
designed and constructed to drain entirely to landscaping.
6.1.8 Minimum pop‐up height for sprinklers in turfgrass areas shall be six inches (6”).
6.1.9 Check valves or anti‐drain valves are required on all sprinkler heads.
6.1.10 The irrigation system shall be designed to ensure that the operating pressure at each
emission device is within the manufacturer’s recommended pressure range for optimal
performance.
a. To control excessive pressure above the required operating pressure of the irrigation
system emission devices, pressure‐regulating devices such as valve pressure regulators,
sprinkler head pressure regulators, inline pressure regulators, or other devices shall be
installed to meet the required operating pressure of the emission devices.
b. If water pressure is below the required operating pressure of the emission devices, then
a booster pump shall be installed so that emission devices shall operate at the
manufacturer’s recommended pressure.
c. The pressure and flow measurements shall be identified at the design stage and verified
prior to the installation of the system.
6.1.11 All irrigation emission devices shall meet the requirements set in the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, ASABE/ICC 802‐2014 “Landscape Irrigation Sprinkler
and Emitter Standard” authored by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers and the International Code Council and verified by an independent third‐party.
6.1.12 The design of the irrigation system shall conform to the hydrozones of the landscape design
plan.
6.1.13 Sprinklers within a zone shall have matched precipitation rates, unless otherwise directed by
the manufacturer’s recommendations.
6.1.14 Sprinkler spacing shall be designed to achieve the highest possible distribution uniformity
using the manufacturer’s recommendations. Spacing must achieve head‐to‐head coverage.
All sprinkler heads installed in the turfgrass areas shall have a distribution uniformity of 0.65
or higher using the protocol defined in ASABE/ICC 802‐2014 standard.
6.1.15 The irrigation system must be designed and installed to meet, at a minimum, any water
windows or restrictions for operation such as day of the week and hours of the day.
6.2 Hydrozone Requirements
P23
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
6.2.1 Each remote control valve shall irrigate a hydrozone with similar microclimate, soil
conditions, slope, and plant materials with similar water demand.
6.2.2 Relevant soils information such as soil type and infiltration rate shall be utilized when
designing irrigation systems.
6.2.3 Narrow or irregularly shaped areas, including turfgrass areas, less than ten feet (10 ft) in
dimension in any direction shall not utilize overhead sprinkler irrigation.
6.2.4 Slopes greater than twenty‐five percent (25%) shall not use sprinklers with an application
rate exceeding 0.75 inches per hour. Exception: If the irrigation designer specifies an
alternative design or technology and clearly demonstrates no runoff or erosion will occur.
Prevention of runoff and erosion shall be confirmed during the irrigation audit.
6.2.5 Sprinkler heads and other emission devices shall be selected based on what is appropriate
for the plants and soil type within that hydrozone. Individual hydrozones that mix high and
low water use plants shall not be permitted.
6.2.6 In mulched planting areas, the use of low flow irrigation is required for any vegetation that
will exceed twelve inches (12”) mature height.
6.2.7 Where feasible, trees shall be placed on separate valves from shrubs, groundcovers, and
turfgrass to facilitate the appropriate irrigation of trees. The mature size and extent of the
root zone shall be considered when designing irrigation for the tree.
6.2.8 Hydrozone areas shall be designated by number, letter, or other designation on the
landscape design plan and irrigation design plan. On the irrigation design plan, designate the
areas irrigated by each valve, and assign a number to each valve. Use this valve designation
in the Hydrozone Information Table (see Appendix A). This table can also assist with the
irrigation audit and programming the controller.
6.2.9 Source water, such as non‐potable water should be considered.
6.3 Irrigation Design Plan
An irrigation design plan meeting the following design criteria shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City of Aspen.
6.3.1 Plan Requirements
The irrigation design plan, at a minimum, shall contain:
a. A scaled plan showing property lines, easements, existing or proposed structures,
impervious surfaces, and existing natural features.
b. Location and size of the point of connection to the water supply and meter locations
along with static water pressure at the point of connection to the water supply and
dynamic water pressure for proper system operation.
P24
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
c. Reclaimed/recycled water or alternative water sources such as gray water shall comply
with local plumbing codes including marking of pipes and system components.
d. Location, type and size of all components of the irrigation system, including backflow
preventer, flow sensor, master valve, smart irrigation controllers, main and lateral lines,
manual valves, remote control valves, sprinkler heads, moisture sensing devices, rain
switches, on‐site weather monitoring sensors, quick couplers, pressure regulators.
e. An irrigation legend showing the identification of irrigation components.
f. Flow rate (gallons per minute), application rate (inches per hour), and design operating
pressure (pressure per square inch) for each irrigation zone.
g. Installation details for each of the irrigation components.
h. Designer statements and signature:
i. The following statement: “I have complied with the criteria of the Water Efficient
Landscaping Standards and applied them accordingly for the efficient use of water
in the irrigation design plan.”
ii. The signature of a qualified irrigation professional such as licensed landscape
architect with irrigation credentials, certified irrigation designer, or
licensed/certified landscape contractor.
