HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20121210
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
December 10, 2012
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #114, 2012 - Contract - Avaya Phone System
b) Resolution # 117, 2012 - Stormwater Conveyance Cleaning and Video
c) Resolution #108, 2012 - Revision to the EOTC 2012 1/2% Transit Sales & Use
Tax Budget
d) Resolution #109, 2012 - EOTC 2013 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget
e) Resolution #115, 2012 - Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project
Design Contract
f) Resolution #116, 2012. State Energy Impact Assistance Grant Application for
AABC Water Tie-In Project
g) Minutes - November 26, 2012
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #113, 2012 - Adopting 2013 Mil Levy
b) Ordinance #35, 2012 - .3% Sales Tax for Education
c) Ordinance #31, 2012 - Code Amendment - Master Plans
d) Ordinance #33, 2012 - Code Amendment - Historic Districts
e) Ordinance #32, 2012 - Code Amendment: Affordable Housing Certificates
f) Ordinance #25, 2012 - Code Amendment: CC and C1 Zone Districts
g) Ordinance #23, 2012 - AspenModern Negotiation for Landmark Designation of
610 E. Hyman Avenue
h) Ordinance #34, 2012 - Code Amendment - Accessory Dwelling Units and Growth
Management
i) Resoluton #118, 2012 - Code Amendment Policy Direction: Sign Code
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting January 14, 2013
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
• Stick to top priorities
• Involve others in community problem solving
• Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Considine, IT Department Director
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 11/7/2012
MEETING DATE: 11/26/2012
RE: Avaya Phone System
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
See Staff Memo
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Capital monies have been budgeted in 2012 for replacement of the current phone
system.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P1
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P2
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Considine, IT Director
THRU: Don Taylor, Finance/Admin Services Director
DATE OF MEMO: 12/3/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: VanRan Contract for Avaya Phone System
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approve contract for the acquisition and installation of an Avaya
phone system to replace the current City/County Nortel system.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Approved capital funding for 2012
BACKGROUND: Council has not discussed this before.
DISCUSSION: The current Nortel system is 8 years old and has outlived its useful life. Nortel
no longer exists and both replacement parts and support are problematic.
The new system adds considerable value:
• Reduced Infrastructure - We are acquiring an industry standard phone system that will
operate on our existing data network. Since the current phone system operates on a
separate physical network, we will be eliminating over 40 network switches and their
associated costs.
• Application Integration – Because the Avaya system utilizes standard internet protocols,
it enables interoperability with workgroup applications, office productivity suites, and
email.
• Mobile Integration – A new feature titled “extension to mobile” allows any mobile device
to act as an extension on the system and enables the same features of the standard desk
phone on the mobile device. This functionality is available for laptop, iPad, iPhone, and
Android.
• Conferencing – Enhanced audio and video conferencing will be provided. Meeting
rooms such as Council Chambers will be set up to enable up to 25 video conference
attendees utilizing any device that is equipped with a camera, microphone, and speaker
including mobile devices. Participants will be able to share content during the conference.
In addition, participants equipped with video capabilities will be able to stream their
video content to the conference.
P3
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
• Enhanced Productivity – System customers will have significantly greater control over
their call handling features through web interfaces to the system. For example, incoming
calls can be filtered by caller-id and time of day and accepted or redirected based upon
configured preferences. Additional productivity is enabled through the “presence”
feature; the phone system can access the calendars of others on the system and alert you
to that person’s status (on the phone) and availability (in a meeting or on vacation).
In general, the Avaya system is a unified communication system that incorporates eight
years of technological advances in comparison to our current system.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The costs associated with this system are below budget
estimates and are shared with Pitkin County based upon relative number of extensions (City 312,
County 254). The City share of the $338,585.14 contract is $186,640.57; the County share is
$151,944.57. The annual maintenance and support costs are comparable to the previous system.
Initially more IT Staff will be devoted to this project in order to rollout the system and acquaint
Customers with the new features; total IT Staff time will not increase.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Enhancements to mobile functionality and video
conferencing improve our ability work anywhere, telecommute, and avoid unnecessary travel.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve VanRan contract.
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #114, Series of 2012, approving the
VanRan contract for a new phone system
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P4
VI.a
RESOLUTION #114
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND VANRAN COMMUNICATION SERVICES INC. AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
VoIP (Voice Over IP) Network Equipment and Installation, between the City of
Aspen and VanRan Communication Services Inc., a true and accurate copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for VoIP (Voice Over IP) Network Equipment and Installation, between the City
of Aspen and VanRan Communication Services Inc., a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to
execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 10th day of December, 2012.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 10, 2012.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P5
VI.a
P7
VI.a
P8
VI.a
P9
VI.a
P10
VI.a
P11
VI.a
P12
VI.a
P13
VI.a
P14
VI.a
P15
VI.a
P16
VI.a
P17
VI.a
P18
VI.a
P19
VI.a
P20
VI.a
P21
VI.a
P22
VI.a
P23
VI.a
P24
VI.a
P25
VI.a
P26
VI.a
P27
VI.a
P28
VI.a
P29
VI.a
P30
VI.a
P31
VI.a
P32
VI.a
P33
VI.a
P34
VI.a
P35
VI.a
P36
VI.a
P37
VI.a
P38
VI.a
P39
VI.a
P40
VI.a
P41
VI.a
P42
VI.a
P43
VI.a
P44
VI.a
P45
VI.a
P46
VI.a
P47
VI.a
P48
VI.a
P49
VI.a
P50
VI.a
P51
VI.a
P52
VI.a
P53
VI.a
P54
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: April Long, Stormwater Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon and Scott Miller
DATE OF MEMO: 12/3/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Stormwater Conveyance Cleaning and Video
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
See attached staff memo.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
$30,000 from Stormwater operating budget
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P55
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P56
VI.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : April Long, P.E., Stormwater Manager
THRU: Tricia Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Scott Miller, Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 3, 2012
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
RE: 2012 Stormwater Conveyance Cleaning and Video
SUMMARY: The City Manager has approved the expenditure of $30,000 as a sole source
service, for the cleaning and videoing of stormwater conveyance systems within the Commercial
Core and other downtown areas.
DISCUSSION: Each year, the stormwater program inspects several thousand linear feet of
stormwater pipes to determine maintenance, repair, or replacement needs. This typically
requires approximately $10,000, which was the planned operations budget for this year.
Anytime Sewer and Drain is the vendor chosen for this fall’s work.
During the video inspection of several stormwater conveyance features within the Commercial
Core this year, it became apparent that many of the pipes needed to be cleaned immediately to
allow passage and prevent flooding during any upcoming storm or snowmelt events. As a result,
the City Manager has authorized Anytime Sewer and Drain, as a sole source vendor, to clean and
video identified portions of the City of Aspen’s stormwater system as soon as possible.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Funding
Stormwater Budget for System Maintenance $30,000.00
Expenditures
Original Anytime Sewer and Drain Contract $10,000.00
Immediate Cleaning Needs Change Order $20,000.00
TOTAL $30,000.00
P57
VI.b
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P58
VI.b
RESOLUTION #117
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ANYTIME SEWER AND DRAIN AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
cleaning of stormwater conveyance system, between the City of Aspen and
Anytime Sewer and Drain, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for cleaning of stormwater conveyance system, between the City of Aspen and
Anytime Sewer and Drain, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 10th day of December 2012.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, December 10, 2012.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P59
VI.b
P61
VI.b
P62
VI.b
P63
VI.b
P64
VI.b
P65
VI.b
P66
VI.b
P67
VI.b
P68
VI.b
P69
VI.b
P70
VI.b
P71
VI.b
P72
VI.b
P73
VI.b
P74
VI.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Krueger, Director of Transportation
THRU: Revision to the EOTC 2012 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax
Budget
DATE OF MEMO: 11/29/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Revision to the EOTC 2012 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax
Budget
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P75
VI.c
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P76
VI.c
P77
VI.c
P78
VI.c
P79
VI.c
P80
VI.c
P81
VI.c
P82
VI.c
P83
VI.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Krueger, Director of Transportation
THRU: EOTC 2013 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget
DATE OF MEMO: 11/29/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: EOTC 2013 1/2% Transit Sales & Use Tax Budget
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
See attached memorandcum
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
P85
VI.d
P87
VI.d
P88
VI.d
P89
VI.d
P90
VI.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 11/29/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project Design
Contract
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
$313,835 out of Wheeler AMP Budget 2013
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P91
VI.e
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P92
VI.e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Council
FROM: Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton
THRU: Assistant City Manager Randy Ready
DATE OF MEMO: 28 November 2012
RE: Wheeler Balcony Project – Architectural Team Selection and
Contract Approval Request
SUMMARY: The Wheeler Opera House, working closely with City Asset Management and
representatives from the community, has selected Mills & Schnoering Architects LLC as its preferred
provider of architectural services for the scheduled Wheeler Balcony and Technical Remodel project,
previously discussed and approved for 2013. Request is made for Council’s approval of the contract for
services with Mills & Schnoering so that work can begin at the earliest opportunity.
BACKGROUND: Wheeler staff met with City Council several times in the second half of 2012 to discuss
the need for a comprehensive renovation of the Wheeler Opera House’s balcony, in order to remedy
audience comfort and life safety issues, and to simultaneously replace the Wheeler’s 1980s-era
technology in its technical booth and other audience chamber areas, including replacement of its 35mm
film exhibition equipment with DCP (Digital Cinema Projection) which will be the new industry standard
by December 2013. Monies for this project were estimated through a “Balcony And Auditorium
Rehabilitation Study” (Quinn Evans Architects, September 1, 2012) that included a comprehensive cost
analysis and estimate performed by R.W. Brown & Associates, and this figure was included in the 2013
Capital Projects budget for the Wheeler.
DISCUSSION
Wheeler and City Asset Management staff solicited bids through a standard Request For Proposals
process for architectural services for this important project, with a scope of work predicated on the
Balcony Study done over the summer. The RFP was launched in early October, with bids closing
November 9. The City/Wheeler received two proposals: one from Mills & Schnoering Architects, which
in a previous incarnation as Farewell, Mills, & Gatsch Architects worked with the Wheeler on the
development of ideas for a Wheeler Opera House expansion (2008/2009), as well as oversaw the
Wheeler first-floor and basement renovation (2011). The other was from Quinn Evans Architects, which
first worked with the Wheeler over the summer on the aforementioned balcony study.
A selection team was formed, composed of Aspen Music Festival Operations Manager Karen Mulleny,
Wheeler Board of Directors member Richie Cohen, City Asset Management members Scott Miller and
Jeff Pendarvis, and Wheeler Production Manager Brad Spooner and Executive Director Gram Slaton.
Assistant City Manager Randy Ready was also involved. Proposals were assessed on the following
criteria:
P93
VI.e
Proposed Team 20%
Relevant Experience 15%
Challenges and Approach to Work 15%
Sustainable Design 5%
Historic Preservation 10%
Technology and Selection 10%
Fee Schedule 25%
Final interviews were conducted with the two candidates on November 27. While the assessments and
scoring tallies between the two firms were close, the unanimous choice of the selection committee was
Mills & Schnoering Architects. The qualities that gave Mills & Schnoering the decisive edge included a
clarity of focus, conscientious concern about “scope creep” (wherein additional work is added in
because of opportunity that then possibly compromises both schedule and budget), a well-defined and
implementable project timeline, and long history of completing compacted projects on time and at or
under budget.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This project is included in the 2013 budget as a Capital Project, in the
amount of $2.9 million, as previously discussed with Council in both work session and budget review.
Funding for this design and engineering contract, in the amount of (not to exceed) $313,835 is included
in the overall project budget. This portion of the project is on budget within the scope of its total
expense. Wheeler and Asset Manager staff feel that the proposed fees are reasonable. The firm is
reputable and has successfully worked with the Wheeler previously, and has a provable track record of
bringing complex projects to completion on time and at or under budget.
RECOMMENDATION/COMMENT: Wheeler staff and board recommend approval of the contract with
Mills & Schnoering Architects LLC.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P94
VI.e
RESOLUTION # 115
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AND MILLS & SCHNOERING ARCHITECTS LLC, FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
BALCONY AND THEATRE TECHNOLOGY REMODEL PROJECT, AND
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 Mills & Schnoering Architects 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 Mills & Schnoering Architects LLC, regarding
purchase of architectural services for the Wheeler Opera House balcony and theatre
technology capital project, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said
contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held December 10, 2012.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P95
VI.e
P97
VI.e
P98
VI.e
P99
VI.e
P100
VI.e
P101
VI.e
P102
VI.e
P103
VI.e
P104
VI.e
P105
VI.e
P106
VI.e
P107
VI.e
P108
VI.e
P109
VI.e
P110
VI.e
P111
VI.e
WH
E
E
L
E
R
OP
E
R
A
HO
U
S
E
Ba
l
c
o
n
y
Re
m
o
d
e
l
ST
A
F
F
I
N
G
HO
U
R
S
AN
D
FE
E
MS
M
M
A
B
1
A
B
2
M
W
J
S
M
+
S
a
KL
&
A
B
G
F
D
A
K
2
K
2
L
D
C
B
&
F
CO
N
S
U
L
T
S
U
B
PI
C
P
R
E
S
P
M
P
A
T
E
C
H
P
A
T
O
T
A
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
M
E
P
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
A
C
O
U
S
T
I
C
S
A
/
V
L
I
G
H
T
C
O
S
T
ES
T
T
O
T
A
L
T
O
T
A
L
S
PR
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
AN
D
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
Ga
t
h
e
r
/
r
e
v
i
e
w
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
Se
t
‐up
Ba
s
e
Dr
a
w
i
n
g
s
8
1
6
Ki
c
k
‐of
f
Me
e
t
i
n
g
4
4
4
4
26
2
2
4
2
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
an
d
Pr
o
b
e
Re
v
i
e
w
2
1
2
8
1
2
6
1
2
4
6
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
8
8
8
42
4
4
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
Na
r
r
a
t
i
v
e
8
8
22
4
Up
d
a
t
e
Co
d
e
St
u
d
y
24
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
to
Ci
t
y
2
2
2
In
i
t
i
a
l
De
s
i
g
n
St
u
d
i
e
s
4
2
4
1
6
2
4
1
6
4
In
i
t
i
a
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
/
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
4
24
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ag
e
n
c
y
Re
v
i
e
w
Mt
g
s
4
4
4
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Pr
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
an
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Do
c
s
4
8
1
6
4
4
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
v
e
l
*
40
0
6
1
6
To
t
a
l
Ho
u
r
s
14
2
3
2
7
8
9
6
2
4
2
3
2
2
0
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
0
8
0
1
5
6
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fe
e
$3
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
7
,
4
5
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
7
5
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
3
8
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
2
1
,
3
3
0
$
4
8
,
7
8
0
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
/
DE
S
I
G
N
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
SD
Ki
c
k
‐of
f
Me
e
t
i
n
g
4
4
2
6
4
4
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Fi
n
i
s
h
/
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
2
4
8
18
De
v
e
l
o
p
Co
d
e
Sh
e
e
t
(
s
)
2
8
8
De
s
i
g
n
Re
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
8
2
1
6
3
6
8
0
1
2
2
0
2
1
1
6
3
2
2
De
s
i
g
n
Re
v
i
e
w
Me
e
t
i
n
g
4
4
2
4
4
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Pr
e
l
i
m
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
2
1
2
26
3
8
8
8
De
v
e
l
o
p
Pr
e
l
i
m
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Mg
m
t
Pl
a
n
2
2
De
v
e
l
o
p
Pr
e
l
i
m
Lo
n
g
‐le
a
d
it
e
m
Li
s
t
2
2
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
an
d
Re
v
i
e
w
4
4
4
41
8
1
2
4
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Re
v
i
e
w
Me
e
t
i
n
g
4
4
6
2
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
De
s
i
g
n
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
8
2
0
4
0
2
4
2
0
1
4
2
2
4
SD
/
D
D
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
Me
e
t
i
n
g
s
8
4
8
2
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
v
e
l
*
24
6
1
6
To
t
a
l
Ho
u
r
s
34
2
5
4
1
1
2
1
2
8
4
3
3
4
4
0
6
4
8
1
2
7
8
2
1
9
2
4
0
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fe
e
$7
,
5
0
0
$
4
5
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
6
0
0
$
3
5
0
$
3
9
,
9
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
8
0
0
$
3
7
,
5
0
0
$
7
7
,
4
0
0
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DO
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
De
t
a
i
l
s
,
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
an
d
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
4
1
2
2
0
4
0
2
8
8
1
6
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Fi
n
i
s
h
e
s
an
d
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
41
4
8
1
2
12
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
4
2
0
4
0
1
0
0
4
2
4
2
0
1
4
8
1
6
8
Es
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
an
d
Re
v
i
e
w
4
4
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
2
4
1
2
2
2
8
4
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
1 an
d
Bi
d
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
1
6
7
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
an
d
fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
s
4
8
2
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
Re
v
i
e
w
88
2
2
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
2
8
1
6
2
4
1
2
0
1
4
2
4
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
1
2
2
1
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
v
i
e
w
Mt
g
s
2
2
2
4
Is
s
u
e
Pe
r
m
i
t
/
B
i
d
an
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
44
4
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
v
e
l
*
24
To
t
a
l
Ho
u
r
s
19
1
1
0
8
1
1
2
2
0
0
8
4
4
8
3
2
7
2
4
7
2
0
4
4
2
4
0
0
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fe
e
$4
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
5
0
0
$
1
6
,
6
0
0
$
8
5
0
$
4
9
,
2
0
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
$
8
,
5
0
0
$
9
,
5
0
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
8
2
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
0
$
3
1
,
7
2
0
$8
0
,
9
2
0
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
MI
L
L
S
+ SC
H
N
O
E
R
I
N
G
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
P113
VI.e
MS
M
M
A
B
1
A
B
2
M
W
J
S
M
+
S
a
KL
&
A
B
G
F
D
A
K
2
K
2
L
D
C
B
&
F
CO
N
S
U
L
T
S
U
B
PI
C
P
R
E
S
P
M
P
A
T
E
C
H
P
A
T
O
T
A
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
M
E
P
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
A
C
O
U
S
T
I
C
S
A
/
V
L
I
G
H
T
C
O
S
T
ES
T
T
O
T
A
L
T
O
T
A
L
S
CO
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
MI
L
L
S
+ SC
H
N
O
E
R
I
N
G
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
PR
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PH
A
S
E
Pe
r
m
i
t
Re
v
i
e
w
44
2
Tr
a
d
e
Bi
d
d
i
n
g
/
F
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
2
2
2
4
2
In
i
t
i
a
l
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
Re
v
i
e
w
an
d
Lo
n
g
‐le
a
d
Or
d
e
r
i
n
g
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
8
Fi
n
a
l
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
3
8
4
1
2
Fi
n
a
l
Ch
a
i
r
Se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
S
a
m
p
l
e
/
O
r
d
e
r
2
2
1
6
4
Pr
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ph
a
s
e
Me
e
t
i
n
g
s
4
4
4
2
4
4
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
v
e
l
*
24
6
To
t
a
l
Ho
u
r
s
8
0
8
7
4
7
4
1
2
1
7
6
4
2
1
1
8
4
1
2
8
0
0
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fe
e
$1
,
8
0
0
$
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
6
,
5
0
0
$
4
0
0
$
2
,
6
2
5
$
3
,
5
0
0
$
5
0
0
$
1
,
4
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
9
,
4
2
5
$
2
5
,
9
2
5
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
AD
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
AN
D
CL
O
S
E
‐OU
T
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
Me
e
t
i
n
g
s
1
2
2
0
9
6
8
1
2
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
to
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
RF
I
'
s
16
1
6
2
4
1
2
8
Pu
n
c
h
l
i
s
t
16
1
6
4
4
8
2
4
8
Cl
o
s
e
o
u
t
(r
e
v
i
e
w
as
‐bu
i
l
t
s
,
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fi
n
a
l
CD
s
,
et
c
.
)
8
8
1
2
4
4
4
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
v
e
l
*
48
1
8
2
4
To
t
a
l
Ho
u
r
s
12
0
0
6
0
7
2
1
4
8
2
9
2
2
4
3
4
2
8
8
3
6
8
0
0
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Fe
e
$2
,
7
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
6
,
8
0
0
$
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
3
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
4
0
0
$
4
,
2
5
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
9
6
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
1
9
,
8
1
0
$
5
2
,
8
1
0
TO
T
A
L
S
TO
T
A
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
FE
E
$1
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
5
0
$
2
8
,
7
0
0
$
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
,
2
0
0
$
1
6
6
,
0
5
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
1
2
5
$
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
3
0
0
$
2
5
,
5
6
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
8
0
0
$
1
1
9
,
7
8
5
$
2
8
5
,
8
3
5
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
RE
I
M
B
U
R
S
A
B
L
E
S
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
at
10
%
of
Fe
e
:
$
2
8
,
0
0
0
NO
T
E
S
1.
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Tr
a
v
e
l
*
fo
r
M+
S
a
is
bi
l
l
e
d
at
Te
c
h
St
a
f
f
ra
t
e
.
2.
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
a
b
l
e
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
wi
l
l
be
bi
l
l
e
d
at
co
s
t
.
3.
Se
e
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
sh
e
e
t
fo
r
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
at
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
ma
t
i
r
i
x
P114
VI.e
Wheeler Opera House
BALCONY REDESIGN
Staff Trips to Aspen
Mi
l
l
s
+ Sc
h
n
o
e
r
i
n
g
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
,
LL
C
Lo
c
a
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
Fi
s
h
e
r
Da
c
h
s
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
Be
a
u
d
i
n
Ga
n
t
z
KL
&
A
,
In
c
.
K2
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
De
s
i
g
n
Co
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Be
c
k
e
r
Fr
o
n
d
o
r
f
Predesign and Planning
Kick‐off/Program/Survey (1)4111111
Progress (1)31
Schematic Design/Design Development
Kick‐off Meeting (1)211
Progress/Presentation211
Construction Documentation
Kick‐off Meeting (1)11
Progress21
Presentation1
Approvals2
Bidding and permitting
Approvals1
Progress1
Construction Administration
PHASE
Construction Administration
Progress (6)2241211
Punchlist/Closeout2211111
Mills + Schnoering anticipates a combination of site visits and conference calls throughout
the project.This summary indicates planned site visits which may include multiple staff
making simultaneous visits. All consultants will attend the kick‐off meeting at the
beginning of the project to become familiarwith the project and staff, one interim meeting
during construction to check on the progress of the work and one visit for punchlist. Local
P115
VI.e
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike McDill, Deputy Director of Utilities
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities
DATE OF MEMO: 11/30/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Resolution No. _______, 2012. State Energy Impact Assistance
Grant Application for AABC Water Tie-In Project
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Potential $200,000 grant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P117
VI.f
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P118
VI.f
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike McDill, Deputy Director of Utilities
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities
DATE OF MEMO: 11/30/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Resolution No. 116, 2012. State Energy Impact Assistance Grant
Application for AABC Water Tie-In Project
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: We request that Council authorize the Water Department to
submit an application for a State Energy Impact Assistance Fund (EIAF) grant to assist with the
construction of the AABC Water Tie-In Project in the amount of $200,000.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved budget to construct this project in 2009
with an additional allocation in 2012.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this project is to extend a second water source to serve the
AABC area and to the Airport. This second water connection will provide additional capacity
and looped service to this area, which has been served by a single line for some time.
DISCUSSION: This grant will provide State assistance with this project and preserve money in
the Water Fund for other future system improvements identified in the nearly completed Master
Plan, and reduce the burden of this project on our rate payers.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: If approved in the full amount requested, this grant would
provide $200,000 of State Assistance to this project.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P119
VI.f
Page 2 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This project will cross the Deer Hill Conservation Area and
we are budgeting funds to fully reclaim that area immediately following construction. The
project is being combined with the construction of the Reuse Line and the Electric Fund’s
Second Feed over this same area to minimize the extent and time that the Deer Hill Conservation
Area will be disturbed.
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached
Resolution authorizing us to submit this application.
ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives would be to:
• Not participate in this grant program and continue to support all of the future water
system improvements only through local sources with no chance of State assistance.
• Delay submitting this application until the next grant cycle for this program, which is
April 1, 2013.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # 116-2012, authorizing the City
Manager to submit an application to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Energy Impact
Assistance Grant Program in the amount of $200,000 for the AABC Water Tie-In Project.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A – EIAF Grant Application
P120
VI.f
P121
VI.f
Page 1 of 8
Rev. 7/12
STATE OF COLORADO #
(For Use by State)
Department of Local Affairs
ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION
Tier I or Tier II
Applications Must Be Submitted Electronically - Directions on Last Page
A. GENERAL AND SUMMARY INFORMATION
1. Name/Title of Proposed Project: AABC Waterline Tie-in
2. Applicant: City of Aspen
(In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, name of the "lead" municipality, county, special district or other political subdivision).
In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, provide the names of other directly participating political subdivisions:
3. Chief Elected Official (In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, chief elected official of the "lead" political
subdivision):
Name: Mick Ireland Title: Mayor
Mailing Address: 130 South Galena Street Phone: (970) 920-5199
City/Zip: Aspen, CO 81611 Phone:
E-Mail Address: Mick.Ireland @cityofaspen.com
4. Designated Contact Person (will receive all mailings) for the Application:
Name: Mike McDill Title: Deputy Utility Director
Mailing Address: 130 South Galena Street Phone: (970) 429-1994
City/Zip: Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 319-9685
E-Mail Address: Mike.mcdill@cityofaspen.com
5. Amount of Energy/Mineral Impact Funds requested: (Tier I; Up to $200,000 or Tier II; Greater than $200,000 to
$1,000,000)
$200,000
6. Brief Description of the Project:
(The reason for this project application in 100 words or less)
The City of Aspen currently serves the whole Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) area of approximately 135
customers, including the Aspen Airport, through a single 18-inch line, which extends from the vicinity of the Aspen Lodge
to the southwest corner of this development. Any interruption of this 4,000-foot long line results in this whole area and the
Airport being without domestic water or fire protection. This project will bring an additional 12-inch waterline from the
southeast into this area’s network to insure continuous availability of drinking water and fire protection.
7. Local priority if more than one application from the same local government (1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc.) N/A
P123
VI.f
Page 2 of 8
B. DEMOGRAPHIC AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
1. Population
a. What was the 2010 population of the applicant jurisdiction? 6,658
b. What is the current population? 6,819
(Current/most recent conservation trust fund/lottery distribution estimate is acceptable.)
What is the source of the estimate? State Demographer
c. What is the population projection for the applicant in 5 years? 7,700
What is the source of the projection? 2.5% per year from State Demographer
2. Financial Information (Current Year):
In the column below labeled “Applicant” provide the financial information for the municipality, county, school district or special district directly
benefiting from the application. In the columns below labeled “Entity”, provide the financial information for any public entities on whose behalf the
application is being submitted (if applicable).
Complete items “a through i” for ALL project types:
Applicant Entity Entity
a. Assessed Valuation (AV) Year: 2012 $1,280,000,000
b. Mill Levy 4.586 mills
c. Property Tax Revenue (mill levy x AV) $5,900,000
d. Sales Tax
(Rate/Estimated Annual Revenue) 2.1% / $11,200,000 % / $ % / $
e. Total General Fund Budget $21,900,000
f. Total Applicant Budget
(Sum of General Fund and all Special or Enterprise
Funds)
$95,200,000
g. Total Multi-year Debt Obligations for all Fund
Types* $2,800,000
h. Total Lease-Purchase and Certificates of
Participation obligations* N/A
i. General Fund Balance (Reserves) as of
January 1 of this current calendar year. $9,200,000
For projects to be managed through a Special Fund other than the General Fund (e.g. County Road and Bridge
Fund) or managed through an Enterprise Fund (e.g. water, sewer, county airport), complete items “j through
n”:
Identify the relevant Special Fund or Enterprise Fund: City of Aspen Water Fund
j. Special or Enterprise Fund Budget Amount
(2012) $9,491,746
k. Special or Enterprise Fund Multi-Year Debt
Obligations* $ -0-
l. Special or Enterprise Fund Balance (Reserves)
on January 1 of this calendar year (2013) $3,498,816
m. Special or Enterprise Fund Lease-Purchase
and Certificate of Participation Obligations* $ -0-
n. Special Fund Mill Levy (if applicable) N/A
For Water and Sewer Project Only complete items “o through q”:
o. Tap Fee $8,060/ECU
p. Average Monthly User Charge
(Divide sum of annual residential revenues by 12 and then
divide by the number of residential taps served.)
$24.50/Mo.
q. Number of Taps Served by Applicant 3,850 taps
* Include the sum of the year-end principal amounts remaining for all multi-year debt obligations, lease purchase
agreements or certificate of participation notes
P124
VI.f
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
8
C.
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
B
U
D
G
E
T
.
L
i
s
t
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
s
o
n
e
a
c
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
e
d
g
e
r
m
u
s
t
e
q
u
a
l
.
