HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20130211
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 11, 2013
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) Minutes - January 28, 2013
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #3, 2013 - Code Amendment - Elections
b) Ordinance #4, 2013 - Employee Generation Rates and GMQS Code Amendment
P.H.2/25/13
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #2, 2013 - 435 W. Main St., Aspen Jewish Community Center
b) Resolution #17, 2013 - Code Amendment: Policy on Various Business Obstacles
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting February 25, 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
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
1
PROCLAMATION – Buddy Program 40th Anniversary and National Mentoring Month ............ 2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3
PROCLAMATION – Avalanche Dogs .......................................................................................... 4
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 4
Minutes - January 14, 2013 .................................................................................................. 5
Resolution #16, 2013 - Aspen Ice Garden Sound Sys tem ................................................... 5
Resolution #10, 2013 - Burlingame Phase IIA Civil Infrastructure Construction ............... 5
Resolution #11, 2013 - Development Review Service s Contract ........................................ 5
Resolution #13, 2013 Approving an IGA with Aspen School District................................ 5
RESOLUTION #12, SERIES OF 2013 – Neale Avenue Improvement Project ............................ 5
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2013 – Jewish Community Center GM Review and Subdivision 5
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment; ADUs and Growth Management .... 6
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2013 – Fee-in-lieu methodology .................................................. 6
RESOLUTION #14, SERIES OF 2013 – GMQS Allotment Rollover ........................................ 13
RESOLUTION #15, SERIES OF 2013 – Employee Generation and GMQS Update Policy ...... 13
P1
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
2
Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM with Councilmembers Skadron, Torre,
Johnson and Frisch present.
PROCLAMATION – Buddy Program 40th Anniversary and National Mentoring Month
Council honored the Buddy program that has been pairing volunteer mentors with local youth for
40 years, resulting in a positive impact on over 2,000 youth with the assistance of nearly 1,000
volunteer big buddies, Mayor Ireland and Council proclaimed 2013 to be the 40th anniversary
year of the Buddy program. Council presented the proclamation to the director of the Buddy
Program
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Jim Ward told Council there was a speech at the Hall of Fame dinner and he wants to
remind people of the Aspen attitude and that people who came in here in 60’s and 70’s did not
want Aspen to wind up like from where they came. Ward said it is great when people come
here who appreciate Aspen and who try to be part of the community rather than bringing their
city attitudes in. Ward told Council his opinion is the only reason traffic backs up on Main street
every evening is because of the traffic light at Cemetery Lane not the roundabout. Ward
reminded Council it is not their responsibility to make sure that everyone who invests money in
this town makes money on that investment.
2. Ashley Cantrell, environmental health department, announced the third annual waste free
cup challenge. Cups can be purchased for $1 in the environmental health department and there
are 13 participating coffee shops in the valley and the one who gets the most business from
customers using these cups wins.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Torre said he attended the Hall of Fame banquet where Pat Fallin, Joe
Edwards and Michael Kinsley were inducted and it was a great event, remind people of their
contribution.
2. Councilman Torre requested a recap of the X-games from city departments that were
affected, like police, parks, transportation.
3. Councilman Torre announced there is a work session tomorrow to discuss traffic in the
west end and calming strategies as well as parklets in town.
4. Councilman Skadron commended the people who put together the hall of Fame banquet
and the stories should make residents grateful for Aspen.
P2
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
3
5. Councilman Skadron thanked the Ski Company and ESPN for the X-games weekend.
Councilman Skadron stated he is grateful for the opportunity to have partnered with ESPN.
6. Councilman Skadron said he is reconsidering dogs at Burlingame II and would like
further exploration on the pre-annexation agreement and how that agreement is easily amended.
Barry Crook, assistant city manager, said there is a work session scheduled on this topic early
March.
7. Councilman Johnson agreed X-games was a great event, good for the community and it
gives Aspen clout in the industry.
8. Councilman Frisch said he likes the diversity of tourists that X-games brings to town.
Councilman Frisch noted he got a snowmobile tour on behind the scenes operations for the X-
games.
9. Councilman Frisch said he, too, attended the hall of Fame dinner and he agreed elected
officials and residents should not forget why people came here in the first place.
10. Mayor Ireland extended his sympathy to the X-game athletes who were injured. The X-
games were a great show and he hopes ESPN and the X-games come back to Aspen after 2014.
11. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, thanked all staff who helped make the X-games
successful – police, transportation, parks, transportation and RFTA to moved 47,000 people
Saturday. Ready also thanked the community for being welcoming and gracious.
12. Councilman Torre suggested the public hearings for Ordinance #34, 2012, and Ordinance
#1, 2013, be moved up to the first two public hearing.
13. Councilman Skadron reported he attended the Colorado Association of Ski Town
meeting in Telluride where they heard from the tourism board and about affordable housing
program in Telluride.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Torre said he has questions on b, c, d, and e. Councilman Torre asked if the Sound
System contract for the Ice Garden had a competitive bid process and how was the contract
determined. Tim Anderson, recreation director, told Council this contract was bid December
2011. There was budget of $25,000 for the project; the bid was $24,995. Anderson told Council
staff was concerned with this project and with the age of the building that the costs would go
over the limit of Council approval of $25,000 so the 2013 budget added $5,000 to the project.
This bid is $26,347. Anderson said this went through the formal bid process; one proposal was
received. Councilman Torre agreed this is necessary equipment and the sound system does need
to be upgraded.
Councilman Skadron asked about (c) Burlingame phase IIA civil infrastructure construction; the
change orders total $90,000 and the memo identifies change order of $31,000 and $29,000 and
asked what the other $30,000 are. Steve Bossart, asset manager, said there are a number of small
P3
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
4
change orders that add up to $30,000. Barry Crook, assistant city manager, noted all change
orders will be included in the monthly report on Burlingame phase II. Councilman Skadron
asked if the change orders and the demand on the contingency fund so far is appropriate. Bossart
told Council the project has been through 70% of the infrastructure work where unforeseen
circumstances are usually found. The change orders increase 1.5% of the GMP amount, which is
minimal. Councilman Frisch said he would like to have an overall budget versus actual to keep
a running stream of where the project is so Council can review change orders in context of the
entire project.