6.4 Landscape Irrigation Audit
6.4.1 All landscape irrigation audits shall be conducted by a third party certified landscape
irrigation auditor. Irrigation audits shall not be conducted by the person or company who
installed the irrigation system.
6.4.2 The project applicant shall submit an irrigation audit report with the Approval Letter request
to the City of Aspen. The irrigation audit report shall include, but is not limited to:
inspection; system tune‐up; system test with distribution uniformity; reporting overspray or
run off that causes overland flow; and preparation of an irrigation schedule, including
configuring irrigation controllers with application rate, soil types, plant factors, slope,
exposure and any other factors necessary for accurate programming.
6.4.3 The City of Aspen may administer programs that include, but not be limited to, irrigation
water use analysis, irrigation audits, and irrigation surveys for compliance with the
Maximum Applied Water Budget.
6.5 Approval Letter
P25
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
6.5.1 Proper installation and management of the irrigation system shall conform to the approved
irrigation design plan.
6.5.2 The Approval Letter request shall include the following six (6) elements:
a. Project information sheet that contains:
i. Date.
ii. Project name.
iii. Project address and location.
iv. Project applicant name, telephone, and mailing address.
v. Property owner name, telephone, and mailing address.
b. Certification by the irrigation designer and the licensed landscape/irrigation contractor
that the irrigation system has been installed per the approved irrigation design plan.
c. Record drawings (as‐builts), provided in electronic format, showing all changes from the
approved plan shall be included with the certification.
d. A diagram of the irrigation system showing hydrozones and the irrigation scheduling
parameters used to set the controller shall be kept with the irrigation controller for
subsequent management purposes.
e. Irrigation system maintenance schedule.
f. Irrigation audit report.
6.5.3 The project applicant shall:
a. Submit the signed Approval Letter to the City of Aspen for review.
b. Ensure that copies of the Approval Letter are submitted to the City of Aspen and
property owner or his or her designee.
6.5.4 The City of Aspen shall:
a. Receive the signed Approval Letter from the project applicant.
b. Approve or deny the Approval Letter. If the Approval Letter is denied, the City of Aspen
shall provide information to the project applicant regarding reapplication, appeal, or
other assistance.
P26
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
6.6 Irrigation System Maintenance Schedule
6.6.1 Irrigation systems shall be maintained to ensure proper operation and function for water
use efficiency. A regular maintenance schedule shall be submitted with the Approval Letter.
6.6.2 A regular maintenance schedule shall include, but not be limited to, routine inspection,
auditing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system and its components. Operation of
the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and
system maintenance.
6.6.3 Repair of all irrigation equipment shall be done with the originally installed components. If
equipment components with greater efficiency are used in replacement, the entire zone
must be changed to maintain consistency.
6.6.4 Project applicants are encouraged to implement sustainable or environmentally‐friendly
practices for overall landscape maintenance.
6.7 Irrigation Scheduling
For the efficient use of water, all irrigation schedules shall be developed, managed, and evaluated to
utilize the minimum amount of water required to maintain plant health. Irrigation schedules shall
meet the following criteria:
6.7.1 Irrigation scheduling shall be regulated by smart irrigation controllers that utilize
evapotranspiration data or soil moisture data.
6.7.2 Overhead irrigation shall be scheduled between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. unless weather
conditions prevent it or an alternate schedule is declared under the City’s Water Shortage
Ordinance4. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is
allowed for auditing and system maintenance.
6.7.3 Parameters used to set the automatic controller shall be developed and submitted for each
of the following:
a. The plant establishment period.
b. The established landscape.
c. Temporarily irrigated areas.
6.7.4 Each irrigation schedule shall consider for each station all of the following that apply.
a. Irrigation interval (days between irrigation).
b. Irrigation run times (hours or minutes per irrigation event to avoid runoff).
4 See: City Municipal Code Sec. 25.28.010.
P27
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
c. Number of cycle starts required for each irrigation event to avoid runoff.
d. Amount of applied water scheduled to be applied on a monthly basis.
e. Application rate setting.
f. Root depth setting.
g. Plant type setting.
h. Soil type.
i. Slope factor setting.
j. Shade factor setting.
k. Irrigation uniformity or efficiency setting, based on audit information.