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
(D
o
l
l
a
r
f
o
r
D
o
l
l
a
r
C
a
s
h
M
a
t
c
h
i
s
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
)
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
Li
s
t
B
u
d
g
e
t
L
i
n
e
I
t
e
m
s
(
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
:
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
,
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
t
e
m
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
Li
s
t
t
h
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
m
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
e
i
t
h
e
r
c
a
s
h
o
r
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
b
l
e
i
n
-
k
i
n
d
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Ye
s
/
N
o
Ca
s
h
In
-
K
i
n
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
En
e
r
g
y
/
M
i
n
e
r
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
u
n
d
G
r
a
n
t
Re
q
u
e
s
t
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
No
*E
n
e
r
g
y
/
M
i
n
e
r
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
u
n
d
L
o
a
n
Re
q
u
e
s
t
(
I
f
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
)
$
-
0
-
No
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
F
i
n
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
B
i
d
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
$
3
8
,
7
0
0
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
$
3
8
,
7
0
0
Y
e
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$8
0
9
,
6
0
0
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
$
8
0
9
,
6
0
0
Y
e
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
&
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
$4
0
,
5
0
0
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
$
4
0
,
5
0
0
Y
e
s
TO
T
A
L
$8
8
8
,
8
0
0
TO
T
A
L
$8
8
8
,
8
0
0
$
-
0
-
Pl
e
a
s
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
a
m
o
r
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
i
f
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
*
L
o
a
n
s
wi
t
h
a
5
%
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
m
a
y
o
n
l
y
b
e
a
w
a
r
d
e
d
f
o
r
p
o
t
a
b
l
e
wa
t
e
r
a
n
d
s
e
w
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
L
e
a
v
e
b
l
a
n
k
i
f
a
l
o
a
n
i
s
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
P125
VI.f
Page 4 of 8
D. PROJECT INFORMATION.
The statutory purpose of the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance program is to provide financial assistance to
“political subdivisions socially or economically impacted by the development, processing or energy conversion of
minerals and mineral fuels.”
1. Demonstration of Need:
a. Why is the project needed at this time?
The city currently has a large area, which is served by only a single delivery point. Any interruption of that delivery
pipeline will result in loss of domestic water and fire protection for that whole area, including our local airport. In 2012, the
City made the budget commitment to start this second feed project.
b. How does the implementation of this project address the need?
This second feed pipe system to the AABC area will provide municipal standard redundancy of drinking water and fire
protection to this large area of our system.
c. Does this project, as identified in this application, completely address the stated need? If not, please describe
additional work or phases and the estimated time frame. Do you anticipate requesting Energy and Mineral Impact
Assistance funds for future phases?
This application will allow us to complete this project.
d. What other implementation options have been considered?
Because this area is bounded on the east by a deep canyon carrying the Roaring Fork River and on the west by State
Highway 82 and the Airport property, the project will be constructing this line over a very steep ridge and across a
sensitive conservation easement area. The alignment options are very limited. We did consider boring through the ridge,
or some portion of it, but initial cost estimates for all variations of this option were much higher than the standard trench
approach.
e. What are the consequences if the project is not awarded funds?
Eventually the City will need to fund the cost of this project to insure adequate water service to this area. The rate payers
in our community will be additionally burdened by this extra cost.
2. Measurable Outcomes:
a. Describe measurable outcomes you expect to see when implementation of this project is complete. How will the
project enhance the livability* of your region, county, city, town or community (e.g. constructing a new water plant will
eliminate an unsafe drinking water system and provide safe and reliable drinking water; the construction of a new
community center will provide expanded community services, or projects achieving goals regarding energy conservation,
community heritage, economic development/diversification, traffic congestion, etc.)?
*(Livability means increasing the value and/or benefit in the areas that are commonly linked in community development such
as jobs, housing, transportation, education, emergency mitigation, health and environment)
Constructing this second feed pipeline will bring the dependability of our water system in the AABC area up to municipal
standards for both drinking water and firefighting needs.
b. How many people will benefit from the project? (i.e., region, county, city, town, community, subdivision, households or
specific area or group; or any portion thereof)
At an average on 4 people per commercial service and average airport use of 1,230 passengers per day, this project will
benefit about 1,770 people per day within this portion of our service area.
c. How will the outcome of the project be measured to determine whether the anticipated benefits to this population
actually occur?
We will be able to isolate the two feed lines to flush, repair leaks, and otherwise maintain them separately, without
interrupting service in the area, and the whole system will be demonstrably more dependable.
d. Does this project preserve and protect a historic building, facility or structure? If yes, please describe.
No, not to my knowledge.
e. Will this project implement an energy efficiency/strategy that could result in less carbon footprint or conserve energy
use or capitalize on renewable energy technology? If yes, please describe.
Although the City of Aspen has a goal of providing 100% renewable power to our customers by 2015, this project will not,
in itself, reduce carbon footprint, conserve energy, or use any renewable energy technology.
3. Relationship to Community Goals
a. Is the project identified in the applicant’s budget or a jurisdictionally approved plan (e.g. capital improvement plan,
equipment replacement plan, comprehensive plan, utility plan, road maintenance and improvement plan or other local or
regional strategic management or planning document)? What is its ranking?
This project is identified in the 2012 and 2013 Water Fund budgets, in our Long Range Water Plan, and in our nearly
completed Water Utility Master Plan. It is one of only two major construction projects scheduled for 2013.
P126
VI.f
Page 5 of 8
4. Local Commitment and Ability to Pay
a. Why can’t this project be funded locally?
Most (77%) of the project will be funded locally. Without this grant we will eventually fund it all, because of the significant
need. This grant assistance will allow the project to be completed in 2013 with less ultimate burden to our rate payers,
which will help preserve our capital fund to address the $48 million of needed repairs, upgrades, and replacements
identified in our nearly complete 2012 Master Plan.
b. Has this project been deferred because of lack of local funding? If so, how long?
It was originally programed for 2012, but other conflicts required it to be delayed until 2013. An affordable housing project
is being constructed at the southerly terminus of this new line and we had to wait for them to complete their portion of this
waterline in the summer of 2012 before we could contract for the rest of the connection. We still need to finalize two
easements toward the northern connection. Negotiations have progressed to the point that draft easement agreements
have been delivered to both of the parties. The conservation group is still finalizing the restoration plan across their
conservation easement. All of these items will be in place by the spring of 2013.
c. Explain the origin of your local cash match. (Note: Whenever possible, local government cash match on a dollar for
dollar match basis is encouraged.)
City funding will come from the Water Utility Fund, which is fully supported by water use fees.
d. What other community entities, organizations, or stakeholders recognize the value of this project and are
collaborating with you to achieve increased livability of the community? Please describe how your partners are
contributing to achieve the improvement to the livability of the community through this project. If in-kind contributions are
included in the project budget, detailed tracking will be required on project monitoring report.
This is solely a Water Utility project.
i. Please describe the level of commitment by each collaborator. (e.g. fee waivers, in-kind services, fundraising,
direct monetary contribution, policy changes.)
All of our local funding will be direct monetary contribution.
ii. Please list the value of the resources that each collaborator is bringing to the program.
e. Has the applicant dedicated the financial resources in their current budget, reserve funds and/or unused debt capacity
that are being used for the local matching funds? Explain if No
Yes.
f. Have the applicant’s tax rates, user charges or fees been reviewed recently to address funding for the proposed
project?
The City Council will approve new rates with the 2013 budget for our water system based on a complete rate study.
g. If the tax rate, user charges or fees were modified, what was the modification and when did this change occur?
City Council will approve an approximately 4% increase to go into effect January 1, 2013.
h. Has the applicant contacted representatives from local energy or mineral companies to discuss the project? If yes,
when was the contact and what was discussed.
The abandon mining operations in and around the City of Aspen and our drinking water source areas do not have any
current mineral operators.
i. Has the applicant requested financial support from the industry? If yes, when was the contact, what amount did you
request? What were the results? If no, why not?
No, none are available to my knowledge.
5. Readiness to Go
a. Assuming this project is funded as requested, how soon will the project begin? What is the time frame for
completion?
Our schedule is to complete the design and easement negotiations by end of February 2013; bid the work in March or
April; and start construction by the first of June, with completion by the end of the 2013 construction season.
b. Describe how you determined that the project can be completed within the proposed budget as outlined in this
application? Are contingencies considered within the project budget?
We have had a couple of contractors look at the project and confirm this plan’s constructability and approximate cost.
c. Has the necessary planning been completed? How? What additional design work or permitting must still be
completed, if any? When? How did the applicant develop project cost estimates? Is the project supported by bids,
professional estimates or other credible information? Please attach a copy of any supporting documents.
Our design consultant, Merrick & Co., provided the design and the current cost estimates with input from a couple of local
contractors.
6. Energy & Mineral Relationship
a. Describe how the applicant is, has been, or will be impacted by the development, production, or conversion of energy
and mineral resources.
P127
VI.f
Page 6 of 8
The attached map illustrates the numerous historic mining claims in the immediate area around the City of Aspen. Some
of these mines, like the Durant, still discharge water which is managed through the City. Other abandon operation left
tailing piles, some of which threaten to contaminate either Maroon or Castle Creeks (our primary raw water sources). Two
areas in our service area have soil which are, or were, designated Super Fund Sites due to the high concentrations of
chemicals like arsenic and lead.
b. To further document the impact in the area, name the company or companies involved, the number of employees
associated with the activities impacting the jurisdiction and other relevant, quantitative indicators of energy/mineral impact.
Since these operations are all abandoned, this information is no longer readily available. It would take serious and
probably expensive research to develop this information.
7. Management Capacity
a. How will you separate and track expenditures, maintain funds and reserves for the capital expenditures and
improvements as described in this project?
This project is budgeted as a separate account in the Water Fund and all expenses will be process through this account.
b. Describe the funding plan in place to address the new operating and maintenance expenses generated from the
project?
This improvement will actually make it easier to maintain this portion of our distribution system, because we will now be
able to manage the two feeds separately, instead of only doing maintenance on the single line when all affected parties
are ready and willing.
c. Describe the technical and professional experience/expertise of the person(s) and/or professional firms responsible to
manage this project.
Merrick & Company is a long standing professional consulting firm. Their local staff has been involved in nearly every one
of our water system improvements for the past eight years. Both the Deputy Director and the Utility Engineer for the
Water Utility are registered Colorado Professional Engineers. All of the local consulting and utility staff have multiple
years of project management experience.
d. Does the project duplicate service capacity already established? Is the service inadequate? Has consolidation of
services with another provider been considered?
The City is the only water provider in this area. The single line serving this area does not meet a standard of looped
service to provide the redundancy generally expected for fire protection and dependable domestic service. There is no
other water provider to consolidate with in this area.
E. HIGH PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATION (HPCP) PROGRAM COMPLIANCE.
Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 24-30-1301 to 1307) require all new facilities, additions, and renovation projects
funded with 25% or more of state funds to conform with the High Performance Certification Program (HPCP) policy
adopted by the Office of the State Architect (OSA) if:
The new facility, addition, or renovation project contains 5,000 or more building square feet; and
The project includes an HVAC system; and
In the case of a renovation project, the cost of the renovation exceeds 25% of the current value of the property;
and
The project has NOT entered the design phase prior to January 1, 2008.
The HPCP requires projects achieve the highest possible LEED certification with the goal being LEED Gold. Projects are
strongly encouraged to meet the Office of the State Architect’s (OSA) Sustainable Priorities in addition to the LEED
prerequisites. Projects funded through DOLA are required to participate in the OSA's registration and tracking process.
See DOLA’s HPCP web page for more information or contact your DOLA regional manager.
In instances where achievement of LEED Gold certification is not practicable, an applicant may request a modification of
the HPCP policy or a waiver if certain conditions exist.
Please answer the following questions:
1. What is the total building square footage of the new facility, addition, or renovation? None
2. Does the project include an HVAC system? Yes No X
3. Is the project a renovation? (If no, please skip to Question 6 below.) Yes No X
4. What is the current property value*? $
5. What is the total project cost for the renovation? $
6. Will you need assistance locating resources, third party consultants, or technical assistance for LEED requirements,
preparing cost estimates, or otherwise complying with the HPCP?
P128
VI.f
Page 7 of 8
Yes No X Explain
F. TABOR COMPLIANCE.
1. Does the applicant jurisdiction have the ability to receive and spend state grant funds under TABOR spending
limitations? Explain:
Yes, the City voters approved lifting any TABOR spending and revenue limitations, except for ad valorem property tax, in
the November 1994 election, ballot question 2B, by a vote of 1368 to 561.
2. If the applicant jurisdiction receives a grant with Federal Mineral Lease funds, will the local government exceed the
TABOR limit and force a citizen property tax rebate?
No, receipt of a grant with Mineral Lease funds will not force a rebate, since the restrictions on spending and revenues
from all sources except property taxes were eliminated with the approval of the ballot question referenced above.
3. Has the applicant jurisdiction been subject to any refund under TABOR or statutory tax limitations? Explain.
No.
4. Has the applicant sought voter approval to keep revenues above fiscal spending limits? Explain.
Yes, see #1, above.
5. Are there any limitations to the voter approved revenues? (e.g., Can revenues only be spent on law enforcement or
roads?)
There are no limitations to the voter approved revenues.
6. If the applicant jurisdiction is classified as an enterprise under TABOR, will acceptance of a state grant affect this
status? Explain.
No, because even with this $200,000 DOLA grant the enterprise fund will receive less than 10% of its annual revenues in
grants from all Colorado state and local governments combined.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
Indicate below whether any of the proposed project activities:
1. Will be undertaken in flood hazard areas. Yes No X
List flood plain maps/studies reviewed in reaching this conclusion. Describe alternatives considered and mitigation
proposed.
2. Will affect historical, archeological or cultural resources, or be undertaken in geological
hazard area?
Yes No X
Describe alternatives considered and mitigation proposed.
3. Address any other related public health or safety concerns? Describe. Yes No X
P129
VI.f
Page 8 of 8
APPLICATION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
AND
OFFICIAL BOARD ACTION DATE (REQUIRED)
Application and attachments must be submitted electronically in
WORD .DOC (Preferred) or .PDF Format (Unsecured) to: ImpactGrants@state.co.us
In email subject line include: Applicant Local Government name and Tier for which you are applying
-example- Subject: Springfield County EIAF Grant Request, Tier 1
NOTE: Please do not submit a scanned application (scanned attachments ok).
(If you are unable to submit electronically please contact your DOLA regional manager)
For any questions related to the electronic submittal please call Bret Hillberry @ 303.866.4058
Attachments List (Check and submit the following documents, if applicable):
Preliminary Engineering Reports
Cover Letter X
Architectural Drawings X
Cost Estimates X
Detailed Budget
Map showing location of the project X
Map showing local mine sites X
Attorney’s TABOR decision
*****************************************************************************************************************************************
Official Board Action taken on
December 10, 2012
Date
Submission of this form indicates official action by the applicant’s governing board
authorizing application for these funds.
\(H:)\Grants\Aspen EIAF Grants\AABC EIAF Application
P130
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCE – Abetone, Italy ........................................................... 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................................................................................................. 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES .......................................................................................... 4
RESOLUTION #107, SERIES OF 2012 – Approving 2013 Budget ............................................. 6
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2012 - Code Amendment CC and C-1 Zones ............................ 7
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2012 – Parks Bonds Refunding................................................ 11
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2012 – Supplemental Appropriation ........................................ 11
ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment – Hearing Officer ........................... 12
ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2012 – Adoption of 2013 Fees ................................................. 12
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2012 – Water Rate Adjustment ................................................ 13
RESOLUTION #103, SERIES OF 2012 – South Aspen Street Lodge Project ........................... 13
P131
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
2
Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:15 PM with Councilmembers Skadron, Frisch,
Torre and Johnson present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCE – Abetone, Italy
Alessandro Molta, general counsel, Rolando Galli, and Gianpiero Dante, Mayor of Abetone,
briefed Council on background of Abetone, Italy, and efforts to become sister cities with Aspen.
Mayor Ireland said this is an opportunity for Aspen’s students to become more experienced in
culture and history. Mayor Ireland read a proclamation that this partnership is a commitment to
the development of education and that Aspen recognizes a valuable exchange of ideas. Mayor
and Council proclaimed November 26th as Abetone Friendship day.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were none.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Johnson noted kids are back in school; the mountains are open; snowmaking
on Aspen mountain lead to a great world cup races.
2. Councilman Skadron thanked the Ski Company for getting the mountains ready for the
World Cup races.
3. Councilman Frisch said Aspen looked great on television for the ski races. Councilman
Frisch congratulated Michaela for her results in the World Cup races.
4. Councilman Torre said the World Cup ski races this year were a true mind, body spirit
event.
5. Mayor Ireland said global warming is a reality. Italy has had no snow so far this year.
Mayor Ireland noted Council needs to take measures in case a drought is proclaimed.
6. Mayor Ireland congratulated everyone who went out and cheered on the ski racers for the
World Cup.
7. Chris Bendon, community development department, suggested Council move the two call
up items at the end of the agenda to December 3. Steve Barwick, city manager, recommended
moving Resolutions #111 and 112 to December 3rd. Jim True, city attorney, noted the Charter
requires two regular meetings every month and said Council should set a December 3rd meeting
to comply with the Charter requirement.
8. Mayor Ireland brought up the parking at the new art museum and requested staff schedule
a work session to discuss the alternatives for those two blocks.
P132
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #111, Series of 2012 – Ruedi Water Acquisition – Dave Hornbacher, water
department, told Council the Bureau of Reclamation has offered for sale the remaining available
water from Ruedi. The memorandum outlines the benefits of purchasing 400 acre feet from
Ruedi Reservoir. Phil Overeynder told Council this is probably the last opportunity to acquire
water from Ruedi. The city subscribed ten years ago for 1000 acre feet but the cost was too high
at that time. The BOR is offering 19,500 acre feet and there is a single entity who would like to
acquire 10,000 acre feet. It is anticipated that the full 19,500 acre feet will be fully subscribed
and this may be the city’s last opportunity to acquire this water.
Overeynder said there are questions on why the city would want to expand their water supply.
Overeynder said the city has projects in its water management program that could be
implemented, some of which are funded in the asset management plan and some are long term
projects that are not funded. Overeynder noted water would be released out of Ruedi to satisfy
downstream users in a water shortage condition. Overeynder told Council the city delivers about
3,000 acre feet of water/year; this acquisition would be 12.5% of that total. Staff identified about
40 acre feet of water necessary for the reclaimed water system and for ponds to make up for
evaporation.
Overeynder noted the unknown, climate change, could change the circumstances. Studies have
been done on the water supply, which show there is enough water in the water system to meet all
the current needs; however, the changes in the hydrology in the future are not known. Runoff
has been occurring earlier in the season requiring supplemental water supplies. Mayor Ireland
asked if the city contributes to in-stream flows on a temporary basis and releases it if necessary.
Overeynder said that would depend on how the mechanism to provide those supplies is set up.
There is the potential to meet the needs for drought mitigation as well as provide water on a
temporary basis. Overeynder said buying this water would allow the city to release water from
Ruedi to satisfy downstream needs to keep Aspen’s uses in priority and to continue to use the
water up here. Otherwise more senior rights downstream would call out Aspen’s uses in the
upper valley.
Councilman Torre said he would like to know where in between the 40 to 400 acre feet is
necessity and why the city is asking for 400 acre feet. Councilman Torre asked about city
practices with park and pond development and 40 acre feet is evaporation are different practices
necessary. Councilman Torre stated he is in favor of protecting Aspen’s water rights but would
like a clearer picture of how this fit in. Councilman Skadron asked if this is a hedge against
uncertain water demands. Overeynder said the 40 acre feet is that; if hydrology does not change,
the city will not need the remaining 360 acre feet. This is the only chance for the city to buy this
water.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue Resolution #111, Series of 2012, to December 3; seconded by
Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
Resolution #112, Series of 2012 – Mitigating Transportation Impacts from Development –
Jessica Garrow, community development department, told Council this is a joint project with
environmental health, transportation and engineering and is a result of the implementation steps
P133
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
4
of the AACP suggested to Council in March. Ms. Garrow said one of the steps was to figure out
how to make sure development is mitigating transportation impacts and make sure the process is
clear and consistent. Currently there are no clear standards on what is required for transportation
studies. Staff came to Council in May with a study, mitigating impacts of development, and
Council identified two items to move forward; employee generation numbers and making sure
development is mitigating its transportation impacts.
Staff had an RFP process and received 6 responses to that RFP and recommends Fehr & Peers
because they have experience in resort communities and their tool has been tested through the
courts. Ms. Garrow noted Fehr & Peers’ proposal noted what is happening here in Aspen; that
they are going to do specific traffic counts on how much transportation impacts a lodge
generates, how mixed use development falls into that. Fehr & Peers has a user friendly tool to
help people evaluate development proposals. Ms. Garrow said this can be phased to first do the
data gathering and then check in with Council to make sure they want to continue with this
project. Ms. Garrow said staff feels this is important to make sure the development process is
predictable.
Councilman Johnson said he supports this direction but would like to be clearer on what the city
is going to get out of this study and that the city will get deliverables. Councilman Skadron
agreed he would like to know what is actually being returned to the community for this
expenditure. Ms. Garrow said the city will get a tool related to transportation demand
management and related to multi-modal quality of service so that when Council has a
development application to consider, they can know how many trips it will generate and what
mitigations makes sense. Mayor Ireland said one of the problems with major developments is
that people are guessing how many vehicles will be generated, how intersections will be affected.
Councilman Frisch said he would like a presentation from the consultant to Council.
Councilman Frisch said he is not a big supporter of traffic counts; measurable things should be
pertinent to what they can do. A quantitative trip count does not matter like how many people
are walking or riding bikes. Councilman Johnson questioned how many more dollars/square foot
business owners can pay. Councilman Frisch said he agrees with mitigations; however, it is
important to remember they are tools to a healthy, sustainable economy. Ms. Garrow said she
will contact the consultant and have him come to the December 3rd meeting.
Councilman Johnson moved to continue Resolution #112, Series of 2012, to December 3;
seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to approve Resolution #110, Series of 2012 – Tractor Contract and
November 12, 2012, minutes; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
Councilman Johnson moved to read Ordinances #31, 32, 33, and 34, Series of 2012; seconded by
Councilman Torre.
ORDINANCE #31
P134
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
5
Series of 2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; ADDING A NEW SECTION, SECTION
26.322, MASTER PLANS, AND MANEDING SECTIONS 26.104.030, COMPREHENSIVE
COMMUNITY PLAN AND OTHER PLANS, GUIDELINES OR DOCUMENTS 26-208.010,
CITY COUNCIL – POWERS AND DUTIES 26.210.020, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT – DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
26.212.010, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION – POWERS AND DUTIES AND
26.220.010 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION – POWERS AND DUTIES
ORDINANCE #32
Series of 2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.540 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE – CERTIFICATE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
ORDINANCE #33
Series of 2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.415 HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE #34
Series of 2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTE 26.520 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE – ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS, AND CHAPTER 26.470 – GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council Ordinance #32 contains a
general update of the affordable housing credit program as well as the ability for the owner of a
certificate to exchange that certificate into a different category level, which seems necessary for
the program to be successful. APCHA has reviewed it and approved it. Ordinance #33 clarifies
HPC’s jurisdictions over property in historic districts. The issue came up in relationship to code
amendments for downtown zoning as well as in AspenModern negotiations. Bendon said
Ordinance #34 for accessory dwelling units eliminates them as an option for affordable housing
mitigation. The amendment also allows owners of properties with existing ADUs to retire those
and proposes an amendment to the GMP to the mitigation requirement to expansion of floor area
for single family and duplex rather than just in demolition cases. Bendon said Ordinance #34
should be synchronized with the change to fee-in-lieu so that applicants will know how much
that mitigation will cost.
P135
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
6
Councilman Torre said these amendments have come through the new process and it seems to
have worked well. Mayor Ireland said the master planning process should allow the review
boards to propose amendments in writing to be submitted to Council for consideration rather
than Council just receiving a summary. Jessica Garrow, community development department,
stated that was staff’s intent so the language will be reviewed before second reading.
Mayor Ireland moved to adopt on first reading Ordinances #31, 32, 33 and 34, Series of 2012;
seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Skadron,
yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #107, SERIES OF 2012 – Approving 2013 Budget
Pete Strecker, finance department, told Council this proposed budget incorporates Council’s
comments through the five budget work sessions for a total appropriation of $106 million and
without transfers $90 million. Councilman Torre requested an addition to the budget of $25,000
for the parks budget for planning for skate park phase II. This has been planned for at least 5
years and has been put on hold. The proposed use of the $25,000 is outreach and planning.
Councilman Torre said the skate park is heavily used and is 10 years old. This would be an
opportunity for review and upgrade to one of the kid’s facilities. Stephen Ellsperman, park
department, told Council a second phase has been anticipated for the skateboard park, but this
got shifted or other priorities. Ellsperman said staff has ideas for phase II and would like to hear
from the community what they think of these ideas and what other ideas they may have. Mayor
Ireland said in the planning, staff needs to think about the safety on Rio Grande and kids darting
across the street. Councilman Frisch asked if this planning could be done without increasing the
2013 parks budget. Ellsperman pointed out staff has selected, with Council approval, specific
capital projects program and staff would prefer the additional funds to keep their fund balance
sound.
Councilman Skadron brought up the holiday lights on the trees; the lights seem to have expanded
down the streets. Ellsperman told Council staff thought they have lights according to Council’s
instructions. There is the capability to change the lights. Ellsperman suggested getting the lights
functioning and viewing them to see what works and what doesn’t. Mayor Ireland said Council
needs to have a broader discussion about lights and the dark sky initiative. Mayor Ireland noted
earlier Council was told that there is no ability to turn down or off sections of lights.
Councilman Johnson noted this budget has been only modestly increased over last year.
Councilman Johnson stated he is concerned about the lack of snow and recommended staff
monitor sales tax through the end of the year to see how the winter season is shaping up and
whether the spending should be reined in. Mayor Ireland stated the finance department is
prepared to create a framework to allow Council and the city to deal proactively if there is a short
fall. Don Taylor, finance director, noted the budget proposed is conservative; staff will look at
the first 2 or 3 months of 2013 to assess the financial picture. Taylor pointed out there is fund
balance and capital projects can be adjusted.
Councilman Torre moved to approve Resolution #107, Series of 2012, as amended adding the
$25,000 for the parks department; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
P136
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
7
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Helen Klanderud asked if there is a final decision on the health and human services spending.
Taylor answered there is $300,000 in this approved budget. Council has discussed alternatives
which could be approved in a supplemental appropriation ordinance. Councilman Skadron said a
bipartisan commission will be formed to discuss this issue and to make sure the resolution is in
place prior to the next budget cycle.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2012 - Code Amendment CC and C-1 Zones
Jessica Garrow, community development department, reminded Council this is the third step in
the new code amendment process and the one in which Council can adopt changes to the land
use code. Ms. Garrow noted in April Council adopted changes to the CC and C-1 zone district,
reduced the allowed height to two stories and 28’; the allowed free market residential floor area
was reduced from .75:1 to .5:1 only if equal amounts of affordable housing is provided. There is
an exception for any historic properties with a by right .5:1 free market residential floor area.
Council noted they were interested in further exploring uses allowed downtown by right.
Ms. Garrow reported staff had a public outreach process, attached in the packet, and included
200 people with a survey, small group meetings, open city hall forum. Staff did background
research and contracted with a firm who did a height study and a comparative analysis of
mountain communities on what kinds of heights and uses are allowed in other resorts.
Ms. Garrow noted staff went to Council in June to hear their general objectives for downtown
and Council said they wanted to make sure there is vitality downtown, that commercial uses are
maintained as the primary use downtown. Council was interested to see if there are ways to
encourage lodge development downtown. Staff presented a policy resolution on this issue to
Council in August.
Ms. Garrow said the proposed code amendments are for allowed heights of 38 to 40’ in the CC
zone and 36 to 38’ in the C-1 zone, which is a transitional zone from commercial core into
residential neighborhoods. Staff has discussed what kind of space is necessary inside a building
to make sure the uses are successful. The historic pattern for ground floor is high ceilings with
lots of windows; upper floors have a lower ceiling height. Staff proposes a 13’ first floor in CC
and 11’ first floor in the C-1 zone; this should encourage commercial uses in the CC zone.
Upper ceiling heights are proposed at 9’. Ms. Garrow said it is clear in the height study that at
least 6’ is needed to get equipment on a roof to serve buildings.
Ms. Garrow proposed limiting any 3rd floor to no more than 50% of the parcel size; the mass
could be located in the rear or the street front of a building. This should minimize the mass and
allow commercial design standards and city boards to work through that process and to
encourage innovation.
P137
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
8
Ms. Garrow recommended option 2, which would allow one free market residential unit only on
historic properties. Staff felt it important to have that tool available for historic properties and
for historic negotiations. Staff thought having one unit/building is important rather than having a
lot of space becoming private. Ms. Garrow noted about 20 properties would be eligible for free
market residences under this proposal, and there are 5 properties that would be able to expand
their existing units. Ms. Garrow said deck spaces have been discussed; HPC felt every building
is different and deck can provide relief from the mass; that decks should be proportional in size
of the building. Ms. Garrow pointed out including free market residential units in CC would
not change the overall floor area. There are some code clean ups, to increase the allowed floor
area for lodge development in CC and C-1 to 2.5:1 in CC and 2:1 in C-1 and to lift the office
prohibition on all properties north of Main street.
Chris Bendon, community development department, said staff is trying to strike equilibrium.
There is a feeling in the community that earlier code amendments allow too much height and
mass and not enough setbacks. Staff is looking for a balance to slow the pendulum down. Ms.
Garrow said the code amendment is to help preserve buildings with historic merit and to make
sure the uses are correct and make sense for the community. Free market residences are an
important tool for historic preservation. Bendon said one goal is to have property owners that
appreciate having a historic building rather than just having a host of maintenance problems and
feel being designated is a burden.