Councilman Torre brought up (d) Development Review Service Contract and asked why project
reviews have to be outsourced. Trish Aragon, engineer, told Council this is on an as-needed
basis only and based on last year’s work load, the engineering department will need additional
review services.
Councilman Torre asked about (e) Neale Avenue Improvement project and noted the city spends
a lot of money on public outreach and design efforts and why the city’s in-house expertise is not
enough for projects like this. Currently there are 3 proposals, Main street improvements, Galena
Plaza, and this project. Tyler Christoff, engineering, told Council these project have new type
solutions to traffic calming and pedestrian safety and these new ideas require more public
process and information sharing. Scott Miller, asset manager, said the city goes above and
beyond seeking public input. Miller pointed out the Galena Plaza project has been going on for 4
years; this takes time and money. Councilman Torre asked if public outreach and design work
costs have been broken out. Garrett said the proposal has those costs broken out.
Councilman Torre requested the Neal Avenue contract not be approved as part of the consent
calendar.
PROCLAMATION – Avalanche Dogs
Aspen Ski Company employees from all 4 mountains and their avalanche dogs were present.
Allie Wade explained the process of training for avalanche dogs. These dogs are also available
as special resources to Mountain Rescue.
In honor of the part that avalanche dogs play in the culture of Aspen and the ski areas of the
Aspen Skiing Company, Mayor Ireland and Council proclaimed Monday, January 28th as
Avalanche Dog Appreciation Day.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ireland moved to approve the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman
Johnson. The consent calendar is:
P4
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
5
• Minutes - January 14, 2013
• Resolution #16, 2013 - Aspen Ice Garden Sound System
• Resolution #10, 2013 - Burlingame Phase IIA Civil Infrastructure Construction
• Resolution #11, 2013 - Development Review Services Contract
• Resolution #13, 2013 Approving an IGA with Aspen School District
All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #12, SERIES OF 2013 – Neale Avenue Improvement Project
Councilman Torre said he would like to know more about the public process for a single
intersection design without spending $75,000 for a charette and design work. Trish Aragon, city
engineer, told Council this intersection has been identified for attention because of the number of
accidents and the speed of vehicles. There is a park on Neale Avenue and kids crossing the
street, conflict with automobiles and hills on two sides. There are also drainage issues, which
will be addressed. Ms. Aragon told Council the city does not have in-house resources to do this
design. Councilman Torre asked if the construction costs are in the budget. Ms. Aragon said
this is design only and the construction costs will be in the 2014 budget.
Mayor Ireland moved to approve Resolution #12, Series of 2013, Neale Avenue Improvement
Project; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman
Torre. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2013 – Jewish Community Center GM Review and Subdivision
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council this review is due to a change
at the Jewish Community Center to develop a parsonage on site rather than a social hall. The
new proposal has less floor area. Alan Richman, representing the applicant, told Council they
are not proposing any reduction in mitigation. This is a different building footprint and design,
which has been to HPC and received approval.
Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #2, Series of 2013; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND SUBDIVISION
P5
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
6
– OTHER AMENDMENT, FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREETS, LOTS A-I BLOCK 38, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2013, on first reading and set the public
hearing for February 11, 2013; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Johnson, yes;
Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Frisch, yes, Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2012 – Code Amendment; ADUs and Growth Management
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2013 – Fee-in-lieu methodology
Chris Bendon, community development department, pointed out these two ordinances are inter-
related. Bendon said Ordinance #1 is being proposed by APCHA and is a change to the housing
guidelines, which work in conjunction with the city and county land use codes. The guidelines
set category standards, set sales and rental programs, set rates for new development for a fee-in-
lieu of providing housing. This amendment is at the direction of both the city and the county
with a sense that the in-lieu fee options were too low and the city and county could not replicate
the housing for the rates, neither to build nor buy down. The original system adopted in 1990
stated a house of 3,000 square feet generated 1 employee. Bendon noted employee generation
studies for residential land use are expensive, both the studies themselves and variable data
gathering. Staff is approaching this from an inclusionary system, which is simpler.
Ordinance #34, amending the land use code describes when new construction requires affordable
housing, sets the category requirement and the percentage, if not 100%. Options are to include
affordable housing on-site, provide affordable housing off-site, to extinguish a certificate of
affordable housing, or to pay a fee-in-lieu. The land use code refers to the APCHA guidelines
for the fee rates. Cash-in-lieu for large projects is usually not the desired result by Council.
Some large projects on-site housing is not desirable, because of bulk and mass that affordable
housing would add to that. The dynamic of affordable housing mixed within the project may not
be desirable; or that the community will not be able to replicate the housing at the rates provided.
Cash-in-lieu is accepted for smaller projects, single family or duplexes or mitigation where less
than 1 employee is the required mitigation.
Bendon pointed out the land use code described the types of construction that triggers affordable
housing requirement; when a commercial project is expanded, the code defines the number of
employees generated and 60% need to be housed by that development; a residential project, the
code describes an inclusionary housing requirement of 60% of the units being affordable and
30% of the floor area being affordable. The guidelines are used when a developer sells or rent
their units or when an applicant is allowed to pay a fee-in-lieu.
Tom McCabe, housing director, told Council staff has been talking about reviewing fee-in-lieu
for over a year; the in-lieu fee is low. McCabe reviewed the key points in the RFP for this study;
these are a detailed description of the proposed methodology and why it is superior to other
methods; to demonstrate the methodology has sufficient analytical authority to be legally
P6
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
7
defensible according to Colorado State Statutes; to include a list of other comparable ski resorts,
cities and counties which have implemented this same methodology and how long it has been in
use by each entity; list entities that may have abandoned that methodology; list legal challenges
to the proposed methodology; data used by the methodology shall reflect the reality of
comparable present day resorts; provide suggested regulatory language. Other requirements was
legislation that works for both the city and the county, is easily understood and easily updated
and represents reality in the Roaring Fork Valley. McCabe told Council the RFPs were reviewed
by a team of city/county staff and RRC won the bid.