6.8 Irrigation Management
6.8.1 Irrigation management includes planning water use, monitoring water use, and verifying
that equipment is maintained and properly adjusted for optimal performance.
6.8.2 As the landscape matures, adjustments to the system should be in harmony with the
original intent of the irrigation design.
6.8.3 Scheduling of irrigation events should match the needs of the plants to maintain health,
appearance and meet the function of the landscape.
P28
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
APPENDIX A – WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET
This worksheet is completed by the project applicant and is a required element of the Landscape and
Irrigation Documentation Package.
SECTION A. GALLONS OF WATER NEEDED BY PLANT CATEGORY AND IRRIGATION TYPE
The specific irrigation water needs of each hydrozone in the design should be determined using the
following formula and factors:
Irrigation Water Budget = [(ETo × Plant Factor) – Re] × Irrigated Area ÷ Irrigation Efficiency × 0.623
Where:
ETo = Reference Evapotranspiration = 27.4 inches/season (May through September)
Re = Effective Precipitation = 6.8 inches/season (May through September)
Irrigated Area = hydrozone area in square feet
Water Use Plant Irrigation Default
Category Factor Method Efficiency
Cool‐Season Turf 0.90 Overhead 75%
High 0.80 Drip 90%
Medium 0.65
Low 0.40
Very Low 0.25
SECTION B. HYDROZONE INFORMATION TABLE AND WATER BUDGET CALCULATION
Complete the hydrozone table for each hydrozone. Use as many rows as necessary to provide the
square footage of landscape area per hydrozone.
AVERAGE IRRIGATION WATER NEED ALL ZONES*: ________________ gal/sf/season
*The average must be less than the Maximum Applied Water Budget of XX gal/sf/season.
[note: the City is currently considering a maximum budget of 7.5 to 8.5 gal/sf/season]
Total area of irrigated public right‐of‐way: ________ sq‐ft
Total area of non‐irrigated landscape:________ sq‐ft
Hydro‐
zone
ETo
(in/season)
Plant
Water Use
Category
Plant
Factor
Re
(in/season)
Irrigation
Method
Irrigation
Efficiency
Hydrozone
Area
(sq‐ft)
Irrig Water
Need
(gal/season)
TOTAL
P29
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
An example is provided below.
Example Hydrozone Information Table and Water Budget Calculation:
AVERAGE IRRIGATION WATER NEED ALL ZONES*: 7.3 gal/sf/season
Total area of irrigated public right‐of‐way: 0 sq‐ft
Total area of non‐irrigated landscape: 300 sq‐ft
Hydro‐
zone
ETo
(in/season)
Plant
Water Use
Category
Plant
Factor
Re
(in/season)
Irrigation
Method
Irrigation
Efficiency
Hydrozone
Area
(sq‐ft)
Irrig Water
Need
(gal/season)
Zone 1 27.4 L 0.40 6.8 Drip 0.90 2000 5759
Zone 2 27.4 M 0.65 6.8 Overhead 0.75 500 4573
Zone 3 27.4 Turf 0.90 6.8 Overhead 0.75 2000 29671
Zone 4 27.4 VL 0.25 6.8 Drip 0.90 1000 35
TOTAL 5500 40038
P30
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
APPENDIX B – RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST
The following pages include the City of Aspen’s Recommended Plant List, including estimated water
needs (L = Low; M = Medium; H = High) and shade preferences (FS = Full Sun; PS = Partial Sun; S = Sun;
Sh = Shade).