Councilman Skadron said when this started, several member of Council wanted to limit height in
the CC zone to 28’; this ordinance would allows buildings up to 46’. Bendon pointed out
Council wanted to hear from the community, they wanted to understand under what
circumstances a third floor is justified, what types of uses the community should get more of.
Bendon said staff heard that a third floor depends on the context, neighboring buildings, shading
concerns and that a third floor is not inappropriate in all cases. This ordinance proposes a third
floor, not to exceed 50% of the footprint of the lot, which would allow flexibility in design.
Bendon said this ordinance reflects what staff heard from the community. Councilman Skadron
said this could result in a downtown of only 40’ buildings. Ms. Garrow said there is design
review and a call up provision. The ordinance says “the maximum height is not an entitlement
and is not achievable in all situations”, which makes it clear to applicants that 40’ is not a
guarantee.
Councilman Frisch said what is important for a third floor is how tall it should be, how far it
should be setback and what should be inside that space. Ms. Garrow said Council needs to
resolve whether they want a third story. If they do, these are the proposed heights based on
conversations with architects and contractors and the height study done by Coburn. Councilman
Johnson noted staff’s perspective is that 3 story buildings should be permitted in downtown as
consistent with the historic built environment. Ms. Garrow agreed 3 stories are consistent with
Aspen’s historic development pattern.
Mayor Ireland said he finds historic designation during a negotiation a difficult situation. Mayor
Ireland stated he does not think the Cooper avenue mall would be a better place with 42’ tall
buildings all along it. Ms. Garrow said the code amendment affects the entire downtown area.
The city’s development process works as staff and Council see each development application
one at a time and they go through a lengthy review process. Any building on the Cooper Avenue
mall would be looked at by HPC for context, view planes, etc., Council has the opportunity to
P138
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
9
call up that project. Councilman Skadron said development decision should be in the hands of
the community and should be more restrictive at Council. Councilman Skadron said the
ordinance does not have enough detail to view planes and views of the mountains and has the
potential to allow a monster building that would permanently change the character of the
community.
Bendon pointed out the allowable height on the Cooper avenue mall was 40’ for 40 years and it
is now 28’. Cooper avenue mall is limited by view planes. Bendon said the city needs to be
able to evaluate community needs, like a small hotel on Cooper avenue, which may be more
important than the existing view planes. Mayor Ireland said it is important to have criteria under
which buildings could be taller than X. Councilman Frisch supported addressing the issue of
historic preservation and double dipping, regardless of the height, and fixing that mitigation.
Councilman Frisch said he could support some sort of trade off for renovation of a crumbling
historic building. Ms. Garrow told Council there is a map showing the buildings eligible for
historic designation under AspenModern. Ms. Garrow explained allowing only one free market
residential/building puts a limit on what people can ask for through the historic designation
negotiations.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Cliff Weiss stated whatever Aspen has left of its historic past is disappearing. Weiss said he
prefers to see different heights around town. Weiss said it is a mistake to allow roof top decks
because code requires elevators and elevator towers. Weiss suggested that landing TDRs be
limited to one as the downtown can do without large units. Weiss said he has not seen that large
residential units add to any vitality downtown. Weiss said the code should be amended to limit
the height of buildings on the south side of the street to cut down on shadowing and icy areas.
Helen Klanderud, public affairs committee of ACRA, told Council the committee discussed this
proposal and there is a concern for unintended consequences. Ms. Klanderud said the committee
agrees there should be a vitality and successful downtown. Ms. Klanderud said she has not heard
from Council a vision to get the vitality but more of what should not be allowed. Ms. Klanderud
said not all buildings downtown are worthy of preservation. The historic heights are 38 and 40’.
The committee is concerned this code amendment would cause no building in the downtown.
The committee’s decision is to not change the code unless there is a demonstrated justification
for doing so. Ms. Klanderud said there is no evidence that third story residences interfere with
downtown vibrancy that couldn’t be corrected with some engineering techniques.
Junee Kirk said the historic district should remain much as it is and stay with the 28’ height limit.
Ms. Kirk said she would support boutique hotels or exceptional restaurants . Ms. Kirk said the
downtown is dying and free market residences have not contributed to the vitality of town. Bill
Wiener said Council should look at keeping the cubage the same, it a building is bigger, it is
pulled off the street front. Wiener said the historic ordinance does not look at contributing
elements that give it character. Wiener said giving an exception to 28’ at Council should require
a super-majority. Wiener said future Councils can undo what Council preserves and suggested
this be done by vote of the electorate. Wiener questioned the need to be bigger. Wiener
suggested hotels dispersed throughout the commercial core rather than in one large structure.
Wiener said the proposal is business growth versus public benefit. Wiener said allowing hotels
on the north side of the street would make sense.
P139
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
10
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Frisch asked how this could be structured to allow some flexibility in uses. Bendon
said the criteria should be well defined rather than elusive and conducted in negotiations, like
listing circumstances in which a 3rd story would be allowed. Councilman Torre asked what will
stop an applicant from asking for bigger than 2000 square foot residential unit or from building a
2000 square foot unit and making the rest of the building dormant. Bendon said Council could
make it clear that TDRs will not be allowed nor could this go through the AspenModern
negotiation. Bendon said there is no answer for residential units creating dormancy on other
buildings and until that can be answered, perhaps Council should not be encouraging residential
units in the downtown or these should only be allowed in historically designated buildings.
Mayor Ireland presented a memorandum analyzing the effects of zoning in the downtown and 3
measures of vitality: population, local ownership and development, and market trends. Mayor
Ireland showed population changes in the downtown using census data 1990, 2000 and 2010,
noting that the population in CC and C-1 has declined and vacancy rates have increased. GIS
maps identifies about 31 residential units in the CC and C-1 zones. While the population has
declined, the median age has risen by several years.
Mayor Ireland pointed out that local ownership has declined for both residential and commercial
properties over the past decade. Mayor Ireland noted the price per square foot for residential
increased considerably more than for commercial and is almost twice as much for residential
uses. Mayor Ireland said the assessor’s data also illustrates that the price per square foot rises
with size of a residential unit; however, the price stay the same regardless of size for commercial
uses. Mayor Ireland said infill and more generous zoning did not produce vitality in the
downtown area; the population declined, vacancy rates rose and local ownership fell. Mayor
Ireland noted that 8 out of 11 of the recent development applications include a proposed top floor
penthouse use.
Mayor Ireland recommended not allowing new second home residential uses in the CC and C-1
zones; allowing greater heights only on the north side of streets and only for true hotel
development; and removing “mixed use” exemptions from mitigation for residential
developments, which encourages residential uses on upper floors. Mayor Ireland noted the
market signals are to build residential which is worth about twice as much as commercial.
Residential owners want quiet, exclusive properties. Hotel uses support businesses; guests go
out to eat and to entertain themselves. Mayor Ireland said the community has a problem with the
bed base and properties continue to turn into residential properties.
Councilman Torre said he would like to know more about the city’s regulations on historic
properties. Councilman Torre noted nothing has convinced him that free market residences
should be allowed downtown. Councilman Torre said he would prefer to determine the uses
before determining maximum heights. Councilman Torre said he would also like more
information on mechanicals on the roof. Councilman Torre stated he does not support option 2.
Councilman Skadron stated 28’ is necessary and prioritizes core values. Councilman Skadron
said he would support exceptions to the 28’ for lodging and no free market residential.
Councilman Johnson said the core is where density belongs on both sides of the streets.
Councilman Johnson stated there are tools in place – design review guidelines, view planes – to
P140
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
11
direct development. Councilman Johnson agreed he would like to see the map of where historic
properties are located. Councilman Johnson said he is not ready to give up the mixed use
concept. Councilman Johnson said although lodging is a great idea, it does not seem feasible to
have small lodges on 3rd floors of buildings.
Councilman Frisch said he would like to adopt a code for the community rather than a code for
the times and not have to have these code amendments discussions annually. Councilman Frisch
said the commercial core may need some third stories; however, with the 11 development
projects in line and 8 of those asking for a third story, this discussion may become moot.
Councilman Frisch said he supports allowances for lodges, it is unlikely a lodge will be built on a
3,000 square foot lot in the commercial core. Councilman Frisch stated he supports two stories
but would not expect to see land use applications if two stores were the limit.
Councilman Skadron noted the commercial core currently has three story buildings and in
addition to that, there is a new art museum of 3 stories, the little Annie’s block will be going to 3
stories, there is an additional request for the building to the east of the Red Onion, which is for 3
stories, the Cooper street building increased from 2 to 4 stories. Councilman Skadron said with
what exists currently and what is in the application stage, the city should do all it can to hold on
to the remaining character. Councilman Frisch agreed Council should take time to see what is
being developed and to reflect on the impacts of those projects. Councilman Torre said he could
support a third story that would increase vitality. Mayor Ireland asked if Council were willing to
eliminate the mixed use exemptions in the CC and C-1. Bendon said the direction he heard was
to eliminate that, the option preferred by Council is no free market residences downtown. Ms.
Garrow reiterated other changes is Council agree to the office change north of Main street and
third stories for hotel only on the north sides of streets
Councilman Johnson moved to continue Ordinance #25, Series of 2012, to December 10th;
seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2012 – Parks Bonds Refunding
Alice Hackney, finance department, told Council this will approve the issuance of $9,090,000 of
parks and open space sales tax revenue refunding bonds and refunds what is left of the 2005
revenue bonds. This refunding was done in two phases in order to keep under the bank
qualified threshold of $10 million. Ms. Hackney said the savings on this issue is set to net
present value of $1.4 million.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded
by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Skadron, yes; Frisch, yes; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes;
Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2012 – Supplemental Appropriation
P141
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
12
Don Taylor, finance department, said these are supplemental appropriations to the 2012 budget
and all items have been previously discussed by Council.
Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 2012, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Skadron.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Roll call vote; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Frisch, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment – Hearing Officer
Chris Bendon, community development department, noted this amends the land use code; the
hearing officer covers appeals of administrative decisions. Bendon said changes are to allow
Council to remove the appointee at any time, without cause; to allow the position to receive
reasonable compensation which will be billed to applicants seeking an appeal; insure that the
officer makes his decision at public hearing.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded
by Mayor Ireland. Roll call vote; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Frisch, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor
Ireland, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2012 – Adoption of 2013 Fees
Don Taylor, finance department, reminded Council as part of the budget process, all city fees are
reviewed with a committee and changes are recommended by that committee.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of 2012, on second reading; seconded
by Councilman Frisch.
Councilman Torre asked about the Wheeler fees for user groups and the new theatre equipment
and the rates for Aspen Film. Mayor Ireland suggested adopting this and hearing from the
director of the Wheeler if this fee needs to be change.
Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion
carried.
P142
VI.g
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2012
13
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2012 – Water Rate Adjustment
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Lee Ledesma, water department, said this is a cost of service transaction and encompasses 5
years of water rate adjustment. Staff will return in 2017 to report on how the cost of service
transaction is going. Ms. Ledesma said this starts at a 3.7% increase and at the end of the fifth
year it is a 4.1% increase. The bill for the average residential customer will go up $.89
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2012, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Frisch,
yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #103, SERIES OF 2012 – South Aspen Street Lodge Project
Councilman Johnson left as he lives within 300 feet of the project. David Parker, representing
the applicant, reminded Council when they came to Council with an amended townhouse project,
Council requested the applicants re-examine building a lodge on this site. Parker said they spent
6 months looking at a lodge and have expressed the concern that a lodge project is not viable.
Parker noted Council asked the applicant to look at what it would take to make the project work.
Parker said that would be too big a project.
The COWOP I project was not approved by the community at 70’ and 400,000 square feet of
development. Parker said their project would have to be close to that size in order to be
sustainable and Council discussed earlier concerns about height in the community. Parker told
Council they reviewed this with Byron Cost at CU who noted the applicant’s proposal was
overly optimistic in their assumptions and that the proposed hotel is not big enough. Parker said
the applicants have tried hard to make this work, and they cannot make a hotel work unless it is 6
stories of condominiums and 5 stories of hotel, which the community would not support.
Chris Bendon, community development department, said with a formal application is the correct
time for Council to vote on that project. Bendon suggested the applicant be allowed to amend or
to withdraw their application and then pursue the townhouse project. Mayor Ireland said
Council made a mistake approving a townhouse project for this location, but this a is decision
that has to be lived with.
Councilman Skadron moved to adjourn at 10:55 PM; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathryn Koch
City Clerk
P143
VI.g
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director
THRU: Don Taylor
DATE OF MEMO: 12/3/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: 2013 Mil Levy
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to consider adoption of the proposed
mil levies for the 2013 Budget.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: See attached memo.
BACKGROUND: See attached memo.
DISCUSSION: See attached memo.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: See attached memo.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2013 mil levies be adopted.
P145
VIII.a
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES: The proposed mil levies may be amended as the City Council may deem
necessary.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the 2013 mil
levies as proposed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P146
VIII.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director
THRU: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 29, 2012
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
RE: 2013 Mil Levies
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to consider adoption of the proposed mil
levies for the 2013 budget.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council and staff completed numerous budget work sessions
reviewing the proposed 2013 budget and 2013-2022 Asset Management Plan. Council adopted
the 2013 budget on November 26, 2012 along with the updated 2013 fee ordinance.
BACKGROUND: The adopted 2013 budget assumes that the City would levy property taxes for
the benefit of the General Fund, Asset Management Plan Fund and Stormwater Fund. The
General Fund and Asset Management mil levy are by law subject to the TABOR restrictions and
the Stormwater mil levy is calculated under the provisions of TABOR by City Council direction.
TABOR provides that the amount of revenue from property taxes cannot grow by more than
the amount attributable to inflation plus new construction. This keeps total property tax
revenue from changing as assessed valuations rise or fall. As assessed valuations rose in prior
years the City reduced its tax yield to the TABOR limits by implementing a temporary mil levy
credit.
DISCUSSION: The proposed mil levies and their respective tax yield are shown in the following
table:
P147
VIII.a
Page 2 of 2
2013 Tax Rate
2013 Temporary
Credit
2013 Mil Levy
Rate
General Property Tax5.4100.7554.655
Stormwater Fund0.6500.0000.650
Total6.0600.7555.305
2012 Assessed
Valuation
Updated Mil Levy
Rate
2013 Property
Tax
General Fund$1,277,761,1501.629$2,081,473
Asset Management Fund$1,277,761,1503.026$3,866,505
Total General Mil Levy4.655$5,947,978
Total Stormwater Mil Levy$1,277,761,1500.650$830,545
Refund/Abatements$1,277,761,1500.041$52,388
Total 2013 Property Tax5.346$6,830,911
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff proposes that the 2013 mil levies be adopted.
ALTERNATIVES: The proposed mil levies may be amended as the City Council may deem
necessary.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move adoption of the resolution attached which approves the 2013 mil
levies as proposed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P148
VIII.a
RESOLUTON NO. 113
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO SETTING THE 2013 MUNICIPAL MIL LEVY RATES AND
CERTIFYING SAME TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
PITKIN COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has
prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of
Aspen, Colorado for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31,
2013; and
WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of the taxable property for the year 2012
in the City of Aspen returned by the County Assessor of Pitkin County was updated on
November 29, 2012, is the sum of $1,277,761,150; and
WHEREAS, said mil levy is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax proceeds
in the amount of $6,912,688 for collection year 2013; based upon the assessed valuation
as determined by the County Assessor, and
WHEREAS, voter approval on November 6, 2007 established the City’s
Stormwater Fund mil levy rate at an amount not to exceed 0.650 mils upon each dollar of
assessed valuation on all taxable property within the City annually with no date of
expiration, permitting collection of property tax revenues in excess of the mil levy
limitation provided in Article X, Section 20 or the Colorado Constitution for property tax
collection in all future years beginning in 2008; and
WHEREAS, said mil levy rate is calculated to produce gross ad valorem tax
proceeds in the amount of $830,545 for collection year 2013; based upon the net assessed
valuation of the City of Aspen as determined by the County Assessor, and
WHEREAS, the net assessed valuation of taxable property in Aspen increased
approximately 0.1% between 2011 and 2012 assessment years, and
WHEREAS, a temporary reduction in property tax collections is desired by the
City Council in order to reduce the tax burden on owners of taxable property within the
City of Aspen while preserving the City’s ability to increase property taxes to levels
previously authorized by City of Aspen voters as described above, and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5 authorizes a local government to certify a
refund in the form of a temporary property tax credit or a temporary mil levy rate
reduction, provided that the certification includes the gross mil levy, the temporary
property tax credit or temporary mil levy rate reduction expressed in mil levy equivalents,
and the net mil levy and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(4), the Assessor shall,
concurrent with delivery of tax warrants to the Treasurer, itemize duly certified
temporary property tax credits or temporary mil levy rate reductions in the manner set
forth in C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(2), and under C.R.S. section 39-1-111.5(5) the tax
P149
VIII.a
statements shall indicate by footnote which local government mil levies reflect a
temporary property tax credit or temporary mil levy rate reduction for the purpose of
effecting a refund.
SECTION 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado for the purpose of balancing the 2013 budget, and
providing a reasonable closing fund balance for said fiscal year, levies the following
taxes upon each dollar of the total valuation for assessment of all taxable property within
the City of Aspen for the year 2012; that a temporary mil levy rate reduction is
authorized; and that the individual mil levies are expressed in terms of the gross mil levy,
the temporary mil levy rate reduction shown in mil levy equivalents, and the net mil levy
as shown below, which includes a temporary credit of 0.755 for the General Property Tax
mil levy:
2013 Tax Rate
2013 Temporary
Credit
2013 Mil Levy
Rate
General Property Tax 5.410
0.755
4.655
Stormwater Fund 0.650
0.000
0.650
Total 6.060
0.755
5.305
2012 Assessed
Valuation
Updated Mil Levy
Rate
2013
Property Tax
General Fund $1,277,761,150
1.629
$2,081,473
Asset Management Fund $1,277,761,150
3.026
$3,866,505
Total General Mil Levy
4.655
$5,947,978
Total Stormwater Mil Levy $1,277,761,150
0.650
$830,545
Refund/Abatements $1,277,761,150
0.041
$52,388
Total 2013 Property Tax
5.346
$6,830,911
SECTION 2
The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify and deliver this Resolution to the Board of
County Commissioners for Pitkin County on or before December 15, 2012.
ADOPTED THIS 10, day of December 2012
__________________________
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
P150
VIII.a
I, KATHRYN KOCH, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution
adopted by the City Council at its meeting held on December 10, 2012, which Resolution
was adopted subsequent to public hearings on the City of Aspen’s 2013 Proposed
Municipal Budget and prior to the final day established by law for the certification of the
tax levy to Pitkin County, all was required by the Sections 9.8 and 9.9 of the Aspen
Home Rule Charter.
_______________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
P151
VIII.a
Form DLG 70 (rev 7/08) Page 1 of 4
County Tax Entity Code DOLA LGID/SID /
CERTIFICATION OF TAX LEVIES for NON-SCHOOL Governments
TO: County Commissioners1 of Pitkin County , Colorado.
On behalf of the City of Aspen ,
(taxing entity)A
the City Council
(governing body)B
of the City of Aspen, Colorado
(local government)C
Hereby officially certifies the following mills
to be levied against the taxing entity’s GROSS
assessed valuation of:
$ 1,277,761,150
(GROSSD assessed valuation, Line 2 of the Certification of Valuation Form DLG 57E)
Note: If the assessor certified a NET assessed valuation
(AV) different than the GROSS AV due to a Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) AreaF the tax levies must be
calculated using the NET AV. The taxing entity’s total
property tax revenue will be derived from the mill levy
multiplied against the NET assessed valuation of:
$ 1,277,761,150
(NETG assessed valuation, Line 4 of the Certification of Valuation Form DLG 57)
Submitted: 12/10/2012 for budget/fiscal year 2013 .
(not later than Dec. 15) (mm/dd/yyyy) (yyyy)
PURPOSE (see end notes for definitions and examples) LEVY2 REVENUE2
1. General Operating ExpensesH 5.410 mills $ 6,912,688
2. <Minus> Temporary General Property Tax Credit/
Temporary Mill Levy Rate ReductionI < 0.755> mills $ < 964,710 >
SUBTOTAL FOR GENERAL OPERATING: 4.655 mills $ 5,947,978
3. General Obligation Bonds and InterestJ mills $
4. Contractual ObligationsK mills $
5. Capital ExpendituresL mills $
6. Refunds/AbatementsM 0.041 mills $ 52,388
7. OtherN (specify): City’s Stormwater Fund mills $
Clean River Initiative 0.650 mills $ 830,545
TOTAL: [Sum of General Operating
Subtotal and Lines 3 to 7 ] 5.346 mills $ 6,830,911
Contact person:
(print) Don Taylor
Daytime
phone: ( 970 ) 920.5027
Signed: Title:
Include one copy of this tax entity’s completed form when filing the local government’s budget by January 31st, per 29-1-113 C.R.S., with the
Division of Local Government (DLG), Room 521, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203. Questions? Call DLG at (303) 866-2156.
1 If the taxing entity’s boundaries include more than one county, you must certify the levies to each county. Use a separate form
for each county and certify the same levies uniformly to each county per Article X, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution.
2 Levies must be rounded to three decimal places and revenue must be calculated from the total NET assessed valuation (Line 4 of
Form DLG57 on the County Assessor’s final certification of valuation).
P153
VIII.a
Form DLG 70 (rev 7/08) Page 2 of 4
CERTIFICATION OF TAX LEVIES, continued
THIS SECTION APPLIES TO TITLE 32, ARTICLE 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS THAT LEVY TAXES
FOR PAYMENT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT (32-1-1603 C.R.S.). Taxing entities that are
Special Districts or Subdistricts of Special Districts must certify separate mill levies and revenues to the
Board of County Commissioners, one each for the funding requirements of each debt (32-1-1603, C.R.S.)
Use additional pages as necessary. The Special District’s or Subdistrict’s total levies for general obligation
bonds and total levies for contractual obligations should be recorded on Page 1, Lines 3 and 4 respectively.
CERTIFY A SEPARATE MILL LEVY FOR EACH BOND OR CONTRACT:
BONDSJ:
1. Purpose of Issue:
Series:
Date of Issue:
Coupon Rate:
Maturity Date:
Levy:
Revenue:
2. Purpose of Issue:
Series:
Date of Issue:
Coupon Rate:
Maturity Date:
Levy:
Revenue:
CONTRACTSK:
3. Purpose of Contract:
Title:
Date:
Principal Amount:
Maturity Date:
Levy:
Revenue:
4. Purpose of Contract:
Title:
Date:
Principal Amount:
Maturity Date:
Levy:
Revenue:
Use multiple copies of this page as necessary to separately report all bond and contractual obligations per 32-1-1603, C.R.S.
P154
VIII.a
Form DLG 70 (rev 7/08) Page 3 of 4
Notes:
A Taxing Entity—A jurisdiction authorized by law to impose ad valorem property taxes on taxable property
located within its territorial limits (please see notes B, C, and H below). For purposes of the DLG 70 only, a
taxing entity is also a geographic area formerly located within a taxing entity’s boundaries for which the county
assessor certifies a valuation for assessment and which is responsible for payment of its share until retirement of
financial obligations incurred by the taxing entity when the area was part of the taxing entity. For example: an
area of excluded property formerly within a special district with outstanding general obligation debt at the time of
the exclusion or the area located within the former boundaries of a dissolved district whose outstanding general
obligation debt service is administered by another local governmentC.
B Governing Body—The board of county commissioners, the city council, the board of trustees, the board of
directors, or the board of any other entity that is responsible for the certification of the taxing entity’s mill levy.
For example: the board of county commissioners is the governing board ex officio of a county public
improvement district (PID); the board of a water and sanitation district constitutes ex officio the board of directors
of the water subdistrict.
C Local Government - For purposes of this line on Page 1of the DLG 70, the local government is the political
subdivision under whose authority and within whose boundaries the taxing entity was created. The local
government is authorized to levy property taxes on behalf of the taxing entity. For example, for the purposes of
this form:
1. a municipality is both the local government and the taxing entity when levying its own levy for its entire
jurisdiction;
2. a city is the local government when levying a tax on behalf of a business improvement district (BID)
taxing entity which it created and whose city council is the BID board;
3. a fire district is the local government if it created a subdistrict, the taxing entity, on whose behalf the fire
district levies property taxes.
4. a town is the local government when it provides the service for a dissolved water district and the town
board serves as the board of a dissolved water district, the taxing entity, for the purpose of certifying a
levy for the annual debt service on outstanding obligations.
D GROSS Assessed Value - There will be a difference between gross assessed valuation and net assessed
valuation reported by the county assessor only if there is a “tax increment financing” entity (see below), such as a
downtown development authority or an urban renewal authority, within the boundaries of the taxing entity. The
board of county commissioners certifies each taxing entity’s total mills upon the taxing entity’s Gross Assessed
Value found on Line 2 of Form DLG 57.
E Certification of Valuation by County Assessor, Form DLG 57 - The county assessor(s) uses this form (or one
similar) to provide valuation for assessment information to a taxing entity. The county assessor must provide this
certification no later than August 25th each year and may amend it, one time, prior to December 10th.
F TIF Area—A downtown development authority (DDA) or urban renewal authority (URA), may form plan
areas that use “tax increment financing” to derive revenue from increases in assessed valuation (gross minus net,
Form DLG 57 Line 3) attributed to the activities/improvements within the plan area. The DDA or URA receives
the differential revenue of each overlapping taxing entity’s mill levy applied against the taxing entity’s gross
assessed value after subtracting the taxing entity’s revenues derived from its mill levy applied against the net
assessed value.
G NET Assessed Value—The total taxable assessed valuation from which the taxing entity will derive revenues
for its uses. It is found on Line 4 of Form DLG 57.
H General Operating Expenses (DLG 70 Page 1 Line 1)—The levy and accompanying revenue reported on
Line 1 is for general operations and includes, in aggregate, all levies for and revenues raised by a taxing entity for
purposes not lawfully exempted and detailed in Lines 3 through 7 on Page 1 of the DLG 70. For example: a fire
pension levy is included in general operating expenses, unless the pension is voter-approved, if voter-approved,
use Line 7 (Other).
P155
VIII.a
Form DLG 70 (rev 7/08) Page 4 of 4
I Temporary Tax Credit for Operations (DLG 70 Page 1 Line 2)—The Temporary General Property Tax
Credit/ Temporary Mill Levy Rate Reduction of 39-1-111.5, C.R.S. may be applied to the taxing entity’s levy for
general operations to effect refunds. Temporary Tax Credits (TTCs) are not necessary for other types of levies
(non-general operations) certified on this form because these levies are adjusted from year to year as specified by
the provisions of any contract or schedule of payments established for the payment of any obligation incurred by
the taxing entity per 29-1-301(1.7), C.R.S., or they are certified as authorized at election per 29-1-302(2)(b),
C.R.S.
J General Obligation Bonds and Interest (DLG 70 Page 1 Line 3)—Enter on this line the total levy required to
pay the annual debt service of all general obligation bonds. Per 29-1-301(1.7) C.R.S., the amount of revenue
levied for this purpose cannot be greater than the amount of revenue required for such purpose as specified by the
provisions of any contract or schedule of payments. Title 32, Article 1 Special districts and subdistricts must
complete Page 2 of the DLG 70.
K Contractual Obligation (DLG 70 Page 1 Line 4)—If repayment of a contractual obligation with property tax
has been approved at election and it is not a general obligation bond (shown on Line 3), the mill levy is entered on
this line. Per 29-1-301(1.7) C.R.S., the amount of revenue levied for this purpose cannot be greater than the
amount of revenue required for such purpose as specified by the provisions of any contract or schedule of
payments.
L Capital Expenditures (DLG 70 Page 1 Line 5)—These revenues are not subject to the statutory property tax
revenue limit if they are approved by counties and municipalities through public hearings pursuant to 29-1-
301(1.2) C.R.S. and for special districts through approval from the Division of Local Government pursuant to 29-
1-302(1.5) C.R.S. or for any taxing entity if approved at election. Only levies approved by these methods should
be entered on Line 5.
M Refunds/Abatements (DLG 70 Page 1 Line 6)—The county assessor reports on the Certification of Valuation
(DLG 57 Line 11) the amount of revenue from property tax that the local government did not receive in the prior
year because taxpayers were given refunds for taxes they had paid or they were given abatements for taxes
originally charged to them due to errors made in their property valuation. The local government was due the tax
revenue and would have collected it through an adjusted mill levy if the valuation errors had not occurred. Since
the government was due the revenue, it may levy, in the subsequent year, a mill to collect the refund/abatement
revenue. An abatement/refund mill levy may generate revenues up to, but not exceeding, the refund/abatement
amount from Form DLG 57 Line 11.
1. Please Note: If the taxing entity is in more than one county, as with all levies, the abatement levy must be
uniform throughout the entity’s boundaries and certified the same to each county. To calculate the
abatement/refund levy for a taxing entity that is located in more than one county, first total the
abatement/refund amounts reported by each county assessor, then divide by the taxing entity’s total net
assessed value, then multiply by 1,000 and round down to the nearest three decimals to prevent levying
for more revenue than was abated/refunded. This results in an abatement/refund mill levy that will be
uniformly certified to all of the counties in which the taxing entity is located even though the
abatement/refund did not occur in all the counties.