Melanie, RRC, noted McCabe summarized the assignment. The outcome was not to determine
what Aspen’s affordable housing requirements are but to support the requirements. When the
requirements are determined by the land use code for a particular applicant, this methodology, if
affordable housing is not produced, is to calculate what the dollar value would be. It is up to the
Council to determine what is assessed as the obligation of a development. The methodology
recommended is the market affordability gap, which is a three-step process – determine the
market price for 900 square foot unit, the approximate size of an affordable housing unit;
determine the market price for the unit, determine what a household at each income category can
afford to pay – the difference between the market price and the affordable price is the gap. That
gap can be expressed on a per unit basis, a per employee basis or a per square of employee
housing required. This method is versatile as it can be any of the 3 expressions. Melanie said in
all the research, the only other methodology found is used by the Town of Telluride, which was
Aspen’s former methodology. Other communities either do not allow fees-in-lieu or allow fees
only under specified conditions. Melanie said paying the fee is the exception rather than the rule
for most development applications.
Melanie said the proposed method is easy to calculate, uses two sources of data – county
assessor and U. S. Department of Housing and Development. Melanie pointed out with this
proposal, it is easy to keep the fees current. The fee in place has not been revised in 10 years
except for the cpi. The proposed fee works in various income categories. This has been tested in
court. The fee is neutral; it is not subsidized. This is not a wholesale price nor is it incentivizing
developers to want to pay the fee-in-lieu.. Melanie pointed out in this methodology, there are
many variables, all of which were reviewed by the city/county team. Melanie said deed
restricted sales were not included as they do not reflect the cost of producing units; the price is
based on the income of the households this is trying to serve.
Melanie said the research looked at volatility in the market, which is why the report recommends
switching the method of calculation from a 3-year rolling median to an average of the medians
for 3 years. This takes the number of sales out of the equation. Melanie reminded Council the
current fees have not been updated since 2002 and there is a substantial increase in the proposed
fees for 2013. Fees that were proposed but not adopted in 2007 are similar to the fees proposed
in this ordinance.
Bendon said Ordinance #34 proposed to eliminate accessory dwelling units as a mitigation
option. When a single family or duplex goes through renovation or additions, there is a
requirement for affordable housing mitigation. The ADUs that were produced for this mitigation
have an occupancy rate of about 25%, which is one of the reasons proposing to remove this
option. The ordinance contains options for retiring ADUs, which are to retire the deed restriction
allowing one to use an ADU however, or to physically remove the ADU from their property.
P7
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
8
The ordinance amends the growth management system to apply the mitigation requirements for
single family and duplex on any type of expansion. Bendon stated impacts on the community
are felt regardless of the method of construction.
Bendon stated this ordinance moves to an inclusionary requirement for floor area and suggests
30% requirement, meaning the additional floor area added to a single family or duplex structure
would trigger a requirement for affordable housing floor area of 30% of what is being
constructed. Bendon noted the basis for this is in the city’s current code; the requirement for
new subdivisions is that 60% of the units are affordable housing and 30% of the floor area is
affordable housing. Mixed use projects have a 30% requirement for affordable housing. Bendon
agreed there are significant cost increases associated with this. In the current system, a 600 foot
expansion would cost $77/foot or $46,000; under the 30% requirement and the new proposed
rates, this would cost $127,000. There are other options besides paying the fee; on site housing,
a certificate of affordable housing credit.
Bendon noted the percentage of inclusionary housing requirement is important step in this
equation. The community needs to be able to articulate a rational basis for that number, which is
a combination of the community need as well as the overall effect that number has on the
community. Staff is recommending 30%; however, there are other percentages that have a
rationale basis – a 15% inclusionary requirement, which would mimic the same ratio of free
market FAR and affordable FAR, which exists in the community currently. Generally speaking
there is 9,046,000 square feet of free market housing and 1,270,000 square feet of affordable
housing. These numbers come from the assessor who counts heated square footage. The
affordable housing divided by free market housing results in 14%. Floor area is calculated
differently from heated square footage. Staff estimates in floor area affordable housing
represents 15% of existing free market. To replicate that would require all new development
maintain that current ratio of affordable housing to free market. The resulting fee may be more
tolerable to the community.
Bendon said 11% mimics the current system in place today, which would have no impact vis a
vis the fees being paid currently. Bendon pointed out way to lessen the impact on the
community is to have a delayed impact date or a fee that slowly ratchets into place. Additional
option may be to exempt small project or small houses. Bendon said staff would need time to
craft a definition of “small” to incorporate that in one of the above options. Councilman Frisch
said at previous meetings, he argued this was off kilter. Councilman Frisch agreed a strong
affordable housing program is one of the keystone of this community and sets Aspen apart from
other communities. Councilman Frisch said with all the mitigations, Aspen may be losing sight
of the goal of having a strong affordable housing program and community citizens; fees and
mitigations affect everyone. Melanie reiterated this fee methodology can work with whatever
Council decides the requirements should be. Bendon said he had to be convinced off of a
construction cost basis for the fees. The cost is the difference between the market value and the
affordable value for which the unit can be sold. This can be tracked annually because the
assessor tracks the value of properties. Bendon pointed out the costs at Burlingame are relatively
the same as the methodology proposed by Melanie.
Councilman Frisch said one issue is that the replacement fee is low because it has not been
increased in 10 years. Councilman Frisch suggested EPS come and address how many
employees are added by how much square footage. Bendon said the number of employees
P8
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
9
generated by residential development is a volatile number but stabilizes on units over 10,000
square feet, which the city does not experience. The number of employees does not have to do
with square footage of residential units but more with people living in the unit.
Councilman Johnson said there is time to hear from the community on this issue as some steps
on the public outreach side seem missing. Councilman Johnson noted there are 3 funding
mechanisms to affordable housing, the RETT tax, a portion of sales tax and fees for mitigation.
Councilman Johnson asked is there is any double charging. Bendon said the two tax sources
were adopted by the community in recognition of the housing deficit, the imbalance that creates
transportation impacts. The revenues from those two tax sources go to address the existing
problem. The mitigation requirement assigned to development is for impact to the community
caused by increase of that type of development, for lodging, for commercial, for residential.
Councilman Johnson asked if that thinking is still relevant. Bendon said the structure is still
appropriate and there is an expectation that new development pays its way. Councilman Johnson
supports a method that is logical, that makes sense, that is transparent, easily understood and
compatible with the city and county. Councilman Johnson said Council has to decide what
amount is appropriate.