P31
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 27 of 38 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME WATER NEEDS SUN/SHADE PREFERENCE MATURE HEIGHT APPROX. BLOOM DATE KNOWN TO OCCUR IN PITCO FIRE‐WISE Grasses ‐ Ornamental Achnatherum hymenoides Indian Ricegrass L S/PS 2' May‐Jul Y Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem L S 6' Jul‐Sept N Aristida purpurea Purple Three‐awn L S 2' May‐Sept N Bouteloua curtipendula Sideoats Grama L S 1.5' Jul‐Oct N Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama VL S 15" Jul‐Oct N Y Buchloe dactyloides Buffalograss VL S 8" May‐July N Y Calamagrostis stricta Slimstem Reedgrass M S 3' July‐Sept N Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hairgrass M S/PS 16" July‐Sept Y Elymus canadensis Canadian Wild Rye L S 6' Jun‐Sept N Elymus elymoides Bottlebrush Squirreltail L S 20" Jun‐Aug Y Eragrostis spectabilis Purple Lovegrass L S/PS 2' Aug‐Oct N Eragrostis trichodes Sand Lovegrass L S/PS 4' Aug‐Oct N Glyceria grandis American Mannagrass H S 5' Jun‐Sep Y Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass L S/PS 1' May‐Aug Y Leymus cinereus Basin Wildrye L S 5' May‐Aug Y Nassella viridula Green Needlegrass L S/PS 2' Jun‐Aug N Panicum virgatum Switchgrass L S/PS 3' Jun‐Sep N Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass M S/PS 6' Jun‐Aug N Pleuraphis jamesii Galleta L S 1' May‐Aug N Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem L S 4' Jul‐Sep N Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass L S 3' Aug‐Sept N Spartina pectinata Prairie Cordgrass M S/PS 6' Jun‐Sep N Sporobolus airoides Alkali Sakaton L S 2.5' Jun‐Sep N Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie Dropseed L S 15" Jul‐Sept N P32I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 28 of 38 Grasses ‐ Turf Agrostis capillaris Colonial Bentgrass H S 2.5' Jun‐July N Festuca rubra 'Pennlawn' Red Fescue H S/PS 10" Jun‐Sept N Y Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass H S/PS 2' Jun‐Sept Y Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass Turf S/PS 1' May‐Sept Y Y Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue M S/PS 0.6' July‐Oct N Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama VL S 15" Jul‐Oct N Buchloe dactyloides Buffalograss VL S 8" May‐Jul N Y Flowers and Ground Covers Achillea lanulosa Native yarrow L S/PS 1.5 ‐ 2' July Y Y Achillea tomentosa Woolly yarrow L S/PS 1.5' ‐ 2' July Y Y Aconitum columbianum Columbian monkshood H S 2' Jun‐Jul Y Y Ajuga reptans Bugleweed M Sh < 1.5' Jun‐Jul N Y Alchemilla sp. Lady's mantle M PS/Sh 1' Jun‐Jul N Y Allium cernuum Nodding onion L S/PS 1' Jun Y Y Allium geyeri Geyer onion L S/PS 1' Jun Y Y Anemone multifidi Cut‐leaved anemone M S/PS 1'‐2' Mar‐Aug Y Anemone patens var. multifida Pasqueflower M Y Aquilegia spp. Columbine M S/PS 1' ‐ 2' Jun‐Jul Y Y Aquilegia coerulea Colorado blue columbine M S/PS 1' ‐ 2' Jun‐Jul Y Y Arabis sp. Rockcress L S < 1' May‐Jun Y Y Armeria maritima Sea thrift M S/PS .5' Apr‐Jun Y Artemisia frigida Fringed sage VL S 1' ‐ 1.5' n/a Y Y Artemisia ludoviciana Prairie sage VL S 15"‐2.5' N/A Y Asclepias subverticillata Horsetail milkweed L S 1.5'‐3' Jun‐frost Y Aurinia sp. Basket of gold L S/PS 1' Apr‐May Y Campanula rotundifolia Common harebell L S .5' ‐ 1' May‐Oct Y Y Cerastium tomentosum Snow‐in‐summer VL S/PS 1' May‐Jun Y Y Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed L S/PS 5.5' Jul‐Sept Y Y P33I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 29 of 38 Clematis columbiana Rock clematis M 8' May‐Jun Y Y Clematis scotii Scott's sugarbowls L S/PS 8‐15" Jun‐frost Convallaria majalis Lily‐of‐the‐valley M Sh < 1' May‐Jun Y Y Dalea purpurea Purple prairie clover L S 2'‐3' Jun‐Aug N Delosperma nubigenum Hardy yellow iceplant L S .5' Jun Y Delphinium species Larkspur M Y Dianthus spp. Pinks M S < .5' ‐ 2' May‐Aug Y Echinacea purpurea Purple coneflower L S 2' ‐ 3' Jul‐Aug Y Eritrichum nanum var. elongatum Alpine forget‐me‐not Y Erysimum asperum Western wallflower L S/PS 1' + Jun‐Jul Y Eriogonum