N Other (DLG 70 Page 1 Line 7)—Report other levies and revenue not subject to 29-1-301 C.R.S. that were not
reported above. For example: a levy for the purposes of television relay or translator facilities as specified in
sections 29-7-101, 29-7-102, and 29-7-105 and 32-1-1005 (1) (a), C.R.S.; a voter-approved fire pension levy; a
levy for special purposes such as developmental disabilities, open space, etc.
P156
VIII.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: December 3rd, 2012
MEETING DATE: December 10th, 2012
RE: Amending the City Code to Reflect Voter Approved Sales Tax
Changes
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the City of Aspen
Municipal Code to reflect changes in the City’s sales tax rates as they have been approved by the
City electorate.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council approved ballot question placed before
the voters that increased the City’s sales tax rate by .3% to be used for educational purposes for
the Aspen School district. The voters approved the sales tax on November 6th 2012 which
becomes effective January 1st, 2013. There was also a ballot question that implemented a 2.1%
use tax in 2007 that also lowered the City sales tax rate by .1%. The code was amended to
reflect the new use tax but the sales tax rate was not amended in the code. This ordinance
corrects that.
BACKGROUND: Various sales tax rates have been approved over the years to fund different
governmental activities. The total City of Aspen sales tax rate is now 2.4%. The total tax rate
including other entities is now 9.3% for retail sales and 11.3% for lodging.
DISCUSSION: The ordinance amends the City of Aspen Municipal code to reflect sales tax
rates as approved by the voters.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no financial impacts for amending the code to
reflect the voter approved sales tax rate change. The .3% sales tax increase will raise
approximately $1,750,000 for the school district.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amending the
municipal code.
P157
VIII.b
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES: If the municipal code is not amended it will be inconsistent with the voter
approved change in the City sales tax rate.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance #35 at second reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P158
VIII.b
ORDINANCE NO. 35
Series of 2012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING SECTIONS 23.32.060(a), 23.32.060(c), and 23.32.070(a) OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO IMPOSE A NEW 0.3% SALES TAX FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND TO CODIFY OTHER RECENTLY ADOPTED
MEASURES.
WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Aspen at the November, 2012, election authorized
the imposition of an additional 0.3% sales tax for “Educational Purposes Providing Support for
the Aspen School District No. 1 (RE);” and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Aspen Municipal Code to codify this
increase in the rate of the tax pursuant to this adopted measure and to codify other recently
adopted measures; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Code are delineated as follows:
• Text being removed is delineated with strikethrough. Text being removed looks
like this.
• Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this.
• Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 23.32.060(a) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 23.32.060. Rate; imposition and collection; distribution.
(a) Sales tax. There is hereby levied a tax or excise upon all sales of tangible personal property and
services specified in Section 23.32.090 at a rate of two and fourtwo tenths of a percent (2.42%) for all
transactions consummated or contracts entered into as defined by Section 23.32.090.
Section 2.
That Section 23.32.060(c) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code be amended to add a new subsection (7)
to read as follows:
(c) Distribution. The distribution of all retail sales taxes shall be in accordance with the following:
P159
VIII.b
(1) The City shall pay for all costs of administration and collection of sales taxes levied in accordance
with this Title from all sources of revenue.
(2) Sales tax receipts derived prior to July 1, 1990, from the one percent (1.0%) tax levied pursuant to
Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1970, shall be set aside in a separate fund entitled "Land Acquisition
Including Open Space and Capital Improvement Fund," and expended by the City Council for the
acquisition of real property including open space or construction of capital improvements incurred for
such land acquisition including open space or construction of capital improvements, food tax refunds
payable by the City, and for such expenditures as may be necessary to protect the real properties
including open space acquired or the capital improvements constructed from any and all, threatened or
actual, damages, loss, destruction or impairment from any cause or occurrences.
(23) Sales tax receipts derived on or after July 1, 1990, from the one percent (1.0%) tax levied pursuant
to Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1970, shall be set aside in a separate fund entitled "Parks and Open Space
Fund," and expended by the City Council solely for the acquisition of parks, trails and open space real
property, for the construction of improvements on any real property, owned or purchased by the City
for parks, trails and open space purposes, for maintenance of real property owned by the City and used
for parks, trails and open space and for payment of indebtedness incurred for acquisition or
improvement of parks, trails and open space real property, food tax refunds payable by the City and for
such expenditures as may be necessary to protect real property or the improvements thereon owned by
the City for parks, trails and open space purposes, and for the payment of sales tax revenue bonds
issued by the City; and
(34) Sales tax receipts derived from the fifteen-one hundrethsone quarter of one percent (0.1525%)
additional sales tax levied pursuant to Ordinance No. 24-A, Series of 1988the ballot question approved
by City Council in Ordinance 55, Series 2007, shall be set aside in a separate fund designated as the "City
Parking Improvement Transportation Fund," and shall be expended by the City Council solely for the
payment of services, facilities and programs with regard to the City transportation system.construction
of a parking facility on the Rio Grande property, paving a new street to connect Mill and Spring Streets,
paving for the surface parking which remains outside of the parking facility on the site, all necessary
incidental appurtenant facilities, structures, furnishings and equipment, land acquisition, general
operating purposes, payment of indebtedness incurred in connection therewith, reserves and for the
expenditures necessary to protect any such property against loss or damage or destruction.
(45) Sales tax receipts derived from the forty-five one hundredths of one percent (0.45%) additional
sales tax levied pursuant to Ordinance No. 81, Series of 1990, shall be set aside in a separate funds
designated as the "Affordable Housing Fund and the /Day Care Fund,". The City Council will allocate the
.45% sales tax between the funds as it shall, from time to time designate. The sales tax from the .45%
sales tax and shall be expended by the City Council for the purpose of creating public or private
affordable housing and day care opportunities within the city and county, including but not by way of
limitation, capital improvements and capital expenditures therefor, land acquisition, payment of
indebtedness incurred in connection with any affordable housing or day care expenditures, reserves and
for expenditures necessary to protect any such property acquired or capital improvements constructed
P160
VIII.b
or purchased from any and all threatened or actual damages, loss, destruction or impairment from any
such cause or occurrences.
(56) All sales taxes collected by and paid by the County to the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 25,
Series of 1985, shall be spent solely for those purposes set forth at Section 1 of said Ordinance.
(67) Sales tax receipts derived from the one-half percent (0.5%) sales tax levied pursuant to Ordinance
No. 7, Series of 2001, shall be set aside in the separate fund referenced in Paragraph 23.32.060(c)(3) and
expended by the City Council solely for the purpose of buying, improving and maintaining trail,
recreation and open space properties and ancillary facilities.
(87) Sales tax receipts derived from the thirty one hundredths of one percent (0.30%) additional sales
tax levied pursuant to the ballot question approved by City Council in Resolution 84, Series 2012 and
approved by the City of Aspen qualified electors on November 6th, 2012, shall be set aside in a separate
fund designated as the "Education Fund," and shall be expended by the City Council solely for
educational purposes providing support to the Aspen School District No.1(RE).
(d) The taxes imposed in this Title shall be in addition to all other taxes imposed by law. (Code 1971, §
21-10.6; Ord. No. 26-1992, § 3; Ord. No. 7-2001, §§ 1, 2)
Section 3.
That Section 23.32.070(a) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code be amended by replacing the existing
payment schedule with the following schedule and adopting the modification below:
Price Tax
$0.01 including $0.20 $0.00
$0.21 including $0.62 $0.01
$0.63 including $1.04 $0.02
$1.05 including $1.45 $0.03
$1.46 including $1.87 $0.04
$1.88 including $2.29 $0.05
$2.30 including $2.70 $0.06
$2.71 including $3.12 $0.07
$3.13 including $3.54 $0.08
$3.55 including $3.95 $0.09
$3.96 including $4.37 $0.10
$4.38 including $4.79 $0.11
$4.80 including $5.20 $0.12
$5.21 including $5.62 $0.13
$5.63 including $6.04 $0.14
P161
VIII.b
$6.05 including $6.45 $0.15
$6.46 including $6.87 $0.16
$6.88 including $7.29 $0.17
$7.30 including $7.70 $0.18
$7.71 including $8.12 $0.19
$8.13 including $8.54 $0.20
$8.55 including $8.95 $0.21
$8.96 including $9.37 $0.22
$9.38 including $9.79 $0.23
$9.80 including $10.00 $0.24
When the price exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), the tax shall be twenty-fourtwo cents ($0.242) on each ten
dollar ($10.00) increment of the price, plus the tax shown above for the applicable fractional part of a ten
dollar ($10.00) increment of each price.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided,
and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2012, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
P162
VIII.b
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City
of Aspen on the day of , 2012.
_____________________________
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012.
_____________________________
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P163
VIII.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: 11/14/2012
MEETING DATE: 11/26/2012
RE: Code Amendment - Master Plans
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P165
VIII.c
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P166
VIII.c
12.10.2012 – Master Plans Code Amendment 2nd Reading
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Master Plan Process Code Amendment
Ordinance ___, Series of 2012, First Reading
DATE OF MEMO: December 2, 2012
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance includes proposed code amendments to the Master Plan Process based on
Council direction provided as part of the Policy Resolution passed November 12, 2012. The
objective of the proposed code amendments is to update and streamline the process for initiating,
developing, and adopting all Master Plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the 2nd reading of proposed code amendments to change the Master Plan process.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
The Land Use Code does not outline a specific process for the initiation, development, or
adoption of any Plan. The code identifies the Aspen Area Community Plan, but no specific
process for developing or adopting the AACP is outlined. In addition, the code does not address
how other plans, such as the Civic Master Plan, or a neighborhood plan, should be created.
As part of the implementation of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), City Council
expressed a desire to explore modifications to the review and adoption process for the AACP.
Council members have asked staff to consider the length of the process, the role of the
community, P&Z, Council, and staff in any update, as well as the frequency of updates.
P167
VIII.c
12.10.2012 – Master Plans Code Amendment 2nd Reading
Page 2 of 3
Though the City has made significant efforts to engage the community on planning in general
and the AACP in particular, the code does not require public outreach on long range planning
efforts. Participation by the community is essentially limited to the traditional public hearings.
PROPOSED PROCESS:
In an effort to clarify the process and enable future long range plans to be reviewed and adopted
expeditiously, staff proposes the following change to the review process for all long range and
master plans:
1. City Council initiation of a plan.
2. Compile existing conditions/background information as necessary. (staff)
3. Conduct a public outreach process. (staff)
4. Write a draft plan based on steps 2 & 3. (staff)
5. Hold a comment period for the community and boards. During this time, P&Z and HPC
would be asked to provide formal comments on the plan. This could include proposing
specific language changes, requesting additional public outreach, or providing general
comments. (The length of the comment period would be determined by City Council)
6. Public review of the plan through public outreach and/or hearings.
7. Repeat any steps, as determined necessary by City Council.
8. Formal review and adoption of plan by City Council.
This proposal is very similar to how the federal government conducts their public process. Staff
believes this review process would effectively utilize staff resources, and would likely engage
the community more effectively than the current procedures.
Based on past Council comments and the adoption of the AACP, staff is recommending that
Master Plans be guiding in nature.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the Master Plan process and to
get feedback on the initial direction. The P&Z expressed interest in improving the process, while
maintaining the role that the P&Z has held in developing and reviewing plans. The P&Z stated
that City Council should be in the role of initiating plans, and that the P&Z should be involved in
the public engagement and drafting of a plan.
They agreed that a planning process should consist of many citizen boards “championing” the
topic or area they have expertise in to ensure a more timely review of a plan. As an example,
they expressed frustration in being asked to review the Lifelong Aspenite chapter of the AACP
because they are not experts in the health and human services field. They felt that the groups
who are experts in that arena should have been tasked with developing and reviewing the
chapter.
P&Z also supported having timelines associated with reviewing a plan, but cautioned that any
time frame should be realistic and flexible.
The P&Z was split regarding if Master Plans, including the AACP, should be guiding or
regulatory in nature. A majority of P&Z stated that the point of a plan is to serve as a guide for
P168
VIII.c
12.10.2012 – Master Plans Code Amendment 2nd Reading
Page 3 of 3
the future and as such should guiding in nature. One member expressed concern that if a plan
was not regulatory that it would not be implemented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2012, approving code amendments to the Master
Plan process.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed Master Plan Code Amendment Language
Exhibit C – Proposed Code Amendment Language to Part 100
Exhibit D – Proposed Code Amendment Language to Part 200
Exhibit E – Approved Policy Resolution 104, Series 2012
P169
VIII.c
City Council Ord #31 of 2012
Master Plans Code Amendments
Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE No. 31
(Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMNETS TO
THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE:
ADDING A NEW SECTION, SECTION 26.311, MASTER PLANS, AND AMENDING
SECTIONS 26.104.030, COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY PLAN AND OTHER
PLANS, GUIDELINES OR DOCUMENTS, 26.208.010, CITY COUNCIL - POWERS
AND DUTIES 26.210.020, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 26.212.010,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION - POWERS AND DUTIES, AND 26.220.010,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION – POWERS AND DUTIES.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to explore code amendments related to the master plan process; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with the Planning and Zoning Commission to gain
feedback on potential code changes to the Master Plan process; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 12, 2012, the City
Council approved a Policy Resolution, Resolution 104, Series of 2012, directing staff to process
code amendments related to heights and land uses in the downtown, by a four - one (4 - 1) vote;
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of
adding the proposed new section, Section 26.311, Master Plans, to the Land Use Code, and
recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code
Sections 26.208.010, City Council - Powers and Duties 26.210.020, Community Development
Department - Director of Community Development Department, 26.212.010, Planning and
Zoning Commission - Powers and Duties, and 26.220.010, Historic Preservation Commission –
Powers and Duties; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
P171
VIII.c
City Council Ord #31 of 2012
Master Plans Code Amendments
Page 2 of 7
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: A new Section of the Land Use Code, Section 26.311 – Master Plans, is hereby
added to the Land Use Code, as follows:
Chapter 26.311
MASTER PLANS
Sections
26.311.010 Purpose
26.311.020 Procedure for Plan Development, Review, and Adoption
26.311.030 Master Plan Use and Effect.
26.311.010. Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a means for formulating, adopting, and updating master
plans, comprehensive plans, and special area or topical plans. For the purposes of this Chapter,
these planning efforts are referred to as “master plans.”
The City may from time to time adopt, re-adopt, amend, update, or add to the comprehensive
community plan (known as the Aspen Area Community Plan or AACP) which establishes and
projects the City's land use and development planning philosophy, goals, and policies. The
AACP may be broader in scope and serve as a guide for non-land use issues of the community.
The AACP shall encourage regional planning with neighboring communities and jurisdictions.
The City may from time to time adopt, re-adopt, amend, update, or add to a master plan which
establishes and projects the City's philosophy, goals, and policies regarding a particular area,
issue, or topic. Examples include a neighborhood plan, a downtown pedestrian plan, and the
like.
This Chapter outlines a process for adopting master plans focused on land use and development.
Plans focusing on non-land use issues may also follow this process. This Chapter does not
require all City initiatives to be developed and approved in this manner and does not preclude
processes that are not outlined herein.
26.311.020. Procedure for Plan Development, Review, and Adoption
A. General. The City of Aspen may from time to time adopt master plans to reflect the needs
and aspirations of the community and define methods to achieve those goals.
B. Steps required: The following steps may be modified to address the nature of a master plan
topic and the needs of the community. The desired steps should be considered during step one,
plan initiation. Step eight is required for adoption of a master plan. The City Council may decide
to pursue an initiative through other means than outlined below.
1. Step One – Plan Initiation.
a. Purpose: To determine if a master plan should be initiated or updated.
P172
VIII.c
City Council Ord #31 of 2012
Master Plans Code Amendments
Page 3 of 7
b. Process: The City Council shall decide whether the City should initiate a master
plan. The City Manager, Community Development Director, or City Department
Director, as applicable, may provide City Council with a recommendation
regarding the initiation of a master plan. Input from city boards, citizens, civic or
business groups, and other government organizations should be considered. A
general understanding of the topics to be covered, resources needed, the desired
process steps, and timeframe for adoption should be considered.
c. Form of decision: City Council decision to initiate a master plan shall be by
motion. The direction may be provided during a regular meeting or a work session
of the Council and may be incorporated into approval of a department work
program or budget.
d. Notice requirements: None.
2. Step Two – Existing Conditions/Background Information.
a. Purpose: To assemble need information and resources to facilitate plan
development.
b. Process: City staff shall identify and assemble important background information,
studies, reports, etc., as needed to enable an informed dialogue on the topic.
Background information may be issued as a report or presented to the public or
City boards as applicable.
3. Step Three – Public Outreach.
a. Purpose: To facilitate citizen awareness and solicit participation regarding
community goals, aspirations, and expectations of the master plan.
b. Process: City staff shall engage the public through a variety of efforts, which may
include open houses, surveys, small-group meetings, structured feedback sessions,
web-based methods, outreach to groups or individuals with particular interest, etc.
City Council shall be made aware of the outreach efforts and may from time to
time request additional or different techniques. A summary of the outreach
efforts and citizen comments may be issued as a report or presented to the public
or City boards as applicable.
4. Step Four – Draft Plan.
a. Purpose: To assimilate community aspirations into a cohesive plan.
b. Process: City staff shall develop a draft master plan that assimilates community
aspirations into a plan with a cohesive vision and a set of goals and policy
objectives. The plan should be aspirational in nature but should include sufficient
detail to guide implementation. A draft plan may take several iterations or be
developed in a phased manner. A draft plan may suggest multiple options or
strategies for further refinement.
5. Step Five – Establish Comments Period.
a. Purpose: To establish a public comments period and identify specific interest
groups from which comments are sought.
b. Process: Unless otherwise established in step 1, City Council shall determine the
length of the comment period. This period may be extended. City Council may
P173
VIII.c
City Council Ord #31 of 2012
Master Plans Code Amendments
Page 4 of 7
request formal comments from certain city boards; citizen, civic, non-profit, or
business associations; or, from other governmental bodies. City Council may
direct city staff to assist interest groups in the formulation of comments. City
Boards may provide general comments, specific language or topical changes, or
other changes and comments as they deem necessary.
c. Form of decision: City Council direction shall be by motion. The direction may
be provided during a regular meeting or a work session of the Council.
6. Step Six – Public Review and Comment.
a. Purpose: To facilitate citizen awareness of the draft plan and solicit comments,
critique, and suggestions on how to improve the plan.
b. Process: City staff shall engage the public through a variety of efforts, which may
include open houses, surveys, small-group meetings, structured feedback sessions,
web-based methods, direct outreach to groups or individuals with particular
interest, etc. City Council shall be made aware of the outreach efforts and may
from time to time request additional or different techniques or extend the
comments time period. A summary of the outreach efforts and comments
received may be issued as a report or presented to the public or city boards as
applicable.
7. Step Seven – City Council Review.
a. Purpose: To review the draft master plan and the comments received and either
direct amendments to the draft plan (which may include repeating some of the
above steps) or direct staff to proceed to the adoption step.
b. Process: City staff shall present the draft plan and the public feedback to City
Council. City staff may also present modifications or options to the plan in
response to public feedback or suggest repeating some or all of the above steps.
City Council shall review the draft plan and provide direction to staff to either
amend the plan for further consideration by the Council, amend the plan and
repeat some of the above steps, or prepare the plan for adoption.
c. Form of decision: City Council direction shall be by motion. The direction may
be provided during a regular meeting or a work session of the Council.
d. Notice requirements: None.
8. Step Eight – City Council Adoption.
a. Purpose: To consider adoption of the master plan.
b. Process: City staff shall present City Council with the draft plan along with a
summary of the steps taken to develop the plan, comments received, and any
suggested amendments to the plan. After receiving comments from the public
during a public hearing, City Council may adopt the plan as presented, adopt the
plan with amendments, direct amendments to the plan for further consideration,
direct staff to repeat of any of the above process steps, or not adopt the plan and
terminate the process.
c. Standard of Review: City Council shall determine if adoption of the master plan
is in the best interests of the community.
P174
VIII.c
City Council Ord #31 of 2012
Master Plans Code Amendments
Page 5 of 7
d. Form of decision: City Council adoption shall be by Resolution, after a public
hearing. Direction to staff to amend the plan or repeat any of the process steps
above may be by motion.
e. Notice requirements: Publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a.
C. Reciprocal Adoption. City Council may adopt a master plan of another jurisdiction
by using the steps outlined above. City Council may condition adoption of a master
plan on the adoption of the plan by another jurisdiction.
D. Master Planning Termination. Notwithstanding the above steps, City Council may
terminate a master planning process at any time by motion of the Council.
26.311.030. Master Plan Use and Effect.
Adopted master plans of the City of Aspen shall be guiding and shall not place a burden on
property. Master plans may be used to develop proposed legislation (which may burden
property), to initiate new policies or operational practices, to develop budgets or department
work programs, or to otherwise guide action of the City in the public interest.
Master plans shall not be legally binding and shall not regulate or place a burden on real
property.
Section 2: 26.208.010, City Council - Powers and Duties, shall be amended as follows:
[No Changes to Sections A – H]
I. To adopt any plans, guidelines or documents that will be used in a guiding or regulatory
capacity by the City;
[No Changes to Section J – P]
Section 3: 26.210.020.B.18-24, Community Development Department - Director of Community
Development Department, shall be amended as follows:
[No Changes to Sections 1 – 17]
18. To undertake all general comprehensive planning responsibilities;
[No Changes to Sections 19 – 20]
21. To approve, approve with conditions or deny development subject to Chapter 26.520,
Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses;
22. To extinguish a transferable development right in accordance with Chapter 26.535;
23. To issue and extinguish Affordable Housing Certificates in accordance with Chapter
26.540; and
24. To assist and staff all aspects of the Master Planning process in accordance with Chapter
26.311.
Section 4: 26.212.010, Planning and Zoning Commission - Powers and Duties, shall be
amended as follows:
[No Changes to Sections A – Q]
P175
VIII.c
City Council Ord #31 of 2012
Master Plans Code Amendments
Page 6 of 7
R. To adopt by resolution any operational guidelines or documents that will be used guiding
capacity by the Commission. To recommend via resolution the adoption of design guidelines by
the City Council. To provide input on Master Plans, in accordance with Chapter 26.311.
Section 5: 26.220.010, Historic Preservation Commission – Powers and Duties, shall be
amended as follows:
[No Changes to Sections A – D]
E. To adopt by resolution any operational guidelines or documents that will be used in a guiding
capacity by the Commission. To recommend via resolution adoption of design guidelines by the
City Council. To provide input on Master Plans, in accordance with Chapter 26.311;
[No Changes to Sections F – K]
Section 6: 26.104.030, Comprehensive Community Plan and other plans, guidelines or
documents, shall be amended as follows:
26.104.030. Master Plans, Comprehensive Community Plan and other plans, guidelines
or documents.
A. The City shall from time to time adopt and update a comprehensive community plan (known
as the Aspen Area Community Plan or AACP) which shall establish and project the City's land
use and development planning philosophy, goals and policies. The comprehensive community
plan shall be broad in scope and serve as a guide to all land use development and planning. The
plan shall encourage and incorporate regional planning as well as land use development
cooperation and coordination between the City and neighboring communities and jurisdictions.
B. From time to time the City may re-adopt, amend, extend or add to its comprehensive
community plan or carry any part of its subject matter into greater detail through the development
of supplemental plans, guidelines or documents, pursuant to Section 26.311, Master Plans.
Section 7: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 8: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 9: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 10:
P176
VIII.c
City Council Ord #31 of 2012
Master Plans Code Amendments
Page 7 of 7
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of December, 2012, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of November, 2012.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2012.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P177
VIII.c
11.12.2012 Downtown Zoning 1st Reading; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It creates a process for all
Master Plans, which currently does not exist. The Land Use Code references the creation of
comprehensive plans and master plans, but does not outline the process. This code amendment
clarifies the process already allowed in the code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
As part of the implementation of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), City Council has
directed Community Development staff to update the process for initiating, developing, and
adopting Master Plans. This direction has been based on the “lessons learned” from the recent
adoption of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendments is to ensure a predictable long range planning process. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
P179
VIII.c
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 300 – Master Plans
Page 1
Chapter 26.311
MASTER PLANS
Sections
26.311.010 Purpose
26.311.020 Procedure for Plan Development, Review, and Adoption
26.311.030 Master Plan Use and Effect.
26.311.010. Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a means for formulating, adopting, and updating master
plans, comprehensive plans, and special area or topical plans. For the purposes of this Chapter,
these planning efforts are referred to as “master plans.”
The City may from time to time adopt, re-adopt, amend, update, or add to the comprehensive
community plan (known as the Aspen Area Community Plan or AACP) which establishes and
projects the City's land use and development planning philosophy, goals, and policies. The
AACP may be broader in scope and serve as a guide for non-land use issues of the community.
The AACP shall encourage regional planning with neighboring communities and jurisdictions.
The City may from time to time adopt, re-adopt, amend, update, or add to a master plan which
establishes and projects the City's philosophy, goals, and policies regarding a particular area,
issue, or topic. Examples include a neighborhood plan, a downtown pedestrian plan, and the
like.
This Chapter outlines a process for adopting master plans focused on land use and development.
Plans focusing on non-land use issues may also follow this process. This Chapter does not
require all City initiatives to be developed and approved in this manner and does not preclude
processes that are not outlined herein.
26.311.020. Procedure for Plan Development, Review, and Adoption
A. General. The City of Aspen may from time to time adopt master plans to reflect the needs
and aspirations of the community and define methods to achieve those goals.
B. Steps required: The following steps may be modified to address the nature of a master plan
topic and the needs of the community. The desired steps should be considered during step one,
plan initiation. Step eight is required for adoption of a master plan. The City Council may decide
to pursue an initiative through other means than outlined below.
1. Step One – Plan Initiation.
a. Purpose: To determine if a master plan should be initiated or updated.
P181
VIII.c
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 300 – Master Plans
Page 2
b. Process: The City Council shall decide whether the City should initiate a master
plan. The City Manager, Community Development Director, or City Department
Director, as applicable, may provide City Council with a recommendation
regarding the initiation of a master plan. Input from city boards, citizens, civic or
business groups, and other government organizations should be considered. A
general understanding of the topics to be covered, resources needed, the desired
process steps, and timeframe for adoption should be considered.
c. Form of decision: City Council decision to initiate a master plan shall be by
motion. The direction may be provided during a regular meeting or a work session
of the Council and may be incorporated into approval of a department work
program or budget.
d. Notice requirements: None.
2. Step Two – Existing Conditions/Background Information.
a. Purpose: To assemble need information and resources to facilitate plan
development.
b. Process: City staff shall identify and assemble important background information,
studies, reports, etc., as needed to enable an informed dialogue on the topic.
Background information may be issued as a report or presented to the public or
City boards as applicable.
3. Step Three – Public Outreach.
a. Purpose: To facilitate citizen awareness and solicit participation regarding
community goals, aspirations, and expectations of the master plan.
b. Process: City staff shall engage the public through a variety of efforts, which may
include open houses, surveys, small-group meetings, structured feedback sessions,
web-based methods, outreach to groups or individuals with particular interest, etc.
City Council shall be made aware of the outreach efforts and may from time to
time request additional or different techniques. A summary of the outreach
efforts and citizen comments may be issued as a report or presented to the public
or City boards as applicable.
4. Step Four – Draft Plan.
a. Purpose: To assimilate community aspirations into a cohesive plan.
b. Process: City staff shall develop a draft master plan that assimilates community
aspirations into a plan with a cohesive vision and a set of goals and policy
objectives. The plan should be aspirational in nature but should include sufficient
detail to guide implementation. A draft plan may take several iterations or be
P182
VIII.c
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 300 – Master Plans
Page 3
developed in a phased manner. A draft plan may suggest multiple options or
strategies for further refinement.
5. Step Five – Establish Comments Period.
a. Purpose: To establish a public comments period and identify specific interest
groups from which comments are sought.
b. Process: Unless otherwise established in step 1, City Council shall determine the
length of the comment period. This period may be extended. City Council may
request formal comments from certain city boards; citizen, civic, non-profit, or
business associations; or, from other governmental bodies. City Council may
direct city staff to assist interest groups in the formulation of comments. City
Boards may provide general comments, specific language or topical changes, or
other changes and comments as they deem necessary.
c. Form of decision: City Council direction shall be by motion. The direction may
be provided during a regular meeting or a work session of the Council.
6. Step Six – Public Review and Comment.
a. Purpose: To facilitate citizen awareness of the draft plan and solicit comments,
critique, and suggestions on how to improve the plan.
b. Process: City staff shall engage the public through a variety of efforts, which may
include open houses, surveys, small-group meetings, structured feedback sessions,
web-based methods, direct outreach to groups or individuals with particular
interest, etc. City Council shall be made aware of the outreach efforts and may
from time to time request additional or different techniques or extend the
comments time period. A summary of the outreach efforts and comments
received may be issued as a report or presented to the public or city boards as
applicable.
7. Step Seven – City Council Review.
a. Purpose: To review the draft master plan and the comments received and either
direct amendments to the draft plan (which may include repeating some of the
above steps) or direct staff to proceed to the adoption step.
b. Process: City staff shall present the draft plan and the public feedback to City
Council. City staff may also present modifications or options to the plan in
response to public feedback or suggest repeating some or all of the above steps.
City Council shall review the draft plan and provide direction to staff to either
amend the plan for further consideration by the Council, amend the plan and
repeat some of the above steps, or prepare the plan for adoption.