Councilman Skadron asked if this policy implies there is no limit to affordable housing needed
or that there is no limit to money government will collect. Bendon said this amendment sets out
expectations for new development, a 30% inclusionary requirement that is a limit. Council can
set a different limit. Bendon said there have been discussions about when does the community
know there is enough affordable housing. This was discussed as part of the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the groups who worked on that agreed a critical mass of local, working
residents living in the community was needed.
Mayor Ireland told Council he analyzed the 7,000 property records for the city and one concern
is whether it is fair to people who have not sold or remodeled their house to pay fees and there
may be a way to exempt that square footage. Mayor Ireland said he is also concerned that the
single family housing stock is becoming second homes. Aspen is losing population, especially
between the ages of 20 and 40. There needs to be affordable housing produced to offset the
decline in local population. Mayor Ireland stated the methodology is not as important as what is
the bottom line impact to homeowners and Council should set reasonable rates.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Jody Edwards requested his letter be included in the record. Edwards said legally what this is
about is fairness; case law requires impact fees be fairly calculated and rationally based. The
Colorado impact fee statute requires the city shall quantify the reasonable impacts. A mitigation
fee can be no larger than necessary to defray the actual impacts caused by the new development.
It is the government’s responsibility to make up the deficit if there is one. Edwards stated the
fairness standards need to apply to any of the 5 choices in Ordinance #34 for mitigation.
Edwards said there is nothing in the record that attempts to measure the impacts on the need for
affordable housing caused by construction of a new or expansion of a single family or duplex
unit but the ordinance has a cost to that expansion. There needs to be a relationship to that
number an applicant has to pay.
P9
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
10
Edwards stated the 30% inclusionary figure is arbitrary and does not meet the standard of
fairness. None of the 30%, 15% or 11% options are based on quantification of the impact to
affordable housing. A median price for an Aspen luxury residence is not what APCHA builds
for workforce housing. Edwards said the gap methodology does not work in Aspen. The
proposed ordinances will add $135/square foot to the cost of construction for anyone, which will
add to the decimation of the construction industry in the valley. Edwards noted there has been
little public input on this ordinance and the public should be involved in working on this
amendment and suggested a 90 day continuation to allow public to analyze and comment.
John Olson said a large amount of need for employee housing is created through construction
and there will be less construction, fewer units will be needed. Olson told Council during the
review of the AACP, the biggest area of concern by the community was employee housing
mitigation fees. There has been a lot of public comment on this concept, not favorable. Olson
said the city needs to rethink affordable housing design and criteria should look and feel like.
Olson said there should be conversation regarding public/private partnerships on affordable
housing.
Gideon Kaufman told Council he owns an older home in the east end where ADUs are not
permitted. Kaufman said Ordinance #34 says if he wants to expand his home 600 square feet, he
would be charged $128,000 in mitigation fee which does not include tap fees and other city fees.
Kaufman noted adding that expense would make it impractical for some people to expand their
homes and this may be an unintended consequence of this code amendment. This would
encourage demolition and rebuilding of some older houses. Kaufman pointed out exactions have
to have a direct relation to impact and there would not be increase in employee generation
resulting from a small addition to an existing house but would take away flexibility of owners of
these type of houses. Kaufman said he hopes this will not be adopted for legal, practical and
fairness reasons.
Tim Semrau said he served on the housing board and for a decade there was a feeling that
APCHA’s calculation were not quite right that 3,000 square feet creates one employee. Semrau
said over the past decade, APCHA has tried to come up with a better methodology. Semrau
noted although this methodology is easier to calculate, it doesn’t make it right or just. Semrau
said he does not understand how this methodology relates to the AACP, which calls for a critical
mass of employees and for the city to implement reasonable mitigation. What does this have to
do with the methodology that takes luxury free market housing and what an employee can afford
and charges the difference. Semrau stated this methodology is the perfect storm of government
exaction and increases each year in relation to the size of the exaction; the fee will continue to
increase until nothing can be built. Semrau said the real costs of this mitigation is very high and
will double the costs of exaction. Semrau requested this ordinance be tabled and hire a company
to quantify how many employees are created by every square foot of residential housing.
Semrau said it is not difficult to figure out what it costs to build by averaging Burlingame costs,
Fornell costs, and free market development costs.
Shelly Roy stated she is a long term advocate of housing. Ms. Roy said trying to get more
money out of the program misses the picture. The reasons for affordable housing program are to
maintain a local resident population; to assure a sustainable local labor force. Originally the
program focused on for-rent housing, which is what part-time workers need. There is currently a
deficit in full time work. Ms. Roy noted that one can buy a house in mid-valley for less than
P10
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
11
$200,000. Ms. Roy said the city should step back and re-think their goals as the circumstances
have changed. This program is upsetting the balance of the community.
Bob Bowden told Council he is a developer of free market and employs many people. Bowden
said he is willing to pay or offset whatever impacts he creates. Bowden stated he understands the
balance between having affordable housing for employees and employing people. Bowden
noted this is a balance; if the economy is killed, the need for housing is killed. Bowden
reiterated he is happy to pay his fair share and wants to make sure it is fair share; the city should
qualify the assumptions and when the assumptions make sense, mitigate for that and quantify
how much it costs to mitigate.
Dylan Johns said the city should look at the entire fee structure. Johns said a 20 to 30%
occupancy for ADU does not sound bad and eliminating ADUs would be eliminating a rental
option and loss of space. Johns said the city needs to look at what employees who are generated
by construction of residential space. Johns said the pace of the affordable housing program in
Aspen does not need to be geared towards something that moves rapidly based on the existing
economic conditions. Johns said it is important to have a measurable program that does not
change too radically.
Tony Clancy told Council property in Aspen is expensive; construction is expensive and this
ordinance would make expensive “unaffordable”. Clancy said city policies should attract people
to town; they should generate jobs; they should be fair. Clancy suggested this be put on “open
city hall” for public input. Sarah Broughton said Aspen should be proud of the flexibility and
diversity of peoples the affordable housing program brings to the community. Ms. Broughton
said the ADU program adds to that diversity and flexibility. Eliminating the ADU program is
taking the short view and diminishing the number of choices people have to supply affordable
housing.