umbellatum Sulfurflower VL S 6" ‐ 1' Jun‐Aug Y Erigeron speciosus Aspen daisy L S 12‐18" Jun‐Aug y Gaillardia aristata Blanket flower L S 1' ‐ 1.5' Jul‐Sep Y Gentiana perryi Parry's gentian Y Geranium richardsonii Richardson's geranium M Sh/PS 2' May‐Oct Y Geranium viscosissum Sticky purple geranium L S/PS 12‐24" May‐Jun Y Geum triflorum Prairie smoke L S/PS 6‐12" May‐Jun y Helianthus maximiliana Maximilian sunflower L S 60‐120" Aug‐frost Heliomeris multiflora Showy goldeneye L S 18‐30" Aug‐frost y Heterotheca villosa Hairy golden aster L y Heuchera spp. Coral bells M PS/Sh 1' ‐ 2' Jun‐Aug Y Ipomea leptophylla Bush morning glory L S 24‐36" Jun‐frost Ipomopsis aggregata Scarlet gilia L S 12‐30" Jun‐Aug y Liatris punctata Gayfeather L S 12" Aug‐frost Linum lewisii Blue flax L S/PS 1'‐2' Jun‐Aug y Lupinus argenteus Silver lupine L Sh/PS 1' ‐ 3' Jun‐Jul y Y Mirabilis multiflora Desert four o'clock VL S/PS 12‐30" Jun‐frost Monarda fistulosa Native beebalm L S/PS 1' ‐ 2' Jul‐Oct Y Y Oenother caespitosa White‐tufted evening primrose L S 6"‐1' Jun‐Aug Y Papaver orientale Oriental poppy L S/Sh 2' ‐ 3' May‐Jun Y P34I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 30 of 38 Penstemon ambiguous Gilia beardtongue VL S 24‐30" Jun‐frost Penstemon caespitosus Mat penstemon L S < .5' Jun Y Penstemon secundiflorus Sidebells L S 1' ‐ 2' May‐Jun Y Penstemon strictus Rocky Mountain penstemon L S/PS 1'‐2.5' Jun‐Aug Y Penstemon virens Blue mist penstemon L S/PS .5' May‐Jun Y Phlox subulata Moss phlox L S < .5' May Y Polemonium spp. Jacob's ladder H S/PS 1' ‐ 2' May‐Aug Y Y Pulsatilla patens Pasque flower L S/PS 1' Mar‐May Y Y Rudbeckia hirta Black‐eyed susan M S 2' ‐ 3' Jul ‐ Sep Y Salvia reflexa Rocky Mountain Sage L S/PS 2' Jun Y Y Saxifraga hirsuta Saxifrage M S/PS .5' + May‐Jun Y Senecio spartoides Broom groundsel L S 2‐3' Sept‐Oct N Y Thalictrum fendleri Fendler meadowrue M S/PS 2' ‐ 3' Jul‐Aug Y Y Thymus spp. Thyme L S < .5' Jun‐Jul Y Veronica americana American speedwell H S 4"‐2' Jun‐Sep Y Y Vinca minor Periwinkle H Sh < 1' Apr‐Jun Y Shrubs Artemisia tridentata big sgaebrush VL S y Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick, bearberry L S/Sh 1' n/a y Y Betula glandulosa Bog birch H S/PS 6‐8' n/a y Y Cercocarpus intricatus Little‐leaf mountain VL S 4‐6' n/a y Y Cercocarpus montanus True mountain mahogany VL S 4‐6' n/a y Y Chrysothamnus spp. Rabbitbrush VL S 2‐6' Jul‐Aug y Y Cornus stolonifera Redtwig dogwood M S/Sh 4‐6' n/a y Y Euonymus alatus Burning bush euonymus M S/Sh 1‐6' n/a N Y Fallugia paradoxaa Apache plume VL S 2‐4' Jun‐Oct N Y Holodiscus dumosus Ocean spray VL S/PS 4' Jun Y Y Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle L S/PS 4‐6' May‐Jun Y Mahonia repens ab Creeping grape holly L S/Sh 1‐2' Mar‐May y Y P35I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 31 of 38 Physocarpus monogynus Mountain ninebark VL S/Sh 2‐4' Jun y Y Potentilla fruticosa Shrubby cinquefoil L S/PS 2‐3' May‐Sep Y Y Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush VL S 1‐2' Jun‐Aug y Y Ribes aureum Golden currant L S/PS 2‐3' Apr‐May y Y Ribes inerme Whitestem gooseberry L 4' May‐July Y Ribes lacustre Prickly currant H Y Rosa woodsii Woods' or native wild rose L S/PS 2‐3' Jun‐Jul y Y Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry M Y Shepherdia canadensis Russet buffaloberry VL S 5‐6' n/a y Y Symphoricarpos spp. Snowberry, coralberry L S/PS 2‐3' n/a y Y Virbunum edule Highbush cranberry H S 6‐8' May‐Jun Y Large Shrubs and Trees Abies concolor White fir M 70‐160' n/a Abies lasiocarpa Subalpine fir M 50‐100' Acer ginnala Ginnala maple L S 6‐10' n/a Y Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain maple L S/Sh 6‐10' n/a Y Y Acer grandidentatum Wasatch maple L S/PS 10‐20' n/a y Y Acer negundo box‐elder L Y Acer tartaricum Tartarian maple L S/PS 20' N/A Alnus incana (ssp. tenuifolia) Thinleaf alder H S/PS 6‐8' Apr Y Y Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon alder‐leaf serviceberry L S/PS 6‐8' Apr‐May Y Y Amelanchier canadensis Shadblow serviceberry