P183
VIII.c
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 300 – Master Plans
Page 4
c. Form of decision: City Council direction shall be by motion. The direction may
be provided during a regular meeting or a work session of the Council.
d. Notice requirements: None.
8. Step Eight – City Council Adoption.
a. Purpose: To consider adoption of the master plan.
b. Process: City staff shall present City Council with the draft plan along with a
summary of the steps taken to develop the plan, comments received, and any
suggested amendments to the plan. After receiving comments from the public
during a public hearing, City Council may adopt the plan as presented, adopt the
plan with amendments, direct amendments to the plan for further consideration,
direct staff to repeat of any of the above process steps, or not adopt the plan and
terminate the process.
c. Standard of Review: City Council shall determine if adoption of the master plan
is in the best interests of the community.
d. Form of decision: City Council adoption shall be by Resolution, after a public
hearing. Direction to staff to amend the plan or repeat any of the process steps
above may be by motion.
e. Notice requirements: Publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a.
C. Reciprocal Adoption. City Council may adopt a master plan of another jurisdiction by
using the steps outlined above. City Council may condition adoption of a master plan
on the adoption of the plan by another jurisdiction.
D. Master Planning Termination. Notwithstanding the above steps, City Council may
terminate a master planning process at any time by motion of the Council.
26.311.030. Master Plan Use and Effect.
Adopted master plans of the City of Aspen shall be guiding and shall not place a burden on
property. Master plans may be used to develop proposed legislation (which may burden
property), to initiate new policies or operational practices, to develop budgets or department
work programs, or to otherwise guide action of the City in the public interest.
Master plans shall not be legally binding and shall not regulate or place a burden on real
property.
P184
VIII.c
Exhibit C – Part 100 Changes
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit C – Redline changes to 26.104.030, Comprehensive Community Plan and other
plans, guidelines or documents, shall be amended as follows:
26.104.030. Master Plans, Comprehensive Community Plan and other plans, guidelines
or documents.
A. The City shall from time to time adopt and update a comprehensive community plan
(known as the Aspen Area Community Plan or AACP) which shall establish and project the
City's land use and development planning philosophy, goals and policies. The comprehensive
community plan shall be broad in scope and serve as a guide to all land use development and
planning. The plan shall encourage and incorporate regional planning as well as land use
development cooperation and coordination between the City and neighboring communities and
jurisdictions.
B. From time to time the City may re-adopt, amend, extend or add to its comprehensive
community plan or carry any part of its subject matter into greater detail through the
development of supplemental plans, guidelines or documents, pursuant to Section 26.311, Master
Plans. Within the text of these plans, guidelines or documents, it shall be described how the
material shall be used in relation to the AACP, land use development and planning. Specifically,
there shall be a determination of whether the document will be used as a guiding or regulatory
document. The document shall be adopted by resolution or ordinance, as provided in Chapter
26.200, Administration — Decision-Making Bodies.
C. Before the adoption of a plan or any such part, amendment, extension or addition by an
adopting body, at least one (1) public hearing shall be conducted, notice of the time and place of
which shall be given by one (1) publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City as
outlined in Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a, Publication of notice.
P185
VIII.c
Exhibit D – Part 200 Changes
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit D – Redline changes to Part 26.200
26.208.010 – City Council, Powers and duties.
[No Changes to Sections A – H]
I. To adopt by resolution or ordinance any master plans, guidelines or documents that will be used
in a guiding or regulatory capacity by the City, pursuant to Chapter 26.311, to adopt operational
guidelines or documents, and to adopt design guidelines. How the material shall be used in
relation to the AACP, land use development and planning shall be described in the content of the
resolution or ordinance. Specifically, there shall be a determination of whether the document will
be used as a guiding or regulatory document. When used as a guiding document of the City, it
shall be adopted by resolution and, when used as a regulatory document, it shall be adopted by
ordinance. Any plans, guidelines or documents that are adopted by resolution or ordinance shall
not be adopted until notice is provided as outlined in Section 26.104.030 of this Title, the
Comprehensive Community Plan and other plans, guidelines or documents;
[No Changes to Sections J – P]
26.210.020. Director of Community Development Department.
B. Jurisdiction, authority and duties.
[No Changes to Sections 1 – 17]
18. To undertake all other general comprehensive planning responsibilities;
[No Changes to Sections 19 – 20]
21. To approve, approve with conditions or deny development subject to Chapter 26.520,
Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses; and
22. To extinguish a transferable development right in accordance with Chapter 26.535;.
23. To issue and extinguish Affordable Housing Certificates in accordance with Chapter
26.540; and
24. To assist and staff all aspects of the Master Planning process in accordance with Chapter
26.311.
26.212.010. Planning & Zoning Commission, Powers and duties.
[No Changes to Sections A – Q]
R. To adopt by resolution any plans, operational guidelines or documents that will be used in a
guiding capacity by the Commission. or, if to be used in a regulatory capacity, tTo recommend
via resolution the adoption of any plans, design guidelines or documents by the City Council. To
provide input on Master Plans, in accordance with Chapter 26.311.How the material shall be
used in relation to the AACP, land use development and planning shall be described in the
content of the resolution. Specifically, there shall be a determination of whether the document
will be used as a guiding or regulatory document. When a plan, guideline or document is to
serve as a regulatory document as determined by the Commission, the resolution shall include a
P187
VIII.c
Exhibit D – Part 200 Changes
Page 2 of 2
recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the document by ordinance. Any plans,
guidelines or documents that are adopted by resolution shall not be adopted until notice is
provided as outlined in Section 26.104.030, Comprehensive Community Plan and other plans,
guidelines or documents.
26.220.010. Historic Preservation Commission, Powers and duties.
[No Changes to Sections A – D]
E. To adopt by resolution any plans, operational guidelines or documents that will be used in a
guiding capacity by the Commission. or, if to be used in a regulatory capacity, tTo recommend
via resolution adoption of any plans, design guidelines, or documents by the City Council. To
provide input on Master Plans, in accordance with Chapter 26.311;How the material shall be
used in relation to the AACP, land use development, planning and historic preservation shall be
described in the content of the resolution. Specifically, there shall be a determination of whether
the document shall be used as a guiding or regulatory document. When a plan, guideline or
document is to serve as a regulatory document as determined by the Commission, the resolution
will include a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the document by ordinance.
Any plans, guidelines or documents that are adopted by resolution shall not be adopted until
notice is provided as outlined in Section 26.104.030, Comprehensive Community Plan and other
plans, guidelines or documents;
[No Changes to Sections F – K]
P188
VIII.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon
DATE OF MEMO: 11/15/2012
MEETING DATE: 11/26/2012
RE: Code Amendment - Historic Districts
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P189
VIII.d
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P190
VIII.d
Staff Memo, 12/10/12
Code Amendment – Historic Districts
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Code Amendment – Chapter 26.415 Historic Preservation – Second Reading
of Ordinance # 33, Series of 2012 – public hearing
MEETING
DATE: December 10, 2012
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance includes proposed code amendment clarifying the applicability of non-
designated properties within Historic Districts based on Council direction provided as part of the
Policy Resolution passed August 27, 2012. The objective of the proposed code amendment is to
clean up language stating that all properties within the Historic Districts shall meet the requirements
in Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. A redline version of the proposed changes are included
as Exhibit B.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the second reading on proposed code amendments for Historic Districts. Pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
Questions regarding the applicability of non-designated properties related to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation, were raised in 2011 during the Benton Building/Little
Annie’s development application (517 and 521 E. Hyman Avenue). The applicant challenged
whether non-designated properties are included on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures and as such are subject to demolition review by the Historic Preservation
Commission. This discussion pointed out areas in the Code that could be simplified and
clarified.
P191
VIII.d
Staff Memo, 12/10/12
Code Amendment – Historic Districts
Page 2 of 3
A Historic District is a collection of buildings that are related historically or aesthetically by plan
or physical development. Aspen’s Historic Districts are comprised of individually designated
properties, properties that contribute to the significance of the Historic District, and properties
that are considered noncontributing resources to the Historic District. These buildings all play a
role in the integrity of the District and all require review by the HPC to ensure consistency with
traditional development patterns.
Since the inception of the Commercial Core Historic District in 1972, all properties within the
District have been subject to design and demolition review by the Historic Preservation
Commission, which is consistent with historic preservation programs throughout the county on
local, state and national levels. There are many examples of HPC exercising its jurisdiction to
review applications for Demolition of structures located within a Historic District, but not
individually designated properties. The most recent reviews include:
435 W. Main (Aspen Jewish Community Center) 2005
434 E. Cooper (Bidwell) 2006
308 E. Hopkins (La Cocina), 2006
508 E. Cooper Avenue (Cooper Street Pier), 2006
420/422 E. Hopkins (Fire Station), 2007
517 E. Hyman (Little Annie’s), 2012
521 E. Hyman (Benton Buiding), 2012
Council directed Staff to clarify the language regarding Historic District review concurrent with
changes to the Commercial Core Historic District. The proposed amendment does not change
HPC’s jurisdiction; rather it clarifies the Code language to better reflect the applicability of the
Historic Preservation Chapter to non-designated properties within Historic Districts.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT (A REDLINE VERSION IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT B):
Section 1: This is a new section that clarifies the applicability of the Chapter to both
properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and all properties,
including rights of way, within a Historic District.
Section 2: Changes include clarifications to the definitions of the following terms:
contributing resource, designated property, historic district, and noncontributing resource.
Section 3: This section addresses the effect of being designated, which already includes
properties located in historic districts. The proposed change adds Historic District to the
heading for clarity. It also clarifies that major projects involving rights-of-way within
Historic District boundaries require referral comments from HPC, which is consistent with
current practice.
Section 4: This section addresses review process and criteria for development involving
historic properties. The proposed change clarifies that this section applies to properties
P192
VIII.d
Staff Memo, 12/10/12
Code Amendment – Historic Districts
Page 3 of 3
within historic districts. It also clarifies that development involving landscapes on historic
properties or properties within a Historic District is under HPC’s purview. Landscapes are
considered part of the property designation and have always been reviewed by Staff or HPC
pursuant to the adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
Section 5: This section addresses review criteria for demolition. The proposed change
clarifies that this section applies to properties within historic districts.
Section 6: This section outlines all incentives available to historic properties. The proposed
change clarifies that the benefits do not apply to non-designated properties within historic
districts.
Section 7: This section cleans up and clarifies the applicable review criteria regarding
parking reductions on landmark properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the project is consistent with the applicable review standards in the City Land
Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the code amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2012, approving the proposed Code Amendment
on second reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Ordinance # 33, Series of 2012
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – Review criteria
Exhibit B – Redline version of Code changes.
P193
VIII.d
City Council Ord. #33 of 2012
Historic Districts Code Amendments
Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE No. 33
(Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.415 – HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to explore code amendments related to the applicability of Land Use Code
Chapter 26.415 to properties within a designated Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach, including three small group meetings, an Open City Hall
Forum, an on-line survey, and individual letters from members of the public, to gain feedback
from the community on potential code changes to the Commercial Core Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, more than 200 individuals were engaged in the Public Outreach process;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2012, the City Council
approved a Policy Resolution, Resolution 82, Series of 2012, directing staff to process code
amendments related to heights and land uses in the downtown, by a three - two (3 - 2) vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415 – Historic
Preservation; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: 26.415.015 – Applicability, shall be added to Chapter 26.415 follows:
P195
VIII.d
City Council Ord. #33 of 2012
Historic Districts Code Amendments
Page 2 of 7
26.415.015 Applicability.
This Chapter applies to all properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures and to all properties located within the boundaries of a Historic District, including
rights-of-way within Historic Districts as specified in Section 26.415.060.
Section 2: 26.415.020 – Definitions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.020. Definitions.
The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of
historic preservation:
Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original
appearance or construction.
Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed
work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character
and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue
any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate.
Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the
issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure
located in a designated Historic District.
Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a
certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as
the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship.
Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed
work will have no detrimental effect on the character-defining features of a designated property
and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further
approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the
specified certificate.
Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic
associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property is
considered significant.
Designated property. An individual property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures.
Historic District. A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures,
sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development that is listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures including designated
properties, contributing resources, and noncontributing resources located within the boundaries
of a Historic District pursuant to the Official Zone District Map.
P196
VIII.d
City Council Ord. #33 of 2012
Historic Districts Code Amendments
Page 3 of 7
Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen’s architectural and cultural patterns
in the context of local and national history. Historic context papers are used to guide staff, the
Historic Preservation Commission and City Council in determining the historic significance of
structures and properties in the City of Aspen.
Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance relative to the aspects of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association.
Monitoring committee. A subcommittee appointed by the Historic Preservation Commission of
up to two (2) Commission members and the Historic Preservation Officer to provide oversight in
the implementation of rehabilitation.
Noncontributing resource. A building, structure, site or object that does not add to the historic
architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property is significant because it was
not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented significance; or
due to alterations, additions, disturbances or other changes, it no longer possesses historic
integrity.
Object. A term used to distinguish buildings and structures from those constructions that are
primarily artistic in nature or small in scale and simply constructed. It may be by nature or
design movable, but it is associated with a specific setting and environment.
Rehabilitation. Making a building or structure sound and usable without attempting to restore it
to a particular period appearance, while retaining the character-defining features.
Relocation. Moving a building or structure from its original, historically significant or existing
location to another location.
Repair. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation or partial destruction.
Restore. The repair or recreation of the original architectural elements or features of an historic
property so that it resembles an appearance it had at some previous point in time.
Significance. The documented importance of a property for its contribution to or representation
of broad patterns of national, regional or local history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and
culture.
Site. The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a
building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses
historic, cultural or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure.
Structure. A term used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made for
purposes other than creating human shelter.
(Ord. 1-2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 28 -2010, §1)
P197
VIII.d
City Council Ord. #33 of 2012
Historic Districts Code Amendments
Page 4 of 7
Section 3: 26.415.060 - Effect of designation, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.060. Effect of designation or inclusion within a Historic District.
A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within
the boundaries of a Historic District, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a
development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness
before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. HPC shall
provide referral comments for major projects to rights-of-way located within the boundaries of a
Historic District.
Section 4: 26.415.070 – Development involving designated historic property, shall be amended
as follows:
26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a
Historic District.
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,
relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a
Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community
Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their
review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
1. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. 43, 2004, § 3; Ord. No. 28 -2010, §1; Ord. No. 3-2012,
§22 & 23)
Section 5: 26.415.080 - Demolition of designated historic properties, shall be amended as
follows:
26.415.080 Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a Historic
District.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within
a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section.
A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties or
properties within a Historic District.
1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties or properties within a
Historic District will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director
by the Chief Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within
P198
VIII.d
City Council Ord. #33 of 2012
Historic Districts Code Amendments
Page 5 of 7
fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal
materials needed for consideration.
2. An application for demolition approval shall include:
a) The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written
documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an
imminent hazard or
b) Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the
building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance.
3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be
scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant
to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The staff shall review the submittal
material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for
approval.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District
in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application
to obtain additional information necessary to consider the demolition request.
6. If the HPC approves the demolition request then a resolution of the HPC action will be
forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no demolition
P199
VIII.d
City Council Ord. #33 of 2012
Historic Districts Code Amendments
Page 6 of 7
permit will be issued until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has
expired.
7. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the aforementioned standards,
the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic
hardship," as set forth below.
8. Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the
redevelopment or reuse plan, as provided for in Subsection 26.415.070.D, must be
approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or
object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic
hardship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan.
Section 6: 26.415.110 – Benefits, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.110. Benefits.
The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain,
preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable
community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and
programs for designated historic properties and districts.
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties
are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a
valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the
creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have
been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and
maintaining their property.
Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated
anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both
economically vital and cherished by many.
Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits.
Section 7: 26.415.110.D – Benefits- Parking, shall be amended as follows.
D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable
to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial
designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking
reductions.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of
payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate
an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic
property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.
P200
VIII.d
City Council Ord. #33 of 2012
Historic Districts Code Amendments
Page 7 of 7
Section 8:
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 9:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of December, 2012, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of November, 2012.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2012.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P201
VIII.d
Exhibit A
Historic Districts – Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. The amendment proposes
to clarify the HPC’s jurisdiction over properties located within designated Historic Districts.
These changes are consistent with city policy and the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The stated reason for the code amendment is to clarify HPC’s jurisdiction over properties located
within Historic Districts in order to ensure that all development within Districts is consistent with
the historic pattern established downtown.
The AACP calls for code amendments that “ensure that City codes support the historic integrity
of designated structures and ensure compatibility with the surrounding context in terms of site
coverage, mass, scale, height and form.” (Historic Preservation Chapter Part II.1.) Clarifying
HPC purview over all properties within Historic Districts in an effort to protect contributing and
designated buildings within Districts furthers this goal.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure that all properties within Historic Districts are
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission to protect the integrity of the Districts. Staff
finds that this is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the
Land Use Code and is in harmony with the public interest.
P203
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit B – Redline changes to 26.415, Historic Preservation
Section 1:
26.415.015 Applicability.
This Chapter applies to all properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures and to all properties located within the boundaries of a Historic District, including
rights-of-way within Historic Districts as specified in Section 26.415.060.
Section 2:
26.415.020. Definitions.
The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of
historic preservation:
Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original
appearance or construction.
Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed
work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character
and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue
any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate.
Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the
issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure
located in a designated Historic District.
Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a
certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as
the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship.
Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed
work will have no detrimental effect on the character-defining features of a designated property
and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further
approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the
specified certificate.
Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic
associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property is
considered significant.
Designated property. An individual property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures.
Historic District. A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures,
sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development that is listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures including designated
properties, contributing resources, and noncontributing resources located within the boundaries
of a Historic District pursuant to the Official Zone District Map.
P205
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 2 of 5
Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen’s architectural and cultural patterns
in the context of local and national history. Historic context papers are used to guide staff, the
Historic Preservation Commission and City Council in determining the historic significance of
structures and properties in the City of Aspen.
Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance relative to the aspects of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association.
Monitoring committee. A subcommittee appointed by the Historic Preservation Commission of
up to two (2) Commission members and the Historic Preservation Officer to provide oversight in
the implementation of rehabilitation.
Noncontributing resource. A building, structure, site or object that does not add to the historic
architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property is significant because it was
not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented significance; or
due to alterations, additions, disturbances or other changes, it no longer possesses historic
integrity.
Object. A term used to distinguish buildings and structures from those constructions that are
primarily artistic in nature or small in scale and simply constructed. It may be by nature or
design movable, but it is associated with a specific setting and environment.
Rehabilitation. Making a building or structure sound and usable without attempting to restore it
to a particular period appearance, while retaining the character-defining features.
Relocation. Moving a building or structure from its original, historically significant or existing
location to another location.
Repair. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation or partial destruction.
Restore. The repair or recreation of the original architectural elements or features of an historic
property so that it resembles an appearance it had at some previous point in time.
Significance. The documented importance of a property for its contribution to or representation
of broad patterns of national, regional or local history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and
culture.
Site. The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a
building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses
historic, cultural or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure.
Structure. A term used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made for
purposes other than creating human shelter.
(Ord. 1-2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 28 -2010, §1)
P206
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 3 of 5
Section 3:
26.415.060. Effect of designation or inclusion within a Historic District.
A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within
the boundaries of an Historic District, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a
development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness
before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. HPC shall
provide referral comments for major projects to rights-of-way located within the boundaries of a
Historic District.
Section 4:
26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a
Historic District.
No building,structure, or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,
relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a
Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community
Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their
review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
(Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. 43, 2004, § 3; Ord. No. 28 -2010, §1; Ord. No. 3-2012, §22 &
23)
Section 5:
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a Historic
District.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within
a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section.
A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties or
properties within a Historic District.
1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties or properties within a
Historic District will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director
by the Chief Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within
fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal
materials needed for consideration.
2. An application for demolition approval shall include:
a) The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written
documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an
imminent hazard or
b) Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the
building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance.
P207
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 4 of 5
3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be
scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant
to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The staff shall review the submittal
material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for
approval.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District
in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application
to obtain additional information necessary to consider the demolition request.
6. If the HPC approves the demolition request then a resolution of the HPC action will be
forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no demolition
permit will be issued until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has
expired.
7. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the aforementioned standards,
the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic
hardship," as set forth below.
8. Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the
redevelopment or reuse plan, as provided for in Subsection 26.415.070.D, must be
approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or
P208
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 5 of 5
object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic
hardship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan.
Section 6:
26.415.110. Benefits.
The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain,
preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable
community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and
programs for designated historic properties and districts.
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties
are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a
valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the
creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have
been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and
maintaining their property.
Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated
anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both
economically vital and cherished by many.
Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits. Section 7:
D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites
unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning.
Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for
parking reductions.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver of
payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate
an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic
property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.
P209
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit B – Redline changes to 26.415, Historic Preservation
Section 1:
26.415.015 Applicability.
This Chapter applies to all properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures and to all properties located within the boundaries of a Historic District, including
rights-of-way within Historic Districts as specified in Section 26.415.060.
Section 2:
26.415.020. Definitions.
The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of
historic preservation:
Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original
appearance or construction.
Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed
work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character
and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue
any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate.
Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the
issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure
located in a designated Hhistoric dDistrict.
Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a
certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as
the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship.
Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed
work will have no detrimental effect on the character-defining features of a designated property
and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further
approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the
specified certificate.
Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic
associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property or
district is considered significant.
Designated property. An individual property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures.
Historic District. A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures,
sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development that is listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures including designated
properties, contributing resources, and noncontributing resources located within the boundaries
of a Historic District pursuant to the Official Zone District Map.
P211
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 2 of 5
Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen’s architectural and cultural patterns
in the context of local and national history. Historic context papers are used to guide staff, the
Historic Preservation Commission and City Council in determining the historic significance of
structures and properties in the City of Aspen.
Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance relative to the aspects of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association.
Monitoring committee. A subcommittee appointed by the Historic Preservation Commission of
up to two (2) Commission members and the Historic Preservation Officer to provide oversight in
the implementation of rehabilitation.
Noncontributing resource. A building, structure, site or object that does not add to the historic
architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property or district is significant
because it was not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented
significance; or due to alterations, additions, disturbances or other changes, it no longer
possesses historic integrity.
Object. A term used to distinguish buildings and structures from those constructions that are
primarily artistic in nature or small in scale and simply constructed. It may be by nature or
design movable, but it is associated with a specific setting and environment.
Rehabilitation. Making a building or structure sound and usable without attempting to restore it
to a particular period appearance, while retaining the character-defining features.
Relocation. Moving a building or structure from its original, historically significant or existing
location to another location.
Repair. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation or partial destruction.
Restore. The repair or recreation of the original architectural elements or features of an historic
property so that it resembles an appearance it had at some previous point in time.
Significance. The documented importance of a property for its contribution to or representation
of broad patterns of national, regional or local history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and
culture.
Site. The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a
building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses
historic, cultural or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure.
Structure. A term used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made for
purposes other than creating human shelter.
(Ord. 1-2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 28 -2010, §1)
P212
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 3 of 5
Section 3:
26.415.060. Effect of designation or inclusion within a Historic District.
A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual building property or
located within the boundaries ofin an hHistoric dDistrict, unless determined exempt, requires the
approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of
appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the
City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights-of-way located within the
boundaries of a Historic District.
Section 4:
26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a
Historic District.
No building, or structure, or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired,
relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a
Historic dDistrict until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community
Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their
review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
(Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. 43, 2004, § 3; Ord. No. 28 -2010, §1; Ord. No. 3-2012, §22 &
23)
Section 5:
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a Historic
District.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within
a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section.
A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties or
properties within a Historic District.
1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties or properties within a
Historic District will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director
by the Chief Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within
fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal
materials needed for consideration.
2. An application for demolition approval shall include:
a) The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written
documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an
imminent hazard or
P213
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 4 of 5
b) Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the
building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance.
3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be
scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant
to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The staff shall review the submittal
material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for
approval.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or hHistoric
dDistrict in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of
the hHistoric dDistrict or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application
to obtain additional information necessary to consider the demolition request.
6. If the HPC approves the demolition request then a resolution of the HPC action will be
forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no demolition
permit will be issued until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has
expired.
7. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the aforementioned standards,
the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic
hardship," as set forth below.
P214
VIII.d
Exhibit B – redline version
Historic Districts, Second Reading
12.10.2012
Page 5 of 5
8. Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the
redevelopment or reuse plan, as provided for in Subsection 26.415.070.D, must be
approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or
object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic
hardship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan.
Section 6:
26.415.110. Benefits.
The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain,
preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable
community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and
programs for designated historic properties and districts.
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties
are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a
valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the
creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have
been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and
maintaining their property.
Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated
anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both
economically vital and cherished by many.
All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and StructuresOnly
designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits.
Section 7:
D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites
unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning.
Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for
parking reductions.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, Tthe parking reduction and waiver of
payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate
an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic
property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. Refer to Chapter 26.515 for
further information.
P215
VIII.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 11/18/2012
MEETING DATE: 11/26/2012
RE: Code Amendment: Affordable Housing Certificates
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P217
VIII.e
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P218
VIII.e
Code Amendment: AH Certificates
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Code Amendment: Affordable Housing Certificates
2nd Reading Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2012
DATE: December 10, 2012
SUMMARY:
The City Council recently provided direction to amend the Affordable Housing Certificates
Program. The objective is to provide a mechanism for certificates to be converted between
Categories – an issue that was never contemplated when the program was initiated. Various non-
substantive clean-up are also needed to provide clarity to terms and processes within the program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review an ordinance amending the
Affordable Housing Certificates program. All code
amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is
the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if
an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining
specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND:
The Certificates of Affordable Housing Program is nearly
three years old. The first project is complete and
occupied and the first Credit Certificates were issued in
February this year. A second project is under
construction and is expected to be occupied in roughly a
year. The program allows a developer of affordable
housing to sell his “credit” to another developer to use to
satisfy housing mitigation requirements. When a
Certificate project is built, the units are of specific
APCHA Categories and the Credits are issued according
to those Categories.
The program needs an update. The original code adopted for this program didn’t anticipate the need
for Certificate holders to exchange Certificates between different Category designations. This
P219
VIII.e
Code Amendment: AH Certificates
Page 2 of 2
presents a problem between buyer and sellers of Certificates – “I’d like to buy some Category 2
Certificates, but you’re only selling Category 3 Certificates.”
Staff has developed a concept of how to convert between Categories by using the APCHA cash-
in-lieu figures. The APCHA cash-in-lieu rates reflect actual subsidy costs to house employees of
various Categories. It is more expensive to mitigate for lower Category employees as the
subsidy required to house lower Category employees is greater. The same condition exists in the
Certificates program – it is more expensive for a developer to create lower category units. And,
Certificates of lower Category designation should be worth more.
By using these APCHA rates, Certificate holder could exchange their Category designations in
an equivalent manner. Using the current rate structure (which will be updated soon), a 4.0 FTE
Category 3 Certificate would equate to a 3.77 FTE Certificate at Category 2. The APCHA rates
will change from time to time and the code would always refer to the APCHA rates in effect at
the time of conversion.
OUTREACH:
Staff reviewed this concept with Peter Fornell, the developer of the first two projects and
Certificate owner. He is supportive of the direction staff is pursuing. Staff also reviewed the
initiative with the APCHA Board and Staff. They are supportive of this amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2012 – code amendment for the Affordable
Housing Certificates Program.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
P220
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE No. 32
(Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMNETS TO
CHAPTER 26.540 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE – CERTIFICATES OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to explore code amendments related to the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credits program; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach, including meetings with owners and potential
developers of Certificates, review with members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
review with members of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 12, 2012, the City
Council approved a Policy Resolution, Resolution 106, Series of 2012, directing staff to process
code amendments related to the Certificates program; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.540 as described herein;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments ad finds
that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.540 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, which section defines the
creation, authority, and use of affordable housing credit certificates, shall read as follows:
Chapter 26.540
CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
Sections:
P221
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 2 of 8
26.540.010 Purpose
26.540.020 Terminology
26.540.030 Applicability and Prohibitions
26.540.040 Authority
26.540.050 Application and fees
26.540.060 Procedures for Establishing a Credit
26.540.070 Review criteria for Establishing an Affordable Housing Credit
26.540.080 Procedures for Issuing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
26.540.090 Authority of the Certificate
26.540.100 Transferability of the Certificate
26.540.110 Exchanging Category Designation of an Affordable Housing Certificate
26.540.120 Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate
26.540.130 Amendments
26.540.140 Appeals
26.540.010 Purpose
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the development of affordable
housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the impacts of
development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of affordable
housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a Certificate and use
it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable Certificate creates a
new revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing more economically
viable. Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for mitigation that
reflects built and occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of development
before those impacts are felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing, transferring
and extinguishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
26.540.020 Terminology
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (Credit or Certificate). A transferable document
issued by the City of Aspen acknowledging and documenting the voluntary provision of
affordable housing which is not otherwise required by this Title or by a Development Order
issued by the City of Aspen. The Certificate documents the Category Designations and number
of employees housed by the affordable housing. The Credit is irrevocable and assignable. A
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is a bearer instrument.
Establishing a Credit. The process of the City of Aspen acknowledging the voluntary provision
of affordable housing through issuance of a transferable Credit.
Extinguishing a Credit. The process of the City accepting a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of a development.