Mike Maple stated he supports the idea of the community providing housing for the community
as well as paying one’s own way. Maple said it is inexcusable that the housing mitigation fees
have not been updated since 2002. The community has a large investment in affordable housing
and this should be seen to. Maple said the city needs a rational, justifiable, defensible system
and one that complies with Colorado law. Maple said the methodology proposed does not
correlate to a semblance of a fair, rational justifiable system. Maple said proposals like this are
destructive to the community and are part of what feels like a relentless attack in free market
property owners. Maple said the city has proposed regulations to down zone, down size,
historic preservation requirements and mitigation requirements over the past 15 years. Maple
outlined that for his residence, they generate need for an employee for 80 hours/year, which is
4/100ths of an employee. Maple told Council there are 2 FTEs living at their residence and they
pay sales tax, property tax and pay more than their fair share. Maple agreed the city needs to do
a better job of outreach on these ordinances.
Susan Welch said she, too, enjoys the diversity of Aspen and the employee housing helps. Ms.
Welch questioned whether so many units are needed; too many units will cause Aspen to become
a city. Ms. Welch asked what happens when employees retire and continue in their units; the
city will have to build more units. Ms. Welch asked how large Aspen could grow and still be the
Aspen people moved here for. Ms. Welch asked if kids can inherit units if they do not live or
work here. Ms. Welch asked if Aspen uses money collected for affordable housing for senior
P11
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
12
housing. Ms. Welch said the city should make sure rules for affordable housing units are being
followed.
Peter Fornell stated housing requires a subsidy whether it is from the city, the developer, or
affordable housing credits. Fornell said the gap method does work because land purchase costs
are the same whether it will be used for affordable housing or for free market housing. Fornell
noted the design requirements are the same for affordable housing as for free market
development. Fee-in-lieu is a convenience for developers so they do not have to build units on
their property. Fornell pointed out the land use code requires housing mitigation to be built
within the urban growth boundary; it is expensive. Fornell suggested one solution is to require
affordable housing to be built as part of one’s development.
Jack Wilke said this seems to be an aggressive step to collect more money to build affordable
housing. Wilke said more people are living in affordable housing than in permanent residences.
Wilke said Council should tell people how far they are going to go with the affordable housing
program. Howie Mallory said this is a complicated program being proposed with lots of moving
parts, it is not easily understood and full of unintended consequences. Mallory said the program
is not understood by the public and the city should do more outreach and generate information on
what the city is trying to accomplish. Mallory requested Council pause and have open houses to
explain the methodology and consequences on different types of property.
Councilman Skadron agreed this is complicated and would like staff to have some open houses
so this proposal can be understood. Councilman Johnson said he would like a proposal that
makes sense, is compatible, is transparent and easily understood. Fees have not been increased
for over 10 years and $76 is too small. The issue is what the fee should be, what is fair.
Councilman Johnson said there should be exemptions for minor expansions or additions.
Councilman Frisch said making amendments to residential properties affects a wide variety of
citizens. This amendment seems to reward those who have already built out their properties.
Councilman Frisch stated methodology is very important; the market affordability gap is
transparent and is easy to digest but it is not fair and does not get to what is going on.
Councilman Frisch pointed out the cash-in-lieu fee is $72 and the city is building at over
$900/square foot to develop living space. The issue is how to get from $72 to a more reasonable
number. Councilman Frisch stated staff’s responsibility is providing a methodology that works
with more fairness and realism. It is up to Council to figure out how to take the large gap in
those figures to get to a number that honors a robust affordable housing program. Councilman
Frisch noted one issue is whether Council wants a number that truly mitigates what new square
footage residential causes or just figure out a legally defensible number. Councilman Frisch
stated an issue for him is the assumption of full employment. Councilman Frisch stated
mitigation is important because people want to be in this town, both free market and affordable
residents.
Councilman Torre said he would like to continue this conversation to solve issues like
exemptions, the gap between construction numbers, continuing the community-wide beneficial
housing program. Councilman Torre said this has been a topic for ten years. Mayor Ireland
agreed this needs more work. Mayor Ireland said he does not want a fee that makes it impossible
for people to stay in Aspen; this is mostly about single family homes and people should be able
to make their house livable. If the fee is onerous and people sell out and leave, this is defeating
P12
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
13
the purpose. Mayor Ireland said over the past 10 years the number of local residents in free
market housing has decreased; there about 400 to 500 homes still used by local residents out of
the 1060 single family units in Aspen. What drives need for staff is the conversion from single
family houses of 2500 square feet to one of 5000 square feet which requires staff.
Mayor Ireland asked if staff could look at a correlation between the 30% or 15% and cost of
construction. Mayor Ireland agreed there should be an exemption for residents who expand their
house to be able to live in it. Mayor Ireland stated Aspen is losing population. The number of
births at AVH has not changed in the last 18 years. Affordable housing is keeping the population
from declining. EPS study says if you do not add affordable housing, the number of people
commuting to town will increase to meet the existing job need. Mayor Ireland suggested more
information on the housing stock that remains in local ownership and how that would be
fostered; an appropriate exemption so people can stay in their home; how much revenue would
this generate and how much is really needed; does the city need more money from this source.
Mayor Ireland said he would like information that correlates with the cost-driven approach, is
this fee being laid on people with smaller houses. Mayor Ireland said what is important to him is
who does this affect and why the city is considering it.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #34, Series of 2012 and Ordinance #1, Series of
2013; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #14, SERIES OF 2013 – GMQS Allotment Rollover
Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council this is an annual review
to decide how much unused growth allocations should be rolled over into the future. Bendon
pointed out the chart illustrating the allotment available annually between
residential/commercial/lodge, how much was used and how much left over. In residential there
are 18 allotments, one was used, 17 are remaining; 33,000 square feet of commercial is available;
2,000 square feet was used leaving 31,000 square feet; 112 pillows of lodge were available, 6
were awarded, leaving 106 pillows. Bendon suggested these not be rolled forward.
Councilman Skadron moved to adopt Resolution #14, Series of 2013; seconded by Mayor
Ireland.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Frisch asked if these are not rolled over and if a lodge proposal came in needing
more pillows, is there a way to accommodate that. Bendon said there is a process in the code for
an applicant to request more than an annual allotment.