L PS 20' Apr‐May Amelanchier utahensis Utah serviceberry L S 4‐6' May Y Betula fontinalis River birch H S/PS 6‐8' n/a Y Celtis occidentalis Common hackberry L S 15‐50' n/a Cercocarpus ledifolius Mountain mahogany VL S 6‐15' n/a Y Y Crataegus ambigua Russian hawthorn L S/PS 15‐20' May Y Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur hawthorn L S 15‐20' May Y P36I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 32 of 38 Crataegus x mordensis 'Toba' Toba hawthorne L FS 15' Y Crataegus saligna Willow hawthorn M S 6‐8' May Y Y Crataegus succulenta Rocky Mountain hawthorn L S 6‐8' May Y Y Juniperus monosperma oneseed jumiper VL Y Juniperus osteosperma Utah juniper VL Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper VL y Malus sp. Crabapple M S 10‐15' Apr‐May Y Y Physocarpus opulifolius Tall ninebark VL S/PS 4‐6' May Y Y Picea pungens Colorado spruce M Y Picea engalmanii Engelman spruce M Y Pinus aristata bristlecone pine L Y Pinus contorta lodgepole pine L Y Pinus flexilis limber pine L 15'‐45' n/a Y Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine L Y Pinus strobiformus Southwestern white pine L Populus alba White poplar M FS 30'‐50' n/a Populus angustifolia narrowleaf cottonwood M Y Populus tremuloides Aspen M S 8‐25' n/a Y Y Prunus americana American wild plum L S/PS 4‐6' Apr Y Prunus cerasifera Flowering plum L S/PS 8‐10' Apr Y Prunus virginiana 'Schubert' Schubert chokecherry L FS‐PS 20‐25' Apr‐May Prunus virginiana melanocarpa Western chockecherry L S/PS 6‐8' Apr‐May Y Y Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas‐fir L Y Quercus gambelli Gambel oak VL Y Rubus deliciosus Boulder raspberry, thimbleberry L S/Sh 4‐6' Apr‐May Y Y Salix alba White willow H FS‐PS 30'‐40' n/a Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf willow M S/PS 20‐30' n/a Y Shepherdia argentea Silver buffaloberry L S/PS 4‐6' Apr Y Y Sorbus aucuparia European mountainash M FS‐PS 15‐25' n/a P37I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 33 of 38 Sorbus scopulina Western mountain ash M S/Sh 6‐8' May Y Syringa reticulata Japanese tree lilac L FS‐PS 15‐25' May‐Jun Syringa vulgaris Common lilac L S 6‐8' May Y P38I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
APPENDIX C – CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY WILDFIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT MAPS
C1. CITY OF ASPEN WILDFIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT MAP
P39
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 35 of 38 P40I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards
C2. PITKIN COUNTY WILDFIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT MAP
P41
I.
WORKING DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Aspen Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Page 37 of 38 P42I.
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor | Robert Randall, DNR Executive Director
The City of Aspen's Landscape Code revision is an excellent example o
into larger statewide efforts to reduce outdoor water use in Colorado. Comprehensive
landscape codes are key to reducing outdoor demand and 'building it smart from the start".
consider the City of Aspen’s effort as the most comprehensive on the West Slope fo
soil amendment, irrigation system standards, and auditing the installed irrigation system.
In Colorado's Water Plan, the CWCB
reduction by 2050 with one of the largest drivers
6.3 of Colorado's Water Plan, the CWCB
reduce outdoor demand as well as reducing water use in new
Support local water smart ordinances:
will provide trainings that support local regulatory efforts that shape the ways
in which new construction interacts with water use. For example, local
jurisdictions could craft landscape and irrigation ordinances, tap fees that
reflect actual water uses, education or certification for landscape
professionals, green-infrastructure ordinances, and more stringent green
construction codes that include higher
water-wise landscapes. It is imperative that this action ex
and environment benefits of urban landscapes.