Category Designation. A classification system used to reflect different sales price and rental
rate restrictions of affordable housing as set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
P222
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 3 of 8
26.540.030 Applicability and Prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit created prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012, and henceforth. Credit Certificates may be used
within the city limits of the City of Aspen as provided in this Title. Credit Certificates may be
used in other jurisdictions as may be authorized by that jurisdiction.
This Chapter applies to affordable housing created on a voluntary basis. It does not apply to
affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. This Chapter does not
apply to affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2010.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed.
Transfer shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the Community Development Director re-issue the
Credit Certificate acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not inconsistent
with this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe-keeping, issuance, re-issuance, record-
keeping, and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
26.540.040 Authority
The Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and
limitations of this Chapter and of Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures,
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and
limitations of this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, is
authorized to issue, re-issue, exchange Category designations, and extinguish a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
26.540.050 Application
All applications shall include the information required under Chapter 26.304, Common
Development Review Procedures. In addition, all applications must also include the following
information.
A. The net livable square footage of each unit.
P223
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 4 of 8
B. If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square
footage requirements are requested according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
C. Proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit.
D. Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing units in increments of no less than
one-one-hundredth (.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2 – Employees Housed.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
26.540.060. Procedures for Establishing an Affordable Housing Credit
A development application to establish a certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall be
reviewed pursuant to the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304,
and the following procedures and standards. The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission shall review a recommendation from the Community Development Director and
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application to establish Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit. This requires a one-step process as follows:
A. Step One – Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for authorizing
establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the
Community Development Director.
3. Standards of review: 26.540.070
4. Form of decision: Planning and Zoning Commission decision shall be by resolution.
The resolution may include a description or diagram of the affordable housing.
5. Notice requirements: The requirements of 26.212.060 shall apply. No public hearing
notice is required.
26.540.070 Review criteria for Establishing an Affordable Housing Credit
An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all
of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this
review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section
26.470.070.4(a-d).
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
P224
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 5 of 8
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
26.540.080 Procedures for Issuing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
Once the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved an Affordable Housing Credit through
adoption of a Resolution, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the affordable
housing unit(s), the Community Development Director shall issue a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit in a form prescribed by the Director.
A. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall include the following information:
1. A number of the Certificate in chronological order of their issuance.
2. Parcel identification number, legal address and the street address of the affordable
housing.
3. The Category Designation and number of employees housed by the affordable housing
units, according to Section 26.470.100.2 – Employees Housed, in increments of no less
than one-one-hundredths (.01).
B. Issuance of the Certificate. At the time of issuance of a Certificate by the City, a letter
acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the certificate shall be submitted by the owner to the
Community Development Department.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
26.540.090 Authority of the Certificate
The Certificate may be utilized in whole or in part, including fractions of an FTE no less than .01
FTE, to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with other applicable
sections of this Title.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
26.540.100 Transferability of the Certificate
A. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed
in whole or in part, in increments no less than one-one-hundredth (.01). Transfer of Title shall be
evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the
new owner may request the City re-issue the Certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re-
issuance shall not require re-review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development
Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the
Certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the
Certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the Credit void.
P225
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 6 of 8
C. The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall
not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
26.540.110 Converting Category Designation of an Affordable Housing Certificate
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit represent a number of employees housed at a specific
Category designation. Projects seeking extinguishment of a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
mitigation standards of this Title may have a different Category Designation requirement than an
existing Certificate represents. This section sets forth a process to convert a Certificate of a
certain Category Designation for a Certificate of a different Category Designation. This process
amends the number of employees housed to create an equivalency. This Section relies on the
Affordable Housing Dedication Fees (aka Fee-in-Lieu) stated in the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as are amended from time to time.
To convert a Certificate of a certain Category Designation for a Certificate of a different
Category Designation, the following steps are necessary:
Step 1. Multiply the employees housed stated on the existing Certificate by the per
employee Fee-in-Lieu fee for the Category Designation as stated in the APCHA Guidelines.
Step 2. Divide the resulting number from step 1 by the Fee-in-Lieu fee for the Category
Designation of the proposed Certificate.
The resulting number from step 2 shall be the employees housed for the proposed Certificate.
The Community Development Director shall re-issue a Certificate using this number of
employees housed and specifying the proposed Category Designation.
Example: An owner of a Category 3 Certificate wishes to exchange the Certificate for a
Category 2 Certificate. The existing Certificate states 2.25 employees housed.
Step 1. Employees housed multiplied by Category 3 per-FTE Fee-in-Lieu.
2.25 X $217,567 = $489,525.75
Step 2. Number from step 1 divided by Category 2 per-FTE Fee-in-Lieu.
$489,525.75 / $230,583 = 2.12
In this example, the Community Development Director would re-issue a Certificate stating
2.12 employees housed and a Category 2 designation. Please note that the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Fee-in-Lieu rates change from time to time. The rates used for
this calculation shall be those in effect upon request for conversion.
The conversion of a Certificate’s Category Designation shall be approved by the Community
Development Director and shall not require additional review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
P226
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 7 of 8
26.540.120 Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate
A. Unless otherwise stated in a Development Order, extinguishing all or part of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall occur prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the development
for which the housing mitigation is required. Extinguishment shall be evidenced by an
assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document to “the City of Aspen for
extinguishment.”
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
B. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit may be extinguished to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of this Title if the Community Development Director finds the following standards
met:
1. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as required by this Title,
have been obtained and the applicant has submitted the necessary information, pursuant
to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit.
2. The applicant has submitted authentic Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit in the
number and Category Designation required for the development.
3. The Certificate owner has assigned ownership of the Certificates to “the City of Aspen
for extinguishment.”
C. When all of a Certificate is extinguished, the city shall void the Certificate. When part of a
Certificate is extinguished, the city shall issue a Certificate citing the remaining FTEs in
increments of no less than .01 of employees housed.
26.540.130 Amendments
Amendments to an affordable housing project that occur during additional review(s) required by
this Title or other amendments which do not change the essential nature of the project may be
approved by the Community Development Director. Revisions to the number or Category
Designation of the affordable housing units and Credit Certificates to be issued shall be reflected
in a revised development order.
Revisions to the number or Category Designation of the affordable housing units and Credit
Certificates to be issued, proposed after all approvals are granted, shall require re-review
pursuant to the standards and procedures of this Chapter.
26.540.140 Appeals
An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director or
Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5)
P227
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 8 of 8
Section 2: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 4: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 5: Notice of Public Hearing.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of December, 2012, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of
November, 2012.
ATTEST:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____________day of ______________, 2012.
ATTEST:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
P228
VIII.e
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012. Page 9 of 8
James R True, City Attorney
P229
VIII.e
Code Amendment: AH Certificates, Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Program. The original program never contemplated the need to exchange certificates of a
specific category for those of a different category. The primary owner of housing certificates is
in support of this amendment. The Housing Board supports this code amendment. Staff
believes enabling this program to function better is in the interests of the community and is in
alignment with the purpose of Title 26. Staff finds this criterion met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The stated objective is to provide a mechanism for certificates to be exchanged between Categories
– an issue that was never contemplated when the program was initiated. Various non-substantive
clean-up are also needed to provide clarity to terms and processes within the program. Staff
believes this proposed ordinance achieves this objective and finds this criterion met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Program. The original program never contemplated the need to exchange certificates of a
specific category for those of a different category. The primary owner of housing certificates is
in support of this amendment. The Housing Board supports this code amendment. Staff
believes enabling this program to function better is in the interests of the community. Staff
believes this is compatible with the community character of the City and in harmony with the
public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff finds this criterion met.
P231
VIII.e
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 12/3/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Ordinance 25, 2012. Code Amendment: CC adn C1 Zone
Districts
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P233
VIII.f
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P234
VIII.f
12.10.2012 – Downtown Zoning Changes 2nd Reading
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: CC & C-1 Zone District Code Amendments
Second Reading, Ordinance 25, Series of 2012
DATE OF MEMO: December 3, 2012
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance includes proposed code amendments to the downtown based on Council
direction provided as part of the Policy Resolution passed August 27, 2012. In addition, associated
code clean-ups are included. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to ensure new
development in the CC and C-1 zone districts respects the historic character and development
pattern in the City, and well as encourage continued vitality of the commercial uses in these zones.
A redline version of the proposed changes are included as Exhibits B through E.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the 2nd reading on proposed code amendments for the downtown. Pursuant to Land Use
Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
CHANGES SINCE 11.26.2012 MEETING:
The attached Ordinance incorporates changes requested by City Council at the November 26th
public hearing. City Council provided the following direction at the meeting:
1. Allow three stories only for lodging and commercial uses.
2. Restrict three story development to the North side of the street.
3. Prohibit free-market residential uses in the CC and C-1 zones.
BUILDING HEIGHTS:
The revised ordinance proposes the following building heights:
P235
VIII.f
12.10.2012 – Downtown Zoning Changes 2nd Reading
Page 2 of 3
CC C-1
Minimum 1st level floor-to-floor height 13 ft. 11 ft.
Minimum upper level ceiling height 9 ft. 9 ft.
Overall maximum height 38-40 ft. 36-38 ft.
Mechanical Over-run 6 ft. from the
point attached
6 ft. from the
point attached
South Side 3rd Story Setback 35 feet from
property line
35 feet from
property line
The only significant change from the previous draft ordinance is the setback for 3rd stories on the
south side of the street. Staff is very concerned that simply banning south side development
creates inequity within the zone district and could result in a challengeable zoning system. Staff
heard from Council that concerns related to third story development focused primarily on
blocking views to the mountain and creating shading on the street. Staff reviewed some shading
scenarios, and a setback of 35 feet from the property line for any third story will not result in
significant shading on the street. It is also important to note that many buildings that are
currently two-stories in height could not be increased to three stories because of the city’s
adopted view planes.
The above heights enable flexibility in the design process while providing a minimum standard
that promotes quality interior spaces. Staff believes these heights are reflective of Aspen’s
historic development pattern, which is important to maintain so that new buildings do not look
“squished” or out of context with the rest of the buildings in the area. The C-1 zone district is a
transitional zone, and as such staff is recommending lower heights than in the CC zone district.
The current Commercial Design Guidelines require that all upper levels be lower in stature and
heights than the first floor, which staff believes is critical to maintaining Aspen’s historic
character and pedestrian scale. Staff has also incorporated this requirement into the proposed
code language.
The attached code language limits all third floors to no more than 50% of the parcel size. This
will enable some flexibility for designers, while ensuring the third floor is minimized.
Finally, staff recommends a required setback for all rooftop mechanical equipment. According
to the Coburn height study, a 14 foot setback for a 38 foot tall building would eliminate the
ability to see the equipment from the street. Staff recommends a 15 foot setback for all
mechanical equipment. Again, this was done to minimize the impact mechanical equipment has
on the pedestrian environment.
LAND USES:
The revised Ordinance includes the following changes related to Land Uses:
1. No free-market residential uses are permitted in either the CC or C-1 zone districts.
2. Any third story is limited to lodging and commercial uses.
P236
VIII.f
12.10.2012 – Downtown Zoning Changes 2nd Reading
Page 3 of 3
From staff’s perspective, mixed-use buildings should be allowed and encouraged downtown.
Residential uses create vitality and more “lights on.” Staff continues to support affordable
housing uses in downtown buildings for this reason.
In addition, the allowed lodging FAR is proposed to change from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 in the CC zone
and from 1.5:1 to 2:1 in the C-1 zone. The code currently limits a lodge to the upper floors, and
with the proposed changes a lodge would be permitted on all building levels. As has been stated
by Council and many members of the public, it is not likely Aspen will see a new lodge that only
occupies a third floor. City Council has expressed interest in encouraging lodges in town, and
staff believes this change will make it more feasible for a new lodge to locate downtown.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached code amendments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2012, approving code amendments to the CC, C-
1, CL zone districts, and the allowances for rooftop heights.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS: (ONLY ATTACHMENTS IN BOLD ARE INCLUDED WITH THIS PACKET)
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed CC Zone District changes – with redlines
Exhibit C – Proposed C-1 Zone District changes – with redlines
Exhibit D – Proposed CL Zone District changes – with redlines
Exhibit E – Proposed mechanical equipment changes – with redlines
Exhibit F – Policy Resolution 82, Series 2012
Exhibit G – Building Height and Mechanical Study
Exhibit H – Public Outreach and Feedback:
H.1 – Open City Hall
H.2 – Online Survey
H.3 – Small Group Meeting Summary
H.4 – Individual email comments
H.5 – Summary of P&Z and HPC Comments
Exhibit I – Comparative Heights Study
P237
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE No. 25
(Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMNETS TO
THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE:
26.710.140 – COMMERCIAL CORE (CC); 26.710.150 – COMMERCIAL (C-1);
26.710.200(B)(1) – COMMERCIAL LODGE (CL), PERMITTED USES, USES
ALLOWED IN BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOORS; 26.575.020(F)(4)(E) –
MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHTS, ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT
LIMITATIONS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to explore code amendments related to the allowed heights and land uses in the
downtown; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach, including three small group meetings, an Open City Hall
Forum, an on-line survey, and individual letters from members of the public, to gain feedback
from the community on potential code changes to the CC and C-1 zone districts; and,
WHEREAS, the more than 200 individuals were engaged in the Public Outreach
process; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2012, the City Council
approved a Policy Resolution, Resolution 82, Series of 2012, directing staff to process code
amendments related to heights and land uses in the downtown, by a three - two (3 - 2) vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.710.140 – Commercial
Core (CC); 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1); 26.710.200(B)(1) – Commercial Lodge (CL),
Permitted Uses, Uses allowed in basement and ground floors; 26.575.020(F)(4)(e) – Measuring
Building Heights, Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations, Mechanical Equipment; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments ad finds
that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
P239
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 2 of 8
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: 26.710.140 – Commercial Core (CC), shall be amended as follows:
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use of
land for retail, service, commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use
buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central
business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable
housing, and short term vacation rental uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to
encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of
buildings while residential, lodging, and office uses are appropriate for upper floors.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core
(CC) Zone District:
1. Uses allowed on basement floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and
building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors.
2. Uses allowed on the ground floor: Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building
elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office uses are prohibited on
the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty (40) feet from a street
and recessed behind the front-most street-facing façade. This prohibition shall not apply
to split-level buildings (see definition) or properties north of Main Street, where office
uses are permitted on the ground floor. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the
ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited.
3. Uses allowed on upper floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging, timeshare
lodge, affordable multi-family housing, Vacation rentals and home occupations.
4. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood
commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses,
academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a
permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other
floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and farmers' market, provided that
a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). Lodging uses are
permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to
lodging and associated commercial uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in
Chapter 26.425:
1. Gasoline service station.
2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District:
P240
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 3 of 8
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height (feet):
a. Lodging and Commercial uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of
a building. Thirty-eight (38) feet for three-story elements of a building, which
may be increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design review. See
Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Objectives and Guidelines.
i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable
design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements
and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not
an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of
the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to
review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all properties
located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be setback a
minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line abutting such
Street.
b. All other uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building.
9. Minimum floor heights:
a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor: Thirteen (13) feet.
b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet.
c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height
of the first floor.
10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement.
11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a
total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to
compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
P241
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 4 of 8
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 2:1.
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care
center and similar uses: 2.75:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 2.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the
parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off
units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
14. Commercial/residential ratio: The total residential net livable area shall be no greater
than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs
26.710.140.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
Section 2: 26.710.150 – Commercial (C-1), shall be amended as follows:
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) Zone District is to provide for the
establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities
for affordable multi-family residential density, and to support vacation rentals of residential
dwelling units. A transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential
neighborhoods has been implemented through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as
compared to the commercial core, the ability to occupy the ground floor with offices, and a
separate chapter in the commercial design guidelines
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial (C-1)
Zone District:
1. Uses allowed on upper floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, vacation
rentals and home occupations.
2. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood
commercial uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses,
recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, bed and breakfast, accessory uses and
structures, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors,
including parking accessory to a permitted use, storage accessory to a permitted use,
farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section
15.04.350(b). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor.
Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. Lodging uses are permitted on the
basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and
associated commercial uses.
P242
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 5 of 8
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Commercial (C-1) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter
26.425:
1. Affordable multi-family housing, or home occupations on the ground floor.
2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Section 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: 3,000.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height:
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. Lodging and Commercial uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a
building. Thirty-six (36) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be
increased to thirty-eight (38) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter
P243
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 6 of 8
26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and
Guidelines.
i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable
design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements
and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not
an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of
the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject
to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all
properties located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be
setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line abutting
such Street.
c. All other uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building.
9. Minimum floor heights:
a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor height: Eleven (11) feet.
b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet.
c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height
of the first floor.
10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a
total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to
compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1.
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care
center and similar uses: 2.5:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 2:1 if the individual lodge units on the
parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
e. Bed and breakfast (as the sole use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses):
Eighty percent (80%) of allowable floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6
P244
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 7 of 8
Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not
permit additional FAR for single-family or duplex development.
13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off
units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
14. Commercial/residential ratio: The total residential net livable area shall be no greater
than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs
26.710.150.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
Section 3: 26.710.200(B)(1) – Commercial Lodge (CL), Permitted Uses, Uses allowed in
basement and ground floors, shall be amended as follows:
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Lodge (CL)
Zone District:
1. Uses allowed in basement and ground floors: Lodging uses, conference facilities, retail
and restaurant uses, office uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts,
cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, and child care
center. Uses and facilities necessary and incidental to uses on Upper Floors. Parking
shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor. Automobile drive-through service
is prohibited.
Section 4: 26.575.020(F)(4)(e) – Measuring Building Heights, Allowed Exceptions to Height
Limitations, Mechanical Equipment, shall be amended as follows:
e) Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and
similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building
may extend up to six (6) feet above height of the building at the point the
equipment is attached. This allowance is inclusive of any pad the equipment is
placed on, as well as any screening. Mechanical equipment shall be screened,
combined, and co-located to the greatest extent practicable. On structures other
than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, all
mechanical equipment shall be set back from any Street facing façade of the
building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
Section 5: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
P245
VIII.f
City Council Ord #25 of 2012
Downtown Zoning Code Amendments
Page 8 of 8
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 7: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 8:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of November, 2012, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of November, 2012.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2012.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P246
VIII.f
11.26.2012 Downtown Zoning 2nd Reading; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It amends the dimensional
standards in the CC, C-1, and CL zones, and amends the allowed height and setback of
mechanical equipment. In addition, it amends the uses permitted in these zones. These changes
are consistent with city policy and the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The stated reasons for the code amendment to update the downtown zoning code were to ensure
development is consistent with Aspen’s historic two and tree story development pattern, to
maintain commercial uses in commercial zones, and to encourage lodging development. The
code language is consistent with these reasons, and furthers general policy goals outlined in the
Aspen Area Community Plan:
The AACP calls for an examination of building heights, and includes a policy stating, “Establish
lower maximum building heights to maintain Aspen’s small town character.” (Managing
Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Policy I.6) It also calls for an examination
of commercial zone districts: “Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in (commercial)
development that reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale,
density and a diversity of heights...” (Managing Growth for Community & Economic
Sustainability Policy V.3) In addition, the AACP discusses the importance of maintaining
commercial uses in the commercial zones.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendments are to ensure new development in the CC and C-1 zone
districts respects the historic character and development pattern in the City, and well as encourage
continued vitality of the commercial uses in these zones. This is consistent with the intent of the
City’s Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P247
VIII.f
Exhibit B – CC Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B – Redline changes to 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District is to allow the use of
land for retail, service, commercial, recreation and institutional purposes within mixed-use
buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central
business core of the City. The district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable
housing, and short term vacation rental uses oriented to both local and tourist populations to
encourage a high level of vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of
buildings while residential, lodging, and office uses are appropriate for upper floors.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Core
(CC) Zone District:
1. Uses allowed on basement floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, uses and
building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors.
2. Uses allowed on the ground floor: Retail and restaurant uses and uses and building
elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office uses are prohibited on
the ground floor except within spaces set back a minimum of forty (40) feet from a street
and recessed behind the front-most street-facing façade. This prohibition shall not apply
to split-level buildings (see definition) or properties north of Main Street, where office
uses are permitted on the ground floor. Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the
ground floor. Automobile drive-through service is prohibited.
3. Uses allowed on upper floors: Retail and restaurant uses, office uses, lodging, timeshare
lodge, affordable multi-family housing, Vacation rentals and home occupations.
4. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood
commercial uses, service uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses,
academic uses, child care center, accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a
permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other
floors, including parking accessory to a permitted use, and farmers' market, provided that
a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). Lodging uses are
permitted on the basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to
lodging and associated commercial uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in
Chapter 26.425:
1. Gasoline service station.
2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Chapter 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement.
P249
VIII.f
Exhibit B – CC Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 2 of 3
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): No requirement
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height (feet):
a. Lodging and Commercial uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of
a building. Thirty-eight (38) feet for three-story elements of a building, which
may be increased to forty (40) feet through commercial design review. See
Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Objectives and Guidelines.
i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable
design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements
and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not
an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of
the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject to
review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all properties
located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be setback a
minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line such Street
b. All other uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building.
9. Minimum floor heights:
a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor: Thirteen (13) feet.
b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet.
c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height
of the first floor.
10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): No requirement.
11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a
total maximum FAR of 2.75:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to
compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 2:1.
P250
VIII.f
Exhibit B – CC Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 3 of 3
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care
center and similar uses: 2.75:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: 0.5:1, which may be increased to 2.5:1 if the individual lodge units on the
parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off
units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
14. Commercial/residential ratio: The total residential net livable area shall be no greater
than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs
26.710.140.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
(Ord. No. 56-2000, §§7 [part], 11; Ord. No. 25-2001, §5 [part]; Ord. No. 1-2002, §20 [part]; Ord.
No. 21-2002, §§5 and 6 [part]; Ord. No. 28a-2004, §2; Ord. No. 12-2006, §10; Ord. No. 11,
2007, §1; Ord. No. 27-2010, §4; Ord. No. 34-2011, §13; Ord. No.12-2012, §1)
P251
VIII.f
Exhibit C – C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit C – Redline changes to 26.710.150 Commercial (C-1).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial (C-1) Zone District is to provide for the
establishment of mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor, opportunities
for affordable multi-family residential density, and to support vacation rentals of residential
dwelling units. A transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential
neighborhoods has been implemented through a slight reduction in allowable floor area as
compared to the commercial core, the ability to occupy the ground floor with offices, and a
separate chapter in the commercial design guidelines
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial (C-1)
Zone District:
1. Uses allowed on upper floors: Lodging, affordable multi-family housing, vacation
rentals and home occupations.
2. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and restaurant uses, neighborhood
commercial uses, service uses, office uses, arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses,
recreational uses, academic uses, child care center, bed and breakfast, accessory uses and
structures, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors,
including parking accessory to a permitted use, storage accessory to a permitted use,
farmers' market, provided that a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section
15.04.350(b). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor.
Automobile drive-through service is prohibited. Lodging uses are permitted on the
basement and ground levels only when the entire building is dedicated to lodging and
associated commercial uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Commercial (C-1) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter
26.425:
1. Affordable multi-family housing, or home occupations on the ground floor.
2. Commercial parking facility, pursuant to Section 26.515.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial (C-1) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: 3,000.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
P253
VIII.f
Exhibit C – C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 2 of 3
b. All other uses: No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet):
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
7. Minimum utility/trash/recycle area: Pursuant to Section 26.575.060.
8. Maximum height:
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. Lodging and Commercial uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a
building. Thirty-six (36) feet for three-story elements of a building, which may be
increased to thirty-eight (38) feet through commercial design review. See Chapter
26.412 and the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and
Guidelines.
i. Achieving the maximum height is subject to compliance with applicable
design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity requirements
and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum height is not
an entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
ii. The footprint of all third story conditioned space shall not exceed 50% of
the gross parcel square footage. The location of the third story is subject
to review and compliance with Chapter 26.412 and the Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. For all
properties located on the south side of a Street, any third story shall be
setback a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet from the property line along
such Street.
c. All other uses: Twenty-Eight (28) feet for two-story elements of a building.
9. Minimum floor heights:
a. Minimum First Floor floor-to-floor height: Eleven (11) feet.
b. Minimum Upper Floor-to-ceiling height: Nine (9) feet.
c. Floor-to-Ceiling heights in upper floors shall be less than the floor-to-ceiling height
of the first floor.
10. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet):
P254
VIII.f
Exhibit C – C-1 Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 3 of 3
a. Bed and breakfast: Same as R-6 Zone District.
b. All other uses: No requirement.
11. Public amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
12. Floor area ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a
total maximum FAR of 2.5:1. Achieving the maximum floor area ratio is subject to
compliance with applicable design standards, view plane requirements, public amenity
requirements and other dimensional standards. Accordingly, the maximum FAR is not an
entitlement and is not achievable in all situations.
a. Commercial uses: 1.5:1.
b. Arts, cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, child care
center and similar uses: 2.5:1.
c. Affordable multi-family housing: No limitation.
d. Lodging: .5:1, which may be increased to 2:1 if the individual lodge units on the
parcel average five hundred (500) net livable square feet or less, which may be
comprised of lock-off units.
e. Bed and breakfast (as the sole use of parcel and not cumulative with other uses):
Eighty percent (80%) of allowable floor area of a same-sized lot located in the R-6
Zone District. (See R-6 Zone District.) Extinguishment of historic TDRs shall not
permit additional FAR for single-family or duplex development.
13. Maximum lodge unit size (square feet): 1,500. When units are comprised of lock-off
units, this maximum shall apply to the largest possible combination of units.
14. Commercial/residential ratio: The total residential net livable area shall be no greater
than the total above-grade floor area associated with the uses described in Subparagraphs
26.710.150.D.12.a. and b. combined on the same parcel.
(Ord. No. 56-2000, §§7 [part], 12, 15; Ord. No. 25-2001, §5 [part]; Ord. No. 1-2002, §20; Ord.
No. 28b-2004, §1; Ord. No. 12-2006, §11; Ord. No. 11, 2007, §2; Ord. No. 27-2010, §4; Ord.
No. 34-2011, §14; Ord. No. 12-2012, §2)
P255
VIII.f
Exhibit D – CL Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D – Redline changes to 26.710.200 Commercial Lodge (CL).
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Commercial Lodge (CL)
Zone District:
1. Uses allowed in basement and ground floors: Lodging uses, conference facilities, retail
and restaurant uses, office uses, neighborhood commercial uses, service uses, arts,
cultural and civic uses, public uses, recreational uses, academic uses, and child care
center. Uses and facilities necessary and incidental to uses on Upper Floors. Parking
shall not be allowed as the sole use of the ground floor.
P257
VIII.f
Exhibit E – Mechanical Downtown Zoning Changes
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit E – Redline changes to 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
F. Measuring Building Heights.
4. Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations.
e) Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and
similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building
may extend up to six (6) feet above height of the building at the point the
equipment is attached. This allowance is inclusive of any pad the equipment is
placed on, as well as any screening. Mechanical equipment shall be screened,
combined, and co-located to the greatest extent practicable. On structures other
than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, all
mechanical equipment shall be set back from any Street facing façade of the
building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
P259
VIII.f
C H A M B E R
ASPEN ( RESORT ASSOCIATION
To: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
From: Aspen Chamber Resort Association Public Affairs Committee
December 5, 2012
Re: Ordinance No. 25—CC and C-1 Zone Districts
Dear Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Members,
The Aspen Chamber Resort Association Public Affairs Committee wishes to reiterate its position in
opposition to the 28 ft. height limitations and free market residential prohibitions in the Commercial Core
and Commercial Zone Districts.
The Committee understands and shares City Council's interest in preserving and creating vitality in the
Commercial Core and Commercial Zones. However it does not believe there has been demonstrated and
substantial justification to warrant the most recent code and proposed code changes regarding heights and
free market residential prohibitions.
The Committee does not agree that third-floor free market residential units negatively impact vitality in the
commercial zones. In fact that prohibition in conjunction with the 28 foot height restriction may very well
halt revitalization of tired and deteriorating buildings, and in fact lead to the diminishment of vitality in the
area.
The Committee supports the historical height allowances that existed for many years prior to the 28 foot
limitation, and urges Council to amend the Code to reflect those historical heights and to allow third floor
free market residences. The Committee believes there are less draconian measures to support vitality in
the commercial cores.
Respectfully submitted,
ACRA Public Affairs Committee
Helen Klanderud, Chair
David Perry Warren Klug Donnie Lee
David Ressler John Sarpa Maria Morrow
Jill Teehan Paul Taddune Adam Fortier
Charlie Bantis Kenny Smith Debbie Braun
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Senior Planner Historic Preservation
THRU: Chris Bendon
DATE OF MEMO: 11/30/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: AspenModern Negotiation for Landmark Designation of 610 E.
Hyman Avenue, Second Reading, Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P261
VIII.g
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P262
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 1 of 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012, AspenModern
negotiation for historic designation of 610 E. Hyman Avenue
DATE: December 10, 2012
SUMMARY: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was
constructed for well known gallery owner
Patricia Moore in 1963. It was designed by
Ellie Brickham, who in 1951 was the first
female architect to practice in Aspen. The
offices of Charles Cunniffe Architects have
been located in the building for twenty years.