All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #15, SERIES OF 2013 – Employee Generation and GMQS Update Policy
P13
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 28, 2013
14
Chris Bendon, community development department, outlined this resolution gives staff direction
to amend the employee generation portions of the land use code. Bendon told Council staff has
contracted with EPS to update the commercial mitigation standards, how many employees are
generated by different types of uses. There is a chart showing the numbers from the 2002 study
and the numbers from the most recent study. Many businesses are being surveyed; additional
work is being done in the service/commercial/industrial zone to see why the number increased
from 3.5 to 5.2 to see if that is statistically valid.
Councilman Johnson moved to approve Resolution #15, Series of 2013; seconded by
Councilman Skadron.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 9:45 pm; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathryn Koch
City Clerk
P14
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch,
THRU: Jim True, City Attorney
DATE OF MEMO: 1/31/2013
MEETING DATE: 2/11/2013
RE: Ordinance #3, 2013 - Code Amendment - Elections
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 2013, amending Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code regarding
elections on first reading.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND:
See attached memorandum, ordinance and Election Commission minutes
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:
P15
VII.a
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES:
PROPOSED MOTION:
I move to Read ordinance #3, Series of 2013
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum from City Clerk/City Attorney
Ordinance #3, Series of 2013
Election Commission Minutes – January 18, 2012
P16
VII.a
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Election Commission, Kathryn Koch, Chair
Ward Hauenstein, Bob Leatherman
THRU: James R. True, City Attorney
DATE OF MEMO: January 14, 2013
RE: Ordinance #3 , Series of 2013 – Amending Chapter 9.10 relating to the
Conduct of Municipal Elections
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Adopt on first reading Ordinance #3, Series of 2013, making
changes to Chapter 9.10 relating to conduct of Municipal Elections
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In March 2011, Council adopted Ordinance #2, Series of
2011, adding Chapter 9.10 Conduct of Municipal Election, to the Municipal Code of the city of
Aspen.
BACKGROUND: In early 2011 before the regular Municipal Election, the Election
Commission (Kathryn Koch, Bob Leatherman, Ward Hauenstein), the city’s election consultant,
Dwight Shellman, and the city’s legal staff, John Worcester and Jim True, wrote and forwarded
to Council Ordinance #2, Series of 2011, to amplify C.R.S. 31-10-101 et. Seq. Conduct of
Municipal Elections.
DISCUSSION: Since the adoption of Ordinance #2, Series of 2011, the city conducted its
regular Municipal Election in May 2011. The Election Commission met January 18, 2013
(minutes attached) and reviewed changes to conduct of elections; their comments follow each
section below. Staff drafted Ordinance #X, Series of 2013, to address the recommended
changes:
Section 9.10.020 Definitions
Precinct definition has been added - Precincts for the purposes of municipal elections
shall be those established by the Pitkin County Clerk’s Office for voters residing with the city of
Aspen for the most recent county, state, and/or federal election.
Election Commission voted unanimously to add this definition.
Section 9.10.060 Absentee Voting
P17
VII.a
Page 2 of 3
(b) addressing permanent mail-in voters must apply for municipal absentee ballots has
been deleted in its entirety. The city clerk’s office sent out 5,824 post cards to all registered
voters telling them even if they are on the Permanent Mail-In Voter List, they had to apply for an
absentee ballot in person or by mail. I did receive two complaints from people who felt they
should not have had to do that. Also, since the 2011 election, the county has had at least 3
elections and people rely on the fact they will automatically receive a ballot in the mail. When
staff recommended the city NOT honor permanent mail-in voting status, the city did not have a
way to verify signatures. For the May 2011 election, the city’s election consultant, Dwight
Shellman, was able to use a data base from the Secretary of State’s office for signature
verification. Shellman assures us this data base can be used for May 2013.
Election Commission voted 2 to 1 to NOT amend (b) and use permanent mail-in voting - Excerpt
from minutes Hauenstein said the Commission discussed this in 2011 and his concern is that
there are a lot of opportunities for mishandling of ballots, ballots disposed and may not wind up
in the actual voter’s possession. Hauenstein said he wants to opt out of permanent mail-in voter
section.
The reason Council opted out of permanent mail in voting in 2011 is the city clerk’s office was
not assured there would be signature verification and we would be accepting ballots on faith. In
May 2011, the city DID have signature verification; 4 panels of election judges verified the
signature on every ballot.
(e) Casting and Receipt of Absentee Ballots in Clerk’s Office has two deletions in the
fourth sentence: . . “the clerk shall write or stamp the date (and time) such envelope was
received in the clerk’s office and, if the ballot was delivered in person, the name (and address) of
the person delivery the same . . “ This deletion will make the ordinance and what happens in real
time the same.
Election Commisstion voted unanimously to amend (e)
Section 9.10.100 Electronic Vote Counting Equipment Testing
Delete “provided that such testing shall be no rigorous than the testing for such electronic
vote counting equipment required by the Election Code of 1992, Section 1-1-101 et. Seq. C.R.S.
and the applicable Election Rules promulgated by the Colorado Secretary of State”.
The city’s testing is extremely vigorous and municipalities do not follow Section 1-1-101
nor are they under the Colorado Secretary of State’s rules. The Election Commission voted 3 to
0 to support the deletion in 9.10.100
Section 9.10.120 Recount
(a) All recounts of municipal elections, including run-off elections, shall be conducted pursuant
to C.R.S., Section 31-10-1027, except as modified by subsection (b), below.
P18
VII.a
Page 3 of 3
(b) The clerk shall appoint and convene a panel of election judges to conduct a manual recount
of the votes cast in any election, including run-off elections, if it appears, as evidenced by the
survey of returns, that the outcome of a contest turns on a number of votes less than or equal to
one-half of one percent of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the election, as set forth
herein:
i. A recount of any election contest shall be held if the difference between the number of
votes required to be elected pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Aspen Municipal Charter and
number of votes received by a candidate in that election contest is less than or equal to
one-half of one percent of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the election.
ii. Pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Charter, Sections 3.2 and 3.3, a runoff can be required if
no candidate for the office achieves the threshold set forth for election. A recount shall
be required in the event a runoff is required and the difference in number of votes
between a candidate who would advance to the run-off and a candidate who would not
advance to the run-off is less than or equal to one-half of one percent of the total number
of ballots cast and counted in the election.
iii. A recount of the vote on any election question or election issue shall be held if the
difference between the number of yes votes and the number of no votes is less than or
equal to one-half of one percent of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the
election.
iv. Election contest shall mean the contest for a particular municipal office or a ballot issue
or ballot question.