The City of Aspen's landscape code revision fits squarely in this action, will contribute to the
400,000 acre foot statewide demand reduction goal and will serve as an excellent example for
other water providers on the West Slope
Sincerely,
Kevin D. Reidy
State Water Conservation Specialist
Colorado Water Conservation Board
3/1/2017
Lee Ledesma
Utilities Finance and Adminsitrative Services Manager
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen,CO 81611
1313 Sherman Street, Room 718
Denver, CO 80203
P 303.866.3441 F 303.866.4474 www.cwcb.state.co.us
Robert Randall, DNR Executive Director | James Eklund, CWCB Director
A
The City of Aspen's Landscape Code revision is an excellent example of how local efforts tie
larger statewide efforts to reduce outdoor water use in Colorado. Comprehensive
landscape codes are key to reducing outdoor demand and 'building it smart from the start".
consider the City of Aspen’s effort as the most comprehensive on the West Slope fo
soil amendment, irrigation system standards, and auditing the installed irrigation system.
In Colorado's Water Plan, the CWCB set a goal of 400,000 acre feet municipal demand
one of the largest drivers being more efficient outdoor use.
6.3 of Colorado's Water Plan, the CWCB created an action supporting local ordinances
ll as reducing water use in new development:
Support local water smart ordinances: Over the next two years, the CWCB
will provide trainings that support local regulatory efforts that shape the ways
in which new construction interacts with water use. For example, local
jurisdictions could craft landscape and irrigation ordinances, tap fees that
ses, education or certification for landscape
infrastructure ordinances, and more stringent green-
construction codes that include higher-efficiency fixtures and appliances and
wise landscapes. It is imperative that this action explore the societal
and environment benefits of urban landscapes.
The City of Aspen's landscape code revision fits squarely in this action, will contribute to the
statewide demand reduction goal and will serve as an excellent example for
on the West Slope to follow.
State Water Conservation Specialist
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Utilities Finance and Adminsitrative Services Manager
1313 Sherman Street, Room 718
cwcb.state.co.us
James Eklund, CWCB Director
f how local efforts tie
larger statewide efforts to reduce outdoor water use in Colorado. Comprehensive
landscape codes are key to reducing outdoor demand and 'building it smart from the start". I
consider the City of Aspen’s effort as the most comprehensive on the West Slope for requiring
soil amendment, irrigation system standards, and auditing the installed irrigation system.
al demand
ent outdoor use. In Chapter
action supporting local ordinances to
will provide trainings that support local regulatory efforts that shape the ways
efficiency fixtures and appliances and
The City of Aspen's landscape code revision fits squarely in this action, will contribute to the
statewide demand reduction goal and will serve as an excellent example for
P43
I.
Reed Compliant Sign Code Update
April 18, 2017
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Supino, Long Range Planner
Sara Nadolny, Planner
Reilly Thimons, Planning Technician
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
James R. True, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2017
RE: Reed Compliant Sign Code Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to provide information to Council on
required updated to the City’s Sign Code. No formal direction or action is requested at this time, but
Council is asked to weigh in on the process and timeline.
SUMMARY: Based on a 2015 Supreme Court case, staff has concluded that certain provisions within the
sign code should be revised to be make certain that it complies with the standards set forth in that
Supreme Court case. In early 2016, staff presented information about the need for the update to Council
as part of the AACP-LUC coordination process. In May, 2016, the Community Development
Department contracted with planning consultant Mark White to assist the City of Aspen in revising the
sign code to be Reed compliant. Following the completion of the AACP-LUC coordination process,
staff is preparing to launch the sign code update process. This work session is intended to introduce
Council to the requirements under the law, the process proposed for bringing the sign code into
compliance and solicit input from Council.
BACKGROUND: In June, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona
(Reed) that municipal sign code regulations must be “content neutral,” meaning that regulations on
signage must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity
displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if you have to read the sign to
determine if it complies with a regulation then it is not content neutral. This ruling rendered aspects of
municipal sign codes around the country non-compliant, requiring revision to ensure that references to
the content of signs were removed from the regulations.
In the Reed case, the sign in question was a temporary sign, which was placed and removed weekly,
advertising the location of a church service. These signs were classified by the Town as political or
ideological signage, which were limited to being displayed only within specified hours. The Town cited
Reed for exceeding the time limit allotted for the display of such signs. Reed sued for infringing
freedom of speech, because the sign regulations were based on the political or ideological content of the
sign.
P44
II.
Reed Compliant Sign Code Update
April 18, 2017
Page 2 of 2
The Supreme Court sided with Reed, in part, because the Gilbert sign code made a distinction between
various forms of temporary signage and imposed different regulations based on their content. This
simple distinction had implications for municipal governments around the country, who have been
forced to amend sign regulations to be content neutral. Like these other municipalities, the City of
Aspen is required to make changes to comply with the Reed ruling.
SUMMARY: The scope of this code revision is relatively narrow, focused on revising language to be
Reed compliant. In general, that means removing distinctions in the code between various sign types
based on their content, as opposed to their size, type, location and appearance.