In late 2010, Charles Cunniffe proposed
voluntary designation and a building
expansion through the Ordinance #48
landmark negotiation process, which was the
City’s first effort to incentivize designation of
postwar era properties. HPC reviewed the
project twice before the application was
terminated after no significant progress. In
April 2012, the application was re-submitted
in advance of reduced height limits going into
effect in the downtown. The proposal now
falls under the AspenModern ordinance (largely similar to Ordinance #48) within which
the applicant can request special benefits.
The special benefits entailed in this application are represented in a building expansion,
which is being reviewed by HPC concurrent with the designation. The applicant has
requested approval for a 949 square foot expansion of office space and a 1,546 square
foot residential floor area increase for the expansion of an existing free market apartment.
The apartment will not exceed the maximum net livable unit size for the zone district. In
combination, the commercial floor area and the residential free market floor area will
exceed what is allowed as a total development for the site by 692 square feet. An
P263
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 2 of 10
Historic Designation
extended period of vested rights is requested to provide more flexibility on the start date
for the project.
The office expansion is on the second floor, along the alley, on top of a non-historic
garage. The free market residential addition is a new third story which is located partially
on the garage and partially on the roof of the historic building.
HPC has granted Conceptual design approval for the new construction and has provided a
recommendation that City Council pursue a negotiation for landmark designation. HPC’s
support for this action is strongly conditioned upon a requirement that the applicant
reverse certain changes that have been made to the original design of the building;
namely the restoration of arched windows on the ground floor, restoration of the
building’s original white stucco panels, and removal of an awning that covers an open air
patio on the second floor. Throughout several previous HPC meetings the applicant has
been unwilling to agree to restore the form of the ground floor windows, leading staff to
have recommended denial of the application to HPC. HPC supported the project
proceeding only with restoration. A restoration plan that meets HPC’s expectations was
submitted in November and is Exhibit F of this packet.
APPLICANT: 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe, represented by Haas Land
Planning.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004.
ADDRESS: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: C-1, Commercial.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or
object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated
quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated
according to criteria described below. At least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e must
be met:
a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a
contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed
important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and
documented in an adopted context paper;
b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local,
state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the
P264
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 3 of 10
specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context
paper;
c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents
the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer,
craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the
specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an
adopted context paper;
d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as
documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the
fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a
related field, that the property’s potential demolition or major alteration
would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city
as perceived by members of the community, and
e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given
its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public
score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and
Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion.
Staff Response: 610 E. Hyman Avenue was built in 1963 for owner Patricia Moore.
The Patricia Moore Gallery was a respected business in town for many years, and
displayed the work of many important artists on the main floor of the building. An upper
floor residential studio unit was part of the original design. Ms. Moore sold the property
in 1988.
610 E. Hyman was constructed for a woman who played an important role in the local
arts community, and it was designed by Aspen’s first woman architect. This is one of the
few Ellie Brickham buildings that remains in Aspen.
Ellie Brickham (1923-2008) moved to Aspen in 1951 after attending the University of
Colorado’s School of Architecture from 1941-1944. Construction was a family business,
and her motivation to become a designer began as a child. According to the research
paper, “Aspen’s Twentieth-Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975:”
“Early in her career, Brickham worked in Fritz Benedict’s office and collaborated
on projects with both Benedict and Bayer, participating in work going on at the
Aspen Institute. Like Benedict, she had a strong interest in passive solar
techniques. During her time in that office and, later, in her own practice out of her
home, she designed a number of residences and commercial buildings in town,
including houses for several Music Festival artists in Aspen Grove, the elegantly
simple brick Strandberg Residence (1973, 433 Bleeker Street-demolished) and the
P265
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 4 of 10
Patricia Moore Building (1962, 610 E. Hyman Avenue). In Pitkin County, she
designed numerous homes in Pitkin Green and Starwood, on Red Mountain,
including her own house (1955), with south and west walls made completely of
glass. Her works, which total at least sixty in the Aspen area, are generally
characterized by spare, simple forms and minimal detailing. Brickham’s projects
focus on an “impeccable sense of proportion and feeling of lightness,” according
to a 1977 Aspen Times article.”
The building that Ellie Brickham designed for Patricia Moore appears to have been
influenced by “New Formalism,” an architectural approach of the early 1960s which
emphasized symmetrical, smooth-skinned, flat roofed buildings with screens and grilles.
The façade of 610 E. Hyman has six attenuated brick piers that extend from the base to
the eaves and stucco arched spandrels for a more “decorated” look that reflected the
1960s evolution of modernist design. A related example is Phillip Johnson’s 1962
Lincoln Center in New York, below.
HPC presented an Honor Award to
Ellie Brickham in 2001, in
recognition of her influence on the
built environment in Aspen. The
neighborhood where this structure
was built includes several other
AspenModern related properties.
Relatively few of the noted
postwar properties are commercial
structures. It is important to
carefully consider preservation
opportunities for this small
collection of highly visible
downtown structures.
Staff finds that historic designation criteria a, c, and e are met.
The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building.
Staff’s score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Several elements of this building were
altered through previous remodels. The front entry door was originally centered on the
façade. Now there are entries on both ends of the storefront level. Originally all of the
street-facing opening were arched, but the ground floor windows have been changed to
have square transom windows. A lightwell has been added to the front façade so the
building no longer meets the sidewalk in the center, the basement office level is exposed
to view, and there are no kickplates below the windows. The stucco color has been
changed from white to a masonry color. A seasonal canopy has been added to enclose
the rooftop courtyard. These alterations have affected the integrity score for the building
and need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate package of
preservation incentives to approve for the project. Staff scored the building as a
“Better/Best” example of AspenModern, with 15 out of 20 points.
P266
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 5 of 10
ASPENMODERN NEGOTIATION:
According to Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C.1.b, the Historic Preservation
Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under
consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property’s conformance
with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not
included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also
evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets
the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section
26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of
designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good,
better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century historic resources, referencing the
scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council.
The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct
the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with
the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the
property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session,
pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council
may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by
the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or
Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits
in light of whether the property is identified as a “good, better, or best” example of
Aspen’s 20th century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded
through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be
defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood
surrounding the subject property.
The Land Use Code states that, as a further measure of the value of negotiation, the
proposal should meet the Purpose and Intent Statements of the Historic Preservation
program, which are:
§26.415.010. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare
through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas
and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural,
educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the
authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29-20-
104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical,
architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter
sets forth the procedures to:
P267
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 6 of 10
A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the
historic buildings and districts in the City;
B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage;
C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town,
early ski resort and cultural center;
D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that
support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and
E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures.
F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or
access to historic building interiors.
The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every
old building, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property
rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition
of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with
other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new
construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not
by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as
defined in historic preservation guidelines.
Staff Response: The applicant requests the following special, site specific incentives
through AspenModern negotiation, in exchange for landmark designation.
Floor area bonus
The existing residential unit is currently just below the 1,500 square feet maximum
floor area allowed for free market apartments on this property. The applicant wishes
to enlarge the unit. As a preservation benefit, a floor area increase of 1,546 square
feet is requested, making the total free market floor area 3,046 square feet. A portion
of the FAR assigned to the residential use is actually common circulation area,
garage, deck area, etc. If this benefit is approved, the combination of the commercial
floor area and the residential floor area will also exceed what is allowed as a total
development for the site by 692 square feet.
Extension of vested rights
The applicant requests extended vested rights. All projects receive an automatic three
years of vested rights, or protection from changes to Land Use regulation. The
applicant requests 10 years to allow for the start date of the project to be more
flexible.
P268
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 7 of 10
DESIGN REVIEW OUTCOMES
The applicant requests the following standard benefits offered to landmarked
properties.
Affordable housing
The new office space triggers affordable housing mitigation, however the
applicant will take advantage of a preservation benefit which is already in place
for all landmarks at Section 26.470.060.4 of the Municipal Code. The
Community Development Director can grant an exemption to affordable housing
requirements for up to 4 employees as part of the expansion of a mixed use,
landmarked building. There are no review standards that must be met for the
approval of this exemption.
If the property is not landmark designated, and mitigation were required for this
development, it would be for the equivalent of 1.725 employees, or $242,000 if
paid as cash-in-lieu.
Parking
The expansion of the free market residential unit does not trigger additional
parking requirements, but the new office space does generate the need for a
fraction of one space. A full space could theoretically be provided on-site to meet
the requirement (although it is apparently not physically possible), or the owner
could pay cash-in-lieu. HPC has recommended that the review standards of
Section 26.415.110.C of the Municipal Code are met and that no on-site parking
or cash-in-lieu payment must be required. The cash-in-lieu payment would
typically be $28,500.
Park Development Impact Fee and Transportation Demand Impact Fee
Historic Landmark properties are exempt from paying certain fees that offset the
need for the City to develop more parks or transportation systems as a result of
new development. The exemption is standard. There are no review criteria.
The proposed development would result in a waiver of approximately $12,000 in
Park Development Impact Fee and $1,400 in Transportation Demand Impact Fee.
In conducting their Conceptual Design review for the proposed building expansion, HPC
made two determinations that Council should be aware of. First, HPC allowed the rear
addition to reach a height of 38’. The maximum height limit for the zone district, under
the rules that were in place at the time of application, is 36’, which can be increased to as
much as 40’ through Commercial Design Review. HPC determined that a 38’ height was
acceptable because of the drop in elevation from the front of the property to the alley.
P269
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 8 of 10
The building already has a complex combination of floor levels, which the board
acknowledged through their approval. The proposed drawings show a height of 38’11”,
which must be amended for the Final HPC meeting.
The second important determination that HPC made is related to Utility, Delivery and
Trash Storage area. The Municipal Code requires this property to have an area parallel to
the alley dedicated to the service needs of the building. This area is to be 15 feet long
and 10 feet deep. The area cannot also be used as a parking space.
This property currently has no service area that meets the code. The applicant proposes
to maintain their existing arrangement to accept recycling items from adjacent properties,
in exchange for those properties accommodating the trash disposal needs of 610 E.
Hyman. The recycling area that 610 E. Hyman shares with others is not directly along
the alley, but apparently has easy and workable access to the alley.
HPC felt that a waiver of the requirement is allowable, if an agreement that is acceptable
to Council can be provided during the negotiation. The applicant has provided a letter
from the adjacent property owner, attached to this packet as Exhibit G.
The letter indicates that shared trash and recycling can continue, however there is no
detail about how the arrangement will work or be guaranteed into the future. Staff has
provided diagrams of the proposed arrangement. Staff recommends Council direct one of
the following:
• Require the creation of a binding, recorded agreement, to be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney’s Office, which details how the shared
arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins
that will be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to
the facilities, which waste hauler will provide services. etc. Also require a plan
for exact placement and size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E.
Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman property, to be reviewed and approved by
the Environmental Health Department. Note that if the sites dealt with their needs
individually, the Environmental Health Department would expect to see a 4 yard
dumpster and 4 recycling containers (comingled, office paper,
newspapers/magazines, and cardboard) on each site. Locating all trash storage on
one-site and all recycling on the other does not mean that half as many containers
are sufficient.
OR
• Waive the requirement for one on-site parking space (requiring cash-in-lieu
payment instead) so that one of the existing parking spaces along the alley can be
converted to a trash and recycle area that serves the needs of the 610 E. Hyman
property.
P270
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 9 of 10
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The negotiated benefits are policy matters for
Council to decide. HPC used the designation criteria, adopted context papers, and
scoring sheets to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding the importance of
the building.
During the three previous discussions of this project, HPC was focused on the importance
of restoring the front façade of the building as much as possible, given the requested
preservation incentives. Three particular actions were identified as important; restoring
the arched windows on the lower half of the front facade, removing the canopy that
currently covers the upper floor patio and restoring the original color of the stucco panels.
Community Development and HPC only support the award of the benefits that are
requested if there is a dedicated effort to return all of the character defining features of
the building within reason. It is understood that moving the entry doors back to the
center, and eliminating the lightwell are impractical. Nonetheless, on other
AspenModern projects, including Mason and Morse and Aspen Core, the applicant’s
financial commitment to restoration efforts are very substantial. Consistently high
standards for the AspenModern process are important in staff’s opinion. Historic and
current images of the building are depicted below.
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND
P271
VIII.g
Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman , AspenModern Negotation
Page 10 of 10
The 610 E. Hyman building represents Ellie Brickham as an architect and is indicative of
post-war commercial development in Aspen in the 1960s. This building, and the building
immediately west of the subject site, are the only known examples of Ms. Brickham’s
work left to preserve in Aspen.
The building meets the designation criteria in its existing condition. With designation,
some of the incentives involved in this project, such as affordable housing waiver and
development impact fee waiver, would be automatic. Other incentives, including the
floor area bonus, parking variance, height, utility/trash/storage and vested rights are all
discretionary.
An AspenModern negotiation period between the applicant and the City is limited to a 90
day duration. Council can grant extensions and has done so for this project. The current
extension expires on December 23rd. If the negotiation is not successfully completed by
that time, Council must either grant another extension or the process will expire and
development on the site will be subject to the new regulations for the C-1 zone district,
including a 28’ height limit.
Staff finds that approval of this project, with HPC’s requirement to include restoration of
the ground floor window form, is consistent with what has occurred on the four previous
AspenModern negotations related to downtown properties. The architectural integrity of
the building will be greatly enhanced. The restoration work is highly unlikely to occur
outside of this process. The building could be demolished or heavily altered in other
ways if it is not designated.
The attached ordinance includes all of the negotiation requests, to be amended by City
Council as desired.
EXHIBITS:
Ordinance #__, Series of 2012
Exhibit A: Integrity Score Sheet
Exhibit B: Draft, October 24th, 2012 HPC minutes
Exhibit C: HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2012
Exhibit D: Elevations
Exhibit E: Floor plans
Exhibit F: Restoration Plan
Exhibit G: Letter and site plans related to trash and recycling areas
P272
VIII.g
Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE #23
(Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS THROUGH
THE ASPENMODERN PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E.
HYMAN AVENUE, LOT M, BLOCK 99, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004
WHEREAS, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning, submitted
an application on March 28, 2012, pursuant to Section 26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties,
of the Aspen Municipal Code, to voluntarily participate in the AspenModern ninety-day
negotiation period for the properties located at 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and
Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended
by City Council. Council passed Resolution #53, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to
December 23, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation
period, “the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of
the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;” and
WHEREAS, the property owners’ representative met with the Historic Preservation
Commission on May 23, 2012 and October 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the HPC considered the application;
found that 610 E. Hyman Avenue is a “better/best” example of the Modern style in Aspen
evaluated the designation and proposed development; and, found that the policy objectives for
the historic preservation program stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent are met, and
recommended City Council (“Council”) approval of Historic Landmark Designation and
negotiation with conditions; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, “council
may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community
Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to
reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property”; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that “as part of the mutually acceptable
agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee
waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another
Board or Commission, including variations;” and
P273
VIII.g
Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, in addition to Historic Landmark Designation and benefits available to all
Landmarked properties subject to the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant has identified
preservation incentives that are requested as part of the AspenModern negotiation process; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application
for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met, with conditions. The
staff report analyzed the proposed preservation incentives and monetary value of the benefits
where possible; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99,
City and Townsite of Aspen subject to the conditions described herein.
Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records
of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the
historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of
the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department.
Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves the following preservation benefits, with the condition that the
applicant is required to restore the building as represented in Exhibit F of the December 10, 2012
Council packet.
1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free
market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and
the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development
for the site by 692 square feet,
2. 10 years vested rights, and
3. Waiver of the requirement for one of the existing on-site parking spaces, to be converted
to a Utility/Trash/Recycling area as required by the Land Use Code. The applicant shall
pay a cash-in-lieu fee of $30,000 at the time of building permit.
P274
VIII.g
Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation
Page 3 of 5
(ALTERNATIVE TO SECTION 2.3, ABOVE)
Section 3: Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage Area
The applicant has received a waiver of the on-site requirement based on a satisfactory written
agreement to share Recycling and Trash Storage area amongst adjacent property owner(s) on
Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen with the condition that there is a binding, recorded
agreement, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office, which details how the
shared arrangement will function, including the size and type of trash and recycling bins that will
be provided, how users of both buildings will have unlimited access to the facilities, which waste
hauler will provide services. In addition, there shall be a plan provided for exact placement and
size of trash and recycling containers for both the 610 E. Hyman property and the 616 E. Hyman
property, to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department.
Section 4: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a
vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the
Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said
property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any
approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for ten
(10) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set
forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted
or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as
specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result
in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within
the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific
development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of
the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights.
Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such notice shall be substantially in the
following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
ten (10) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 610 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City
of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance.
P275
VIII.g
Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation
Page 4 of 5
The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review.
The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate
this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of
vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development
approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than
those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 5: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 6: Litigation
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 7: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 8: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of December, 2012 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 12th day of November, 2012.
_______________________
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
P276
VIII.g
Ordinance #23, Series of 2012
610 E. Hyman, AspenModern Negotation
Page 5 of 5
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2012.
_______________________
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P277
VIII.g
P279
VIII.g
P280
VIII.g
P281
VIII.g
P282
VIII.g
P283
VIII.g
P284
VIII.g
P285
VIII.g
P286
VIII.g
RECEPTION#: 593974, 11/1512012 at
10:21:43 AM,
1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE HISTORIC LANDMARK
DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS THROUGH THE ASPENMODERN
PROGRAM FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 610 E. HYMAN AVENUE,LOT M,
BLOCK 999 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND GRANTINGCONCEPTUALMAJORDEVELOPMENTANDCOMMERCIALDESIGNREVIEW
APPROVAL
RESOLUTION #279 SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-004
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, the applicant, 610 E. Hyman LLC, Charles Cunniffe,
represented by Haas Land Planning, requested that the property located at 610 E. HymanAvenue, Lot M, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, be considered for voluntary
historic designation in exchange for specific benefits through the AspenModern negotiation
process as described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation period ends 90 days after initiation unless extended
by City Council. Council passed Resolution 453, Series of 2012 to extend this negotiation to
December 23, 2012; and
WHEREAS, an AspenModern negotiation requires that the Historic Preservation Commission,
using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, provideCouncilwithanassessmentoftheproperty's conformance with the designation criteria of
Section 26.415.030.C.I- When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are
requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any
development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic
preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional
measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the
subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's
20th century historic resources,
referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council; and
WHEREAS, concurrent with the designation application, Conceptual Major Development and
Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval was requested for an expansion to the subject
building; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving adesignatedhistoricpropertyordistrictuntilplansorsufficientinformationhavebeensubmitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen
ah Code and other
Preservation
appl able CodeSeSections.peThe HPC
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal
610 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern
HPC Resolution#27, Series of 2012
P287
VIII.g
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines per
Section 26.412.040 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with
conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a
decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a parking waiver, which HPC may grant
according to the review standards of Section 26.415.110.C, Benefits, of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed expansion project includes a reduction to the required
Utility/Delivery and Trash Storage area, which HPC may grant based on the review standards of
Section 26.430, Special Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed redevelopment includes a height increase, which HPC may grant
according to the review standards of Section 26.412, Commercial Design Review, of the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 24, 2012, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the
property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity
score qualifies as the "better/best" category of historic resources. Staff recommended that the
proposed incentives were not appropriate within the AspenModern program due to lack of
adequate restoration work, and the project did not meet review standards related to Conceptual
Design Review. Staff recommended denial of the project; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 24, 2012, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and
recommendation, and public comments, and recommended Council pursue negotiation for
landmark designation for this "better/best" example of an AspenModern resource, with
conditions. HPC approved Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design
with conditions. The vote of the members was 3 to 1.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
Block 99, CityThatHPCherebyfindsthatthepropertylocatedat610E. Hyman Avenue,Lot M,
and Townsite of Aspen, meets the designation criteria of Land Use Code Section
26.415.030.C.1. HPC supports Council negotiation for voluntary designation of this property
only with the condition that the applicant is required to restore the original arched form of the
ground floor windows. This restoration work is considered necessary to support a package of
preservation incentives which include the following:
1. A free market residential floor area increase of 1,546 square feet, making the total free
market floor area 3,046 square feet. The combination of the commercial floor area and
610 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern
HPC Resolution#27, Series of 2012
P288
VIII.g
the residential free market floor area will exceed what is allowed as a total development
for the site by 692 square feet.
2. 10 years vested rights.
3. Growth Management affordable housing mitigation waiver for the 1.725 employees
generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver is
available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks)
4. On-site parking waiver, and waiver of cash-in-lieu fee for the required 0.95 parking
spaces generated by the proposed 949 square feet of new net leasable space. (This waiver
is available in the Municipal Code for all historic landmarks)
5. Park Development and Transportation Demand Management mitigation fees generated
by residential and commercial expansion. (This waiver is available in the Municipal Code
for all historic landmarks)
HPC hereby grants Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review
approval with the following conditions:
1. HPC approves a full waiver of the required on-site Utility, Delivery and Trash Storage
Area with the condition that the applicant provides City Council with an acceptable
written agreement for shared Trash Storage area amongst adjacent property owner(s) on
Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen.
2. The applicant must restudy the design of the new addition so the project does not exceed
a maximum height of 38'.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of October,
2012.
Vay a Vicc
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Strick and, iefeputy Clerk
610 E. Hyman Avenue—AspenModern
HPC Resolution#27, Series of 2012
P289
VIII.g
P291
VIII.g
P292
VIII.g
P293
VIII.g
P295
VIII.g
P297
VIII.g
P298
VIII.g
P299
VIII.g
P300
VIII.g
P301
VIII.g
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 12/3/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Code Amendment - Accessory Dwelling Units and Growth
Management
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P303
VIII.h
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P304
VIII.h
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Code Amendment: Accessory Dwelling Units and Growth Management
2nd Reading Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2012
DATE: December 10, 2012
SUMMARY:
The City Council recently provided direction to amend the Accessory Dwelling Unit program and
the manner in which ADUs can be accepted as mitigation for housing impacts. The objective is to
amend the mitigation options to those that provide actual housing commensurate with the impact
being mitigated. Because ADUs do not require occupancy, the impact of new development is not
being mitigated by the production of ADUs. Restricting mitigation options to those more directly
tied to actual housing will offset the actual impacts of residential redevelopment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends consideration of the proposed ordinance and continuation of the public
hearing to January 28th. This schedule will align with consideration of the revised fee-in-lieu
project being pursued by APCHA.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review an ordinance amending the Accessory Dwelling Unit program and the
Growth Management Chapter. All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is
the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
SUMMARY:
The City requires the redevelopment (“scrape-and-replace”) of single-family and duplex properties
to provide housing mitigation. Because these projects are replacement of existing development, the
mitigation requirements are lower than for new development.
Options for these projects include providing an off-site unit, payment of a cash-in-lieu, providing an
AH Certificate, or building an ADU on the property. An ADU is an accessory dwelling unit that
must be separate from the main house and may only be rented to a local worker. An ADU does not
provide any other benefit to a property and “counts” in floor area. The ADU and cash-in-lieu
options are highly preferred over other options.
There are approximately 150 to 200 ADUs, most of which were built as a result of this mitigation
requirement. Occupancy of these units is estimated to vary between 20 and 30 percent, much lower
than desired by many. However, because the mitigation requirements are based on the net
P305
VIII.h
expansion, the actual occupancy in ADUs may still exceed that which would have been achieved
through the cash or certificate options.
The proposed ordinance will eliminate voluntary-occupancy ADUs as a mitigation option.
Remaining options would be cash-in-lieu or the certificate program. Also remaining would be the
development of an ADU which is deed-restricted and sold through the APCHA sales program.
Voluntary-occupancy ADUs could still be built, but would not longer provide a property with a
mitigation credit.
Staff is proposing mitigation requirements for single-family and duplex development to be based on
a 30% inclusionary requirement. The City has traditionally used an inclusionary requirement for
new residential development (60% of new units within a subdivision must be affordable). The City
has also used an inclusionary requirement for mixed-use projects (affordable housing floor area
must be 30% of new free-market floor area). An inclusionary system is highly preferred for
establishing residential mitigation requirements. The alternative would be a “linkage” requirement
based on the number of employees generated by a residence. Linkage programs work well for
commercial development but not for residential; determining the number of employees generated by
a residence requires very complex (expensive) studies and is more susceptible to challenge.
A 30% inclusionary requirement will mimic the existing requirement for mixed-use development –
affordable floor area must be 30% of new free-market floor area. Below is a comparison of this
proposal using today’s cash-in-lieu rates and the proposed rates for a 600 square-foot expansion of
an existing home:
Current requirement of $76.93 per square foot of additional floor area.
600 s.f. x $76.93 per s.f. = $46,158.
Proposed 30% requirement using revised APCHA rates
600 s.f x 30% x $709 per s.f. = $127,620.
For projects with larger expansions, some of the other mitigation options may be more attractive.
The ‘buy-down’ of an existing free-market residence to affordable rates may be more cost-effective
for some applicants. The development of a fully deed-restricted for sale ADU may also be a viable
option. Staff is proposing the following options for mitigation.
Single-family. In order to qualify for approval, the applicant shall have five options:
a. Recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit.
b. Providing an above-grade, one-bedroom or larger detached accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) or a carriage house meeting or exceeding the minimum net livable square footage
requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and meeting the standards of
Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The unit must be deed-
restricted as a "for sale" Category 3 (or lower) housing unit and transferred to a qualified
purchaser according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
c. Providing a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable housing unit within the
Aspen Infill Area acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The unit must
be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 3 (or lower) housing unit and transferred to a
qualified purchaser according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
d. Providing and extinguishing a Category 3 (or lower) Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit in a full-time-equivalent (FTE) amount equal to 30% of the net increase in Floor
P306
VIII.h
Area divided by 400 square feet per FTE. Certificates must be extinguished pursuant to
the procedures of Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
For example: An existing home is expanded by 600 square feet of Floor Area. 600
s.f. x 30% / 400 s.f. per FTE = .45 FTEs credit to be extinguished.
e. Providing an affordable housing fee-in-lieu payment equal to 30% of the net increase in
Floor Area multiplied by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines Category
3 rate for square footage of affordable housing, as amended from time to time.
For example: An existing home is expanded by 600 square feet of Floor Area. 600
s.f. x 30% x $709/s.f. = $127,620 fee-in-lieu payment.
The above figures obviously represent a significant increase from the current fee system. Following
are a few options for Council’s consideration:
A. Adopt the 30% inclusionary requirement with the new APCHA rate. Argument: This does
represent a significant increase in fees but the fee more accurately represents the actual costs
of developing affordable housing. Continuing to allow under-mitigation is a development
subsidy and continued disservice to the affordable housing program. The 30% requirement
is currently in effect for other types of residential development and represents a community
expectation for development going forward.
B. Adopt a 30% inclusionary requirement with a delayed effective date. Argument: The
mitigation rates need to reflect the reality of providing affordable housing. But, the new
reality can be delayed to allow the development community to adjust to the new fee.
Projects already in an initial planning stage could still go forward with old fees and applicant
could manage progress towards a deadline.
C. Adopt an 11% requirement that slowly increases to 30%. Argument: Similar to the delayed
effective date, the development community can adjust to fees that adjust upward on a
monthly or quarterly basis. The new fee is eventually achieved in a more gradual way and
with multiple ‘deadlines’ that can be managed.
D. Adopt a 15% inclusionary requirement with the new APCHA rates. Argument: Significant
fee increases may stifle some development while a more-moderate increase may be more
palatable. Mimicking the current fee amounts represents an 11% inclusionary requirement.
Adopting a 15% requirement represents a tolerable increase. The percentage requirement
can always be revised in the future.
E. Adopt an 11% inclusionary requirement with the new APCHA rates. Argument: Any
increase in fees represents a burden on new development. This isn’t the time for raising
fees. By adopting an 11% requirement we match existing rates and we can always revisit
the rate during better economic times.
F. Adopt a lower-than-current rate or discontinue the code amendment. Argument: We should
lower or eliminate fees to spur development activity.
G. “Increase” the category for mitigation from Category 3 to Category 4. Argument: This
would lower the financial burden on development. A 15% rate at Category 4 is a near
duplicate of today’s fee schedule. Following are examples for 30% mitigation and 15%
mitigation:
600 s.f x 30% x $513 per s.f. = $92,340.
600 s.f x 15% x $513 per s.f. = $46,170.
P307
VIII.h
The proposed ordinance also provides a mechanism to remove existing ADU deed restrictions.
The existing ADU inventory does have a considerable (maybe not optimal) role in the overall
housing inventory. While occupancy is low, simply eliminating existing ADUs will have a
detrimental effect on the housing stock. A typical ADU is either a studio or a one-bedroom unit.
On average, this type of unit houses 1.5 FTEs, assuming full-time occupancy. At the observed 25%
rate of occupancy, a typical ADU houses .38 FTEs. The ordinance includes an administrative
process for vacating existing deed restrictions with a fee-in-lieu or certificate mitigation at this .38
FTE amount. Removing an ADU from a property would continue to be at the option of the
property owner.