There was a vigorous discussion of recount at the January 18th Election Commission
meeting (see minutes), resulting in the above proposed language. This language has been
forwarded to the Election Commission for comment as it was drafted after discussion at the most
recent meeting.
Section 9.10.130 Preservation of Ballots and Election Records
Marilyn Marks brought up the change in state legislation regarding examination of
ballots. The Election Commission voted 2 in favor 1 abstention (Ms. Koch abstained). It follow
state law. Jim True, city attorney drafted changes to Section 9.10.130
ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve all or some of the recommended changes.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to Read Ordinance #3, Series of 2013 , I move to adopt
Ordinance #X, Series of 2013 on first reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P19
VII.a
ORDINANCE NO. 3
Series of 2013
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY AMENDING
TITLE 9 CHAPTER 9.10, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF MUNICPAL
ELECTIONS.
WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 6(d) of the Colorado State Constitution grants to Home
Rule municipalities the power to legislate in “all matters pertaining to municipal elections;” and,
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen is a Home Rule municipality having adopted a home
rule in accordance with the Colorado Constitution; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter states that all “City
elections shall be governed by the Colorado Municipal Election Laws as now existing or
hereafter amended or modified except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, or by ordinance
hereafter enacted;” and,
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, the electorate of the City of Aspen did approve
Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, to amend the City of Aspen City Charter by repealing instant
run-off voting procedures and adopting run-off election procedures for the election of Mayor and
members of City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt election procedures as approved by the
electorate and to make improvements to those procedures.
WHEREAS, the Election Commission has considered and recommends minor
improvements to amend Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2011,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
P21
VII.a
That Title 9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby amended by the
addition of a new Chapter 9.10 which Chapter shall read as follows:
Chapter 9.10
Conduct of Municipal Elections
Sec. 9.10.010. Applicability.
This Chapter shall apply to all municipal elections conducted by the City of Aspen. All other
provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code, Sections 31-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., shall
apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with this Chapter. The Uniform Election Code of
1992, as amended from time to time, Sections 1-1-101, et seq., C.R.S., shall apply to all elections
coordinated with Pitkin County, Colorado
Sec. 9.10.020. Definitions.
As used in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
Audit unit. Counted ballots that are separately tabulated as part of the initial tabulation of votes.
Electronic vote-tabulating equipment or electronic vote-counting equipment. Any apparatus that
examines and records votes automatically and tabulates the result, including but not limited to
optical scanning equipment. The term includes any apparatus that counts votes electronically
and tabulates the results simultaneously on a paper tape within the apparatus, that uses an
electronic device to store the tabulation results, and that has the capability to transmit the votes
into a central processing unit for purposes of a printout and an official count.
Over vote. For each contest on a ballot, when the number of actual votes exceeds the maximum
number of allowable votes.
Precinct for the purposes of municipal elections shall be those established by the Pitkin County Clerk’s
Office for voters residing with the city of Aspen for the most recent county, state, and/or federal
election
Target area. The oval, rectangle, square or arrow printed on official municipal election ballots
that are adjacent to each choice in a ballot contest, which electors are instructed to complete or
fill to indicate their votes.
Under vote. For each contest on a ballot, the numerical difference between the number of
P22
VII.a
allowable votes and the number of actual votes, resulting from an elector’s intentional failure to
vote for the maximum number of allowable choices; except that an under vote does not exist if
there are fewer candidates than offices to be filled and the elector designates as many votes as
there are candidates.
Unverified ballot means any provisional ballot, absentee ballot or special absentee ballot other
than a verified absentee ballot or verified provisional ballot.
Verified absentee ballot means an absentee ballot or special absentee ballot returned by an
elector whose signature on the self-affirmation reply envelope or coversheet for electronic
transmission of special absentee ballot has been confirmed and verified by a panel of election
judges, or who has timely cured a missing signature or signature discrepancy, in accordance with
rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
Verified provisional ballot means a provisional ballot submitted by an elector whose signature on
the self-affirmation on the provisional ballot envelope has been confirmed and verified by a
panel of election judges, who has presented an acceptable form of identification when submitting
a provisional ballot or has timely cured his or her failure to do so, and whose voter registration
and eligibility to vote in the election being conducted has been verified by the clerk and
confirmed by a panel of election judges, all in accordance with rules and procedures adopted by
the Election Commission.
Sec. 9.10.030. Write-in Affidavit Required – When Election May be Cancelled
Pursuant to §31-10-306, C.R.S., and except as set forth below, no write-in vote for any
municipal office shall be counted unless an affidavit of intent has been filed with the clerk by the
person whose name is to be written in prior to twenty (20) days before the day of the election
indicating that such person desires the office and is qualified to assume the duties of that office if
elected. Pursuant to §31-10-507, C.R.S., if the only matter before the voters is the election of
persons to office and if, at the close of business on the nineteenth day before the election, there
are not more candidates than offices to be filled at such election, including eligible write-in
candidates who timely filed affidavits of intent, the clerk, if instructed by resolution by the City
Council, may cancel the election and declare the candidates elected.
Sec. 9.10.040. Counting Votes
(a) On Election Day, all votes shall be counted pursuant to the Colorado Municipal Election
Code, as amended by this Chapter or rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
(b) Counting Write-in Votes.
(1) Write-in votes for a candidate who has timely filed an affidavit of intent
pursuant to Section 9.10.030 of this Chapter shall be counted in the initial
tabulation if the voter properly marks the target area adjacent to the write-in line
P23
VII.a
and adequately indentifies the write-in candidate by printing or writing the name
of the eligible write-in candidate on the write-in line for the race or office
designated in the candidate’s affidavit of intent. A voter must, at a minimum,
write or print the last name of an eligible write-in candidate in order for the vote
to count for such candidate. If the voter incorrectly spells the write-in candidate’s
name, the vote may still count if the voter’s intent to vote for an eligible write-in
candidate is clear. A voter that writes only the first name or nickname of an
eligible write-in candidate has failed to cast a valid write-in vote.