Staff will work with Mark White and the City Attorney to identify those sections of the sign code that
may not meet the Reed standard, and the project team will develop alternative language to meet that
standard while maintaining, to the extent possible, the same policy and regulatory priorities as the
current code. A complete overhaul of the sign code is not the intent of this code amendment process,
and it is not in the consultant’s scope of work. Such an overhaul is a more significant undertaking, and
staff and the consultants do not believe that such an overhaul is necessary given the effectiveness of the
current sign regulations. Attached as exhibit A is a memorandum from Mark White outlining the
requirements under the Reed decision, those aspects of the sign code which may require revision, and
discussion of the process to identify and make those changes.
In conjunction with the initial code review by the project team, staff will conduct a public outreach
process to gather input from residents, ACRA, CCLC and local business owners. Staff will work
closely with ACRA to distribute information about the process, gather feedback and ensure that the
business community is well-informed about the process and its outcomes. The public outreach efforts
will include three public meetings in May to inform the public and gather feedback, as well as an
ongoing survey on AspenCommunityVoice.com, and a survey distributed directly to the business
community. Prior to drafting code language and a Policy Resolution, staff intends to return to Council
for a work session, tentatively scheduled for June 13, to check-in and inform Council of the results of
the public outreach process. Following the legislative process, staff will return to the public with
informational meetings and trainings to ensure residents and the business community are up-to-date with
the revised, Reed compliant sign regulations.
NEXT STEPS: In the coming weeks, staff will commence the public outreach process, including the
online survey, public and stakeholder meetings. The survey process will run through early June, and
staff will return to Council later in June with the results of the community outreach process and review
the recommendations of the consultant and City Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Mark White Sign Code Update Memo
P45
II.
Memo
To: Phillip Supino
From: Mark White
Date: April 11, 2017
Re: Summary of Need to Change Sign Regulations
You requested a conceptual summary of why we are revising the sign regulations. This memo
provides a brief overview of why we are revising the sign regulations, along with some thoughts
about our approach to the sign revisions.
The United States Supreme Court decided a key First Amendment case involving signs the summer
of 2015 (Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015)). As recognized in a concurring opinion, this
case will require significant revisions to most sign regulations throughout the nation. The Reed
decision requires that, if sign regulations make distinctions based on content (i.e., what the signs say),
they: (1) must have a compelling interest, and (2) are subject to strict scrutiny. In response, most
communities are revising their sign regulations to remove content restrictions from their sign
regulations, and limiting sign regulations to their physical characteristics and typologies. Therefore,
the regulations will address the following characteristics recognized as permitted, “content neutral”
sign regulations in the Reed opinion:
· Size
· Materials
· Lighting
· Moving parts
· Portability
· Banning signs on public property, or regulating them differently
· Locations
· Freestanding v. Attached sign distinctions
· Lighting
· Fixed v. changeable electronic signs
· Commercial v. residential distinctions
· On-premises v. Off-premises distinctions
· Total number of signs allowed per frontage or area
· Time restrictions on advertising a one-time event
· Governmental sign exemptions
Kansas City | Charleston
200 NE Missouri Road, Suite 200 | Lee’s Summit, MO, 64086
816.221.8700 p
www.planningandlaw.com
P46
II.
Phillip Supino | April 11, 2017
Summary of Need to Change Sign Regulations
White & Smith, LLC | www.planningandlaw.com
2
The new sign regulations will –
· Address the key regulatory issues relating to signs - such as size, location, design,
illumination, and timing, as discussed above.
· Make improvements needed to improve readability and ease of understanding,
· Incorporate best practices in sign regulations.
· Ensures that the regulations anticipate all sign categories and types appropriate to Aspen.
· Ensure that the regulations allow all persons and businesses freedom of expression and the
ability to advertise while respecting Aspen’s land use, neighborhood protection and aesthetic
values.
· Address traffic safety, aesthetics, clutter, and blighting issues.
· Ensure that the regulations are consistent with the AACP comprehensive planning policies.
At an initial staff meeting, it was noted that the City receives few complaints about the quality or
design of signs. The signs typically by businesses and on residential property are usually considered
acceptable by the community in terms of their design, scale and intensity. Therefore, in addition to
ensuring that the regulations remain compliant with state and federal free speech law, it is an
important goal that the revised regulations continue the scale and intensity currently permitted.
In addition, the City often allows signs in the public right-of-way, or as part of public events on parks
or other public spaces. The regulations will continue to allow the City to control signs in those
locations so that they do not create clutter, and do not create dangers to traffic or pedestrian safety.
P47
II.