Lastly, this ordinance amends the Growth Management requirements for expanding existing
single-family and duplex development. The current system requires mitigation only upon
demolition. The exactness needed and the monitoring of quasi-demolition projects presents an
administrative burden. Staff believes the housing impacts to the community are experienced
regardless of the process of construction. The ordinance includes a system that requires mitigation
upon an expansion of Floor Area, independent of whether demolition occurs as part of the
construction process. This would bring the housing impacts section of the Land Use Code into
alignment with how all other impact mitigation is treated in the City – based on net expansion, not
development technique.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council consider this ordinance, receive public comments, and continue the
hearing to January 28th to align with the schedule for APCHA fee-in-lieu changes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to continue Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2012, to January 28th.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
P308
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 1
ORDINANCE No. 34
(Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMNETS TO
CHAPTER 26.520 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE – ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS, AND CHAPTER 26.470 – GROWTH MANAGEMENT
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to explore code amendments related to the Accessory Dwelling Unit program and
impact mitigation policies of the City’s Growth Management system; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach, including review with members of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and review with members of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority;
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 12, 2012, the City
Council approved a Policy Resolution, Resolution 105, Series of 2012, directing staff to process
code amendments related to the Accessory Dwelling Unit program and certain Growth
Management mitigation policies; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapters 26.520 and 26.470 as
described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments ad finds
that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Chapter 26.520 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, which section defines the
allowances and limitations for developing Accessory Dwelling Units, shall read as follows:
P309
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 2
26.520
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND CARRIAGE HOUSES
Sections:
26.520.010 Purpose
26.520.020 General
26.520.030 Authority
26.520.040 Applicability
26.520.050 Design standards
26.520.060 Calculations and measurements
26.520.070 Deed restrictions and enforcement
26.520.080 Procedure
26.520.090 Amendment of an ADU or carriage house development order
26.520.010 Purpose
The purpose of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and carriage house program is to promote the
long-standing community goal of socially, economically and environmentally responsible
development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community. Aspen values
balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working residents and part-time
residents. ADUs and carriage houses represent viable housing opportunities for working
residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community without their housing
being easily identifiable as "employee housing."
ADUs and carriage houses support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within
the City and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's
character. ADUs and carriage houses allow second homeowners the opportunity to hire an on-
site caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing
opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an environmentally
preferred land use pattern, which reduces automobile reliance.
Detached ADUs and carriage houses emulate an historic development pattern and maximize the
privacy and livability of both the ADU or carriage houses and the primary unit. Detached ADUs
and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a
community goal of housing the workforce.
(Ord. No. 53-2003, §2)
26.520.020 General
Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses are separate dwelling units incidental and
subordinate in size and character to the primary residence and located on the same parcel. A
primary residence may have no more than one (1) ADU or carriage house. An ADU or carriage
house may not be accessory to another ADU or carriage house. A detached ADU or carriage
house may only be conveyed separate from the primary residence as a "for sale" affordable
housing unit to a qualified purchaser pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. ADUs and carriage houses shall not be considered units of density with
regard to zoning requirements. ADUs and carriage houses shall not be used to satisfy employee
P310
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 3
housing requirements of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). All ADUs and
carriage houses shall be developed in conformance with this Chapter.
(Ord. No. 53-2003, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §31)
26.520.030 Authority
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and
limitations of this Chapter and the Common development review procedures, Chapter 26.304,
shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove a land use application for an accessory
dwelling unit or carriage house.
An appeal of the Community Development Director's determination shall be considered by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and approved, approved with conditions or disapproved,
pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special review.
A land use application requesting a variation of the ADU or carriage house design standards
shall be approved, approved with conditions or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special review.
If the land use application requesting a variation of the ADU or carriage house design standards
is part of a consolidated application process, authorized by the Community Development
Director, requiring consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic
Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the variation,
pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review.
(Ord No. 53-2003, § 2)
26.520.040 Applicability
This Chapter applies to all properties located in Zone Districts permitting an accessory dwelling
unit or carriage house as specified in Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, and to all properties
containing an accessory dwelling unit approved or developed prior to the adoption of Ordinance
No. ___, Series of 2012.
26.520.050 Design standards
All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise
approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special review:
1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net livable
square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area. A carriage
house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two hundred (1,200)
net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area.
2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This
includes the following:
a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior. An
interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to special
review;
P311
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 4
b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shared services;
c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven,
a stove with two (2) burners, a sink and a refrigerator with a minimum of six (6) cubic
feet of capacity and a freezer; and
d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a
sink, a toilet and a shower.
3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site and shall
remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident. The parking
space shall not be stacked with a space for the primary residence.
4. The finished floor heights of the ADU or carriage house shall be entirely above the
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, on all sides of the structure.
5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An ADU or
carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area shall qualify as a detached
ADU or carriage house. No other connections to the primary residence or portions
thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached.
6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the
Zone District in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an ADU
or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing
snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this
Title which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not
limited to, the International Building Code requirements related to adequate natural light,
ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound attenuation between living units. This
standard may not be varied.
9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the
property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed restrictions
and enforcement. This standard may not be varied.
(Ord. 53-2003, § 2)
26.520.060 Calculations and measurements
A. Floor area. ADUs and carriage houses are attributed to the maximum allowable floor area
for the given property on which they are developed, pursuant to Section 26.575.020, Calculations
and measurements.
B. Net livable square footage. ADUs and carriage houses must contain certain net livable floor
area, unless varied through Special Review. The calculation of net livable area differs slightly from
the calculation of floor area inasmuch as it measures the interior dimensions of the unit. (See
Section 26.575.020 – Calculations and Measurements.)
P312
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 5
(Ord. No. 53-2003, § 2)
26.520.070 Deed restrictions and enforcement
A. Post Ordinance No 34, 2012, Units. ADUs and Carriage Houses developed after the
adoption of Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012, shall not require a deed restriction. Occupancy and
use of the unit shall be at the owner’s discretion.
B. Pre Ordinance No 34, 2012, Units. ADUs and Carriage Houses developed prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012, shall continue to be deed restricted in the following
manner:
1. Registration. The ADU or carriage house shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
2. Occupancy. The occupant of an ADU or carriage house shall be qualified as a local
working resident according to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. Occupancy of the unit is at the owner’s discretion.
3. Lease Period. The ADU or carriage house shall be restricted to lease periods of no less
than six (6) months in duration or as otherwise required by the current Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing
Authority.
C. “For-Sale Units. A detached and permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit or
Carriage House qualifying a property for a floor area exemption, pursuant to Section 26.575.020
– Calculations and Measurements, shall be deed restricted as a "for sale" affordable housing unit
and conveyed to a qualified purchaser, according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended and according to the following sales price limitations:
1. Accessory dwelling units from 300 to 500 net livable square feet – Category 3, or lower.
2. Accessory dwelling units from 501 to 800 net livable square feet – Category 4, or lower.
3. Carriage houses from 800 to 1,000 net livable square feet – Category 5, or lower.
4. Carriage houses from 1,001 to 1,200 net livable square feet – Category 6, or lower.
Category sales prices shall be those specified in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. The initial developer may select the first qualified purchaser of the unit.
Subsequent conveyances shall be according to the lottery sales procedures specified in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
D. Mandatory Occupancy Units. Accessory dwelling units deed restricted to mandatory
occupancy in exchange for a floor area bonus, prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 46, Series
of 2001, shall be continuously occupied by a local working resident, as defined by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods of six (6) months or greater, unless the
owner is granted approval to remove that restriction pursuant to Subsection 26.520.090.A,
Insubstantial amendments.
P313
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 6
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for recording
accessory dwelling unit or carriage house deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be
recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a building permit may
be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation shall be noted in the building
permit plans for an ADU or carriage house.
E. Enforcement. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or its designee, shall enforce the
recorded deed restriction between the property owner and Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
(Ord. No. 53-2003, § 2)
26.520.080 Procedure
A. General. Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, Pre-Application Conference, applicants are
encouraged to meet with a City Planner of the Community Development Department to clarify
the requirements of the ADU and carriage house program.
A development application for an ADU or carriage house shall include the requisite information
and materials, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, Application and fees. In addition, the application
shall include scaled floor plans and elevations for the proposed ADU or carriage house. The
application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or prior to the
adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999 and which complies with the requirements of this
Section may be legalized as an accessory dwelling unit, if it shall meet the health and safety
requirements of the International Building Code, as determined by the Chief Building Official.
No retroactive penalties or assessments shall be levied against any bandit unit upon legalization.
After a development order has been issued for an ADU or carriage house, a building permit
application may be submitted in conformance with Section 26.304.075, Building permit.
B. Administrative review. In order to obtain a development order for an ADU or carriage
house, the Community Development Director shall find the ADU or carriage house in
conformance with the criteria for administrative approval. If an application is found to be
inconsistent with these criteria, in whole or in part, the applicant may either amend the
application, apply for a special review to vary the design standards or apply for an appeal of the
Director's finding pursuant to Subsection C, below.
An application for an ADU or carriage house may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria:
1. The proposed accessory dwelling unit or carriage house meets the requirements of
Section 26.520.050, Design standards.
2. The applicable deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit or carriage house has been
accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the deed restriction is
recorded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
P314
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 7
C. Appeal of Director's determination. An appeal of a determination made by the Community
Development Director shall be reviewed as a special review pursuant to Subsection D, below. In
this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall be forwarded as a
recommendation and a new application need not be filed.
D. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU and carriage house
design standards or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director,
shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review
procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public
hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Subparagraphs
26.304.060.E.3.(a), (b and c).
Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on
the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or within an Historic Overlay District and the
application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Chapter 26.304, the Historic
Preservation Commission shall consider the special review.
A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the
purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone
District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability.
2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate
in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration,
landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property.
E. Inspection and acceptance. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for an ADU or
carriage house, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the Chief Building Official, shall
inspect the ADU or carriage house for compliance with the design standards. Any unapproved
variations from these standards shall be remedied or approved pursuant to this Chapter prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of compliance.
(Ord. 53-2003, § 2)
26.520.090 Amendments
A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to a built or approved to be built
Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House may be authorized by the Community Development
Director if:
1. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or does not
exceed approved variations to the design standards; and,
2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or carriage house or the
alteration to the deed restriction has been approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
P315
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 8
B. Removal of a Voluntary-Occupancy Deed Restriction. An amendment application that
proposes to remove a voluntary occupancy ADU deed restriction placed on the property may be
approved by the Community Development Director if all of the following criteria are met:
1. The applicant shall either:
a. Extinguish a Category 3 (or lower) Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for
.38 full-time-equivalents (FTEs). Certificates must be extinguished pursuant to
the procedures of Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
b. Provide an affordable housing fee-in-lieu payment equal to .38 Category 3
employees according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines,
as amended from time to time.
2. Once this has been accomplished, a release of deed restriction, acceptable to the City
Attorney, shall be completed and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
3. The land owner shall have the option of maintaining the Accessory Dwelling Unit or
making the physical changes necessary to remove the unit, pursuant to subsection D,
below.
C. Removal of Mandatory-Occupancy Deed Restriction. An amendment application that
proposes to remove a mandatory occupancy ADU deed restriction placed on the property may be
approved by the Community Development Director if all of the following criteria are met:
1. The applicant shall either:
a. Provide a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable housing unit within
the Aspen Infill Area acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
The unit must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 3 (or lower) housing unit
and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
b. Extinguish a Category 3 (or lower) Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for
1.5 full-time-equivalents (FTEs). Certificates must be extinguished pursuant to
the procedures of Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
c. Provide an affordable housing fee-in-lieu payment equal to 1.5 Category 3
employees according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines,
as amended from time to time.
2. Once this has been accomplished, a release of deed restriction, acceptable to the City
Attorney, shall be completed and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
3. The land owner shall have the option of maintaining an Accessory Dwelling Unit or
making the physical changes necessary to remove the unit, pursuant to subsection D,
below. The structure granted the bonus floor area shall be considered a legally
created nonconforming structure and subject to the provisions of Chapter 26.312.
D. Removing an ADU or Carriage House. An amendment application that proposes to
physically remove an ADU or Carriage House from a property may be approved by the
Community Development Director if all of the following criteria are met.
a. The unit is not subject to an occupancy deed restriction or has applied to conform
to options for removing an occupancy deed restriction, as described above.
P316
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 9
b. The physical changes necessary to remove or decommission the ADU or Carriage
House shall be performed pursuant to an approved building permit.
E. Other Amendment. All other amendments to an approved development order for an
accessory dwelling unit or carriage house shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and
procedures of this Chapter.
(Ord. No. 44-1999, §1; Ord. No. 46-2001, §1 (part); Ord. No. 47-2001, §2; Ord. No. 1-2002,
§15; Ord. No. 27-2002, §22; Ord. No. 53, 2003, §2; Ord. No. 12-2006, §18)
Section 2: Section 26.470.040 – Exempt Development – of the City of Aspen Land Use Code,
which section defines the procedures and requirements for certain types of development which
are exempt from the limitations of the City’s Growth Management system, shall read as follows:
26.470.040. Exempt development.
The following types of development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter.
Development exempt from growth management shall not be considered exempt from other
chapters of the Land Use Code, and property owners should consult with the Community
Development Department. Where applicable, exemptions are cumulative.
1. Remodeling of existing single-family and duplex residential development. The
remodeling of existing single-family and duplex residential properties shall be exempt from
growth management provided that no additional Floor Area is added to the property. When an
expansion of Floor Area occurs, see Section 26.470.060, subsections 1 and 2.
2. Conversion of an existing single-family residence to a duplex residence or vise-versa.
The conversion of an existing single-family residence into multiple detached dwelling units or
into a duplex residence, or vise-versa, shall be exempt from growth management provided that
no additional Floor Area is added to the property. When an expansion of Floor Area occurs, see
Section 26.470.060, subsections 1 and 2. (Note: Not all zone districts allow both single-family
and duplex development. See Zone Districts, Chapter 26.710.)
In zone districts permitting the development of a single-family, a duplex or two (2) single-family
residences, one (1) development allotment may be expressed as a single-family, a duplex or two
(2) single-family residences. The parcel shall have only one (1) development right regardless of
the way in which it has been or is proposed to be developed. The parcel may be
condominiumized to separate ownership. In order to subdivide the parcel, additional
development rights must be obtained.
[no changes to 26.470.040 subsections 3-11]
Section 3: Section 26.470.060 – Administrative Applications – of the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, which section defines the procedures and requirements for certain types of development
which are subject to administrative review and the requirements of the City’s Growth
Management system, shall read as follows:
P317
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 10
26.470.060. Administrative applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth management
review procedures, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as
noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of
Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, all administrative growth management approvals shall be
deducted from the respective development ceiling levels but shall not be deducted from the
annual development allotments. Administrative approvals apply cumulatively.
1. Single-family and duplex development on historic landmark properties. The
development of one (1) or multiple single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land
designated as an historic landmark and which contains an historic resource shall be approved by
the Community Development Director. This review applies to the rehabilitation of existing
structures, reconstruction after demolition of existing structures, an expansion of Floor Area, and
to the development of new structures on historic landmark properties. No affordable housing
mitigation shall be required, provided that all necessary approvals are obtained, pursuant to
Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, and provided that the parcel contains an historic resource.
Development of single-family or duplex structures on an historic landmark property that does not
contain an historic resource (for example, a house on a lot which was subdivided from an historic
landmark property) shall be subject to the provisions of Section 26.470.060.2, Single-family and
duplex dwelling development.
2. Single-family and duplex development. The following types of development of single-
family or duplex structures shall require the provision of affordable housing in one (1) of the
methods described in subparagraph c:
a. The development of a single-family, multiple detached residential units when permitted
in the zone district, or a duplex dwelling on a lot in one (1) of the following conditions:
1) A lot created by a lot split, pursuant to Subsection 26.480.060.C.
2) A lot created by an historic lot split, pursuant to Paragraph 26.480.030.A.4, when the
subject lot does not itself contain an historic resource.
3) A lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14,
1977, that complies with the provisions of Subsection 26.480.020.E, Aspen Townsite
lots.
The development of a new residential unit on a vacant lot shall be deducted from the
development ceiling levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030, but shall not be
deducted from the respective annual development allotments for residential development.
b. The expansion of Floor Area of an existing single-family, multiple detached residential
units when permitted in the zone district, or a duplex dwelling, regardless of when the lot
was subdivided or legally described and regardless of whether demolition occurs. This
type of development shall not require a growth management allocation and shall not be
deducted from the respective annual development allotments or development ceiling
levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.
P318
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 11
c. Affordable housing requirements for the types of single-family and duplex development
described above shall be as follows:
1. Single-family. In order to qualify for approval, the applicant shall have five options:
a. Recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family
dwelling unit.
b. Providing an above-grade, one-bedroom or larger detached accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) or a carriage house meeting or exceeding the minimum net livable
square footage requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and
meeting the standards of Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses. The unit must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 3 (or lower)
housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions
of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
c. Providing a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable housing unit within
the Aspen Infill Area acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
The unit must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 3 (or lower) housing unit
and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
d. Providing and extinguishing a Category 3 (or lower) Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit in a full-time-equivalent (FTE) amount equal to 30% of the net
increase in Floor Area divided by 400 square feet per FTE. Certificates must be
extinguished pursuant to the procedures of Chapter 26.540, Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit.
For example: An existing home is expanded by 600 square feet of Floor Area.
600 s.f. x 30% / 400 s.f. per FTE = .45 FTEs credit to be extinguished.
e. Providing an affordable housing fee-in-lieu payment equal to 30% of the net
increase in Floor Area multiplied by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines Category 3 rate for square footage of affordable housing, as amended
from time to time.
For example: An existing home is expanded by 600 square feet of Floor Area.
600 s.f. x 30% x $709/s.f. = $127,620 fee-in-lieu payment.
2. Duplex or two single-family units on one parcel. In order to qualify for approval,
the applicant shall have five options:
a. Recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on one of the dwelling
units.
b. Providing an above-grade, one-bedroom or larger detached accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) or a carriage house meeting or exceeding the minimum net livable
square footage requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and
meeting the standards of Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses. The unit must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 3 (or lower)
housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions
of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
c. Providing a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable housing unit within
the Aspen Infill Area acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
The unit must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 3 (or lower) housing unit
P319
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 12
and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
d. Providing and extinguishing a Category 3 (or lower) Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit in a full-time-equivalent (FTE) amount equal to 30% of the net
increase in Floor Area divided by 400 square feet per FTE. Certificates must be
extinguished pursuant to the procedures of Chapter 26.540, Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit.
For example: An existing duplex is expanded by 600 square feet of Floor
Area. 600 s.f. x 30% / 400 s.f. per FTE = .45 FTEs credit to be extinguished.
e. Providing an affordable housing fee-in-lieu payment equal to 30% of the net
increase in Floor Area multiplied by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines Category 3 rate for square footage of affordable housing, as amended
from time to time.
For example: An existing duplex is expanded by 600 square feet of Floor
Area. 600 s.f. x 30% x $709/s.f. = $127,620 fee-in-lieu payment.
[no changes to Section 26.470.060, subsections 3-7]
Section 4: Section 26.470.080 – Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications – of the
City of Aspen Land Use Code, which section defines the procedures and requirements for certain
types of development subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review and the requirements
of the City’s Growth Management system, shall read as follows:
26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for review,
above and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all
growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of
Section26.470.050 above. Except as noted, all Planning and Zoning Commission growth
management approvals shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments and
development ceiling levels.
[no changes to Section 26.470.080, subsections 1- 3]
4. Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a
residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum
of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area
is affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and
Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total additional units and thirty percent (30%)
of the project's additional floor area shall be affordable housing. Multi-site projects are
P320
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 13
permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and shall average Category 3 rates as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.
b. If the project consists of only one free-market residence, a duplex, or two detached
residences on one lot (where permitted by zoning), then the requirements of
26.470.060.2.c, shall apply.
5. Residential development – seventy percent (70%) affordable. The development of a
residential project or an addition to an existing residential project, in which seventy percent
(70%) of the project's additional units and seventy percent (70%) of the project's additional
bedrooms are affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. Seventy percent (70%) of the total additional units and total additional bedrooms shall be
affordable housing. At least forty percent (40%) of the units shall average Category 3
rates as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
remaining thirty-percent affordable housing unit requirement may be provided as
Resident Occupied (RO) units as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. Multi-site projects are permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be
approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.
b. If the project consists of one (1) free-market residence, then the provision of one (1) RO
residence and one (1) category residence shall be considered meeting the seventy-percent
unit standard. If the project consists of two (2) free-market residences, then the provision
of two (2) RO residences and two (2) category residences shall qualify.
(Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
Section 5: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 7: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
P321
VIII.h
Ordinance No. 34, Series 2012 | page 14
Section 8: Notice of Public Hearing.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of December, 2012, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of
November, 2012.
ATTEST:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____________day of ______________, 2012.
ATTEST:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R True, City Attorney
P322
VIII.h
Code Amendment: ADU Program, Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the Accessory Dwelling Units Program.
The existing ADUs have a relatively low occupancy and other types of mitigation are more
likely to offset the actual impacts of development. Staff believes enabling mitigation options
that result in higher occupancy of affordable housing is in the interests of the community and is
in alignment with the purpose of Title 26. Staff finds this criterion met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The stated objective is to reduce mitigation options to those that provide actual housing
commensurate with the impact being mitigated. Because ADUs do not require occupancy, the
impact of new development is not being mitigated by the production of ADUs. Restricting
mitigation options to those more directly tied to actual housing will offset the actual impacts of
residential redevelopment. Staff believes this proposed ordinance achieves this objective and finds
this criterion met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the ADU Program. The existing ADUs
have a relatively low occupancy and other types of mitigation are more likely to offset the actual
impacts of development. Staff believes enabling mitigation options that result in higher
occupancy of affordable housing is in the interests of the community and is in alignment with the
purpose of Title 26. Staff believes this is compatible with the community character of the City
and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff finds this
criterion met.
P323
VIII.h
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 12/3/2012
MEETING DATE: 12/10/2012
RE: Code Amendment Policy Direction: Sign Code
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINANCE REVIEW: Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
P325
VIII.i
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Notes:
• Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions
• The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel.
Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc.
• Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with
a letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
B - Property Description
C - Chart of Costs
D - Resolution #97-1
P326
VIII.i
12.10.12 – Sign Code Policy Direction
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Pomeroy, Code Enforcement Officer
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Sign and Public Amenity Space Code Amendments
Resolution ___, Series of 2012
MEETING DATE: December 10, 2012
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for code amendments related to the
downtown. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to help clarify and give direction for
commercial signs, as well as limiting outdoor displays of clothing, throughout town.
Once the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that
amends the Sign and Public Amenity sections of the Land Use Code. The memo and resolution
summarize the policy direction received to date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Sign and Public Amenity sections of the Land
Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority
for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
After a work session on January 24th of this year, City Council directed Community
Development Staff to amend the Sign Code as well as the Public Amenity section of the Land
Use Code. During this session, Council gave Community Development Staff clear direction on
amendments, as well as general policy direction on others. .
Beyond working to compile public feedback, Staff has also implemented proposed amendments
of the Sign Code on an experimental basis this summer. These experiments were based on
Council direction, and focused on sandwich board signs and outdoor merchandising. The
direction taken and the reactions to those directions will be discussed later in this memo. The
attached Policy Resolution is based on the direction received at the January 24th work session.
P327
VIII.i
12.10.12 – Sign Code Policy Direction
Page 2 of 4
TOPICS:
Changes to the Sign Code are focused on two areas:
• Clarifying for the public what types of signs are allowed and not allowed, including
modifying the sign illumination section to better correspond with changing technologies.
• Cleaning up discrepancies and scrivener errors within the sign code.
Changes to the Public Amenity section of the code will limit displays of clothing on outdoor
public amenity space
CLARIFICATION ON SIGN TYPES: Based on public and Staff feedback, certain sections of the
code relating to the allowed types of signs were either vague, or failed to meet the public’s
needs, therefore the need to clarify which types of signs are allowed was required.
Public Feedback:
Based on public and Staff feedback, there was general support for the following items:
• Adding an option for special event banners.
• Adapting the lighting section to better handle LED lighting and backlit signs.
• Eliminating the concept of “Business Frontage”.
• Simplifying the code to allow a set amount of signage for all downtown businesses.
• Modifying where sandwich board signs are allowed in the city.
• Limiting service businesses from displaying sandwich board signs.
• Altering the section on “window wraps.”
• Modifying the amount of clothing it is appropriate for a business to display outside.
Initial Council Direction:
In previous meetings, City Council provided the following policy direction:
A. Staff should suggest appropriate limits to backlit signs like the one at the Molly Gibson
lodge.
B. Change the code to prohibit LED signs made to resemble neon signs.
C. Sandwich board signs for retail and restaurant uses should be allowed in all zone districts.
D. Staff should suggest alternatives to more effectively regulate window wraps while
allowing businesses the freedom to use them.
E. The section of the code detailing how much clothing businesses’ can display outdoors on
private property should be limited.
F. Overall simplification
Staff Comments:
1. Staff suggests allowing special events to display a banner(s) for a limited period without
having to obtain a sign permit. This would allow special events such as the Food and Wine
Classic, Susan G. Komen Ride for the Cure, X-Games, etc. to display advertising that is
primarily informative in nature, and does not necessarily contain advertising for commercial
enterprises. This is an activity that already happens often in town. There are no standards
for these types of banners, and under our current code it is questionable if they are even
P328
VIII.i
12.10.12 – Sign Code Policy Direction
Page 3 of 4
allowed. Staff is often forced to either “read between the lines” to allow them, turn a blind
eye to them, or is forced to conduct enforcement actions to remove them. From staffs
perspective none of these are optimal, and it would be best if banners for worthwhile special
events were allowed under controlled circumstances.
2. Staff suggests that the code be amended to prohibit “Neon Appearing Signs”, constructed
using LED light technology. Staff also suggests clearly allowing “channel-letter” signs that
are lit with internal LED lights that are fully shielded from view. Technology to minimize
the illumination duration would be encouraged. These lights would only be allowed for
Restaurant, Retail, and Lodge uses.
3. Currently the sign code section uses the concept of “business frontage” to determine the
amount of signage individual businesses my display and where those displays can be erected.
The actual definition of what constitutes a frontage is currently vague in the code, and it is
difficult to craft a definitive definition that would fit every architectural situation. Therefore,
Staff is recommending that the concept of frontage be eliminated from the code, and instead
each business will be granted a set amount of signage based on business type for them to use
as they so choose. This will have the effect of simplifying the sign code by making every
business type receive the same amount of signage throughout the City, and eliminate the
need for City Staff to interpret how much signage different businesses may receive.
4. Currently the code has a set amount of signage for some businesses, plus a variable amount
for others depending on size and number of frontages. Staff recommends changing the sign
allotment section of the code so that all businesses of the same type will receive the exact
same amount of signage square footage.
5. Based on public feedback, and Council direction, the Community Development Staff allowed
the rules for sandwich board signs to be extended to the entire City rather than just to the CC
and C1 zone districts. Staff finds that the overall reaction to this change was positive, and
did not significantly expand the number of signs throughout town. Therefore Staff
recommends permanently changing the code to reflect this.
6. Sandwich board signs are allowed in the code for “retail and restaurant businesses.” There
are businesses in the City that are primarily Service businesses that have an incidental retail
component. Some of these businesses are allowed to display a sandwich board sign because
of these retail components. In keeping with the intention of the code, Staff recommends
modifying the Code to strictly state that these sorts of signs are only intended for restaurants
and retail businesses where the service use is incidental to the businesses’ main core
function. This would allow a ski shop that also tunes skis to have a sandwich board sign, but
would prohibit one for a nail salon that sells nail polish.
7. Staff has found that the section of the code dealing with window wraps is vague and difficult
to enforce. Furthermore, Council expressed to Staff at their work session that there was
general acceptance to the idea of window wraps containing mostly images. Therefore, Staff
recommends changing this section to better reflect Councils wishes as well as making this
section clearer and easier to enforce.
P329
VIII.i
12.10.12 – Sign Code Policy Direction
Page 4 of 4
8. In the Public Amenity section of the code, businesses are allowed to display up to 12 linear
feet of clothing on outdoor private public amenity space. Council, at their work session,
recommended that Staff limit this to 2 mannequins or 1 rack of no more than 6 feet in length.
They also recommended that bins and boxes should also be eliminated. Therefore, Staff
recommends modifying the code to reflect these recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. ___, Series of 2012, approving a Policy Resolution outlining
direction for code amendments to the Sign Code and the Public Amenity sections of the Land
Use Code.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P330
VIII.i
Resolution No __, Series 2012
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION N0. __,
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN CODE AND PUBLIC AMENITY
SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to
the Sign Code and the Public Amenity sections of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to gain feedback from the community on
potential code changes to the Sign Code and the Public Amenity sections of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Public Outreach included three small group meetings,
discussions with the Community Development Staff, and a City Council Work Session;
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Sign Code and the Public Amenity sections of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
P331
VIII.i
Resolution No __, Series 2012
Page 2 of 2
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
• The objective of the proposed code amendments is to clarify for the public what
types of signs are allowed and not allowed, including modifying the sign
illumination section to better correspond with changing technologies; clean up
discrepancies and scrivener errors within the sign code; and Change the Public
Amenity section of the code to limit displays of clothing on outdoor public
amenity space.
Section 2: General Policy Directions
City Council provides the following direction regarding amendments to the Sign Code
and the Public Amenity sections of the Land Use Code:
A. Adding an option for special event banners.
B. Adapting the lighting section to better handle LED lighting and backlit signs.
C. Eliminating the concept of “Business Frontage”.
D. Simplifying the code to allow a set amount of signage for all downtown businesses.
E. Modifying where sandwich board signs are allowed in the city.
F. Limiting service businesses from displaying sandwich board signs.
G. Altering the section on “window wraps.”
H. Modifying the amount of clothing it is appropriate for a business to display outside.
Section 5:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 6:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this __ day of __________ 2012.
_______________________________
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P332
VIII.i