(2) In the event that there is at least one eligible write-in candidate pursuant to
Section 9.10.030 in a ballot contest, and the number of under votes recorded by
electronic vote-counting equipment in the initial tabulation of votes in such
contest is great enough to affect the outcome of the election if all under votes
were awarded to one candidate, then all ballots containing all such under votes
shall be examined by one or more panels of election judges appointed by the clerk
for such purpose. If upon such examination, and in any post-election audit or
recount conducted pursuant to this Chapter, it is determined that a voter printed or
wrote the name of an eligible write-in candidate on the write-in line in any contest
but did not mark the target area for a write-in candidate for such contest, the vote
shall be counted for the eligible write-in candidate.
Sec. 9.10.050. Determination of voter intent.
Election officials shall consider voter intent in the situations that follow. Election
officials required to determine voter intent shall use guidelines issued by the Colorado Secretary
of State for this purpose including the most current version of the publication entitled “Voter
Intent - A Guide to the Determination of Voter Intent for Colorado Elections,” to the extent not
inconsistent with the remaining provisions of this Section and except as otherwise ordered by the
Election Commission.
(a) During a post-election audit pursuant to 9.10.110 of this Chapter, and any recount ordered by
the Election Commission as a result thereof;
(b) During a recount pursuant to Section 9.10.120 of this Chapter;
(c) In duplicating ballots pursuant to rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
Sec. 9.10.060. Absentee Voting
(a) The clerk shall provide absentee voting pursuant to Sections 31-10-1001 through 31-10-
1010, C.R.S., to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter.
- . --
P24
VII.a
(b) Applications for Absentee Ballots. Electors shall apply for absentee ballots in the manner
provided by Section 31-10-1002 (1), C.R.S., by filing an application in a form approved by the
clerk. In addition to all other information required of an applicant for absentee ballot under the
Municipal Election Code, the application form approved by the clerk shall also require the
applicant to provide all information reasonably necessary to enable, and designate the most
expeditious manner for, the clerk to contact and advise the applicant that he or she must cure a
missing signature or signature discrepancy in order for the elector’s returned absentee ballot to
be counted, pursuant to rules and procedures adopted by the Election Commission.
(c) Issuance of Absentee Ballots. The clerk shall issue all absentee ballots, security sleeves,
reply envelopes and voter instructions in the manner provided by Section 31-10-1002 (2), C.R.S.,
and shall record the issuance of all absentee ballots on an absentee ballot issuance log as
provided by Section 31-10-1002 (3), C.R.S.
(d) Casting and Receipt of Absentee Ballots in Clerk’s Office. Notwithstanding any provision to
the contrary of Sections 31-10-1005 and 31-10-1002(3), C.R.S., voting machines and electronic
voting systems shall not be made available in the clerk’s office for the use of electors to cast
absentee ballots. Instead, a sufficient number of privacy booths shall be made available in the
clerk’s office to enable electors to mark absentee ballots in privacy and secrecy, whether such
absentee ballots were delivered to the elector by mail or in person at the clerk’s office.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Section 31-10-1104(1), C.R.S., any registered
elector applying for and receiving an absentee ballot, including electors who mark their ballots in
the clerk’s office, shall make and subscribe to the self-affirmation on the absentee ballot reply
envelope, insert the folded marked ballot in the security sleeve, insert the security sleeve
containing the marked ballot into the reply envelope provided to the elector by the clerk when
the ballot was issued, and seal the reply envelope securely. Upon receiving an absentee ballot
returned by an elector, the clerk shall write or stamp the date such envelope was received in the
clerk’s office and, if the ballot was delivered in person, the name of the person delivering the
same, on the reply envelope and in the absentee ballot issuance log maintained by the clerk
pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section. All absentee ballots returned by electors to the clerk
shall be deposited into a sealed ballot box located in the clerk’s office for such purpose. The
clerk shall maintain all such ballot boxes in a sealed state until all ballot boxes containing all
such returned absentee ballots are delivered by the clerk to one or more panels of absentee ballot
judges, whereupon such sealed ballot boxes shall be unsealed and the absentee ballots contained
therein shall be processed and counted or rejected pursuant to rules and procedures adopted by
the Election Commission.
(e) Absentee Ballot Judges. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary of Section 31-10-
1006, C.R.S., on Election Day or on such other date and time as the clerk may designate, a
sufficient number of panels of election judges shall be convened to process and count all verified
absentee ballots and reject and preserve all unverified absentee ballots, pursuant to rules and
procedures adopted by the Election Commission. The clerk shall provide the appropriate
P25
VII.a
panel(s) of election judges convened pursuant to this subsection with a complete and accurate
copy of the absentee ballot issuance log on which all information regarding the issuance and
receipt of absentee ballots was recorded as required by subsections (d) and (e) of this Section.
Sec. 9.10.070. Special Absentee Ballot.
Once the clerk is able to provide official sample ballots for public inspection, any
registered and eligible elector who will be outside the United States on Election Day and during
the period of time for absentee voting in accordance with Section 9.10.060 of this Chapter may
apply to the clerk for a special absentee ballot to vote at a regular municipal or runoff election,
regardless of whether the elector has previously submitted an absentee ballot application for the
election. In no event shall a special absentee ballot be issued to electors after expiration of the
deadline for issuing absentee ballots as set forth in Section 31-10-1002(1), C.R.S. An
application for a special absentee ballot shall contain a statement by the registered elector that
the elector will be out of the United States on Election Day and the elector believes that he or she
cannot receive or return an absentee ballot during the normal absentee voting period provided by
§31-10-1002, C.R.S., or otherwise participate in absentee voting as set forth in Section 9.10.060
of this Chapter. Voters using a special absentee ballot shall be advised and acknowledge in
writing that their ballot will be duplicated onto an official absentee ballot and processed by
absentee ballot election judges in the same manner as absentee ballots regularly issued and
returned by electors. The Election Commission may adopt procedures authorizing the clerk to
electronically transmit and receive special absentee ballots by email or facsimile transmission,
provided that such procedures shall include provisions requiring electors to sign self-
affirmations on a coversheet to accompany the electronic transmission to the clerk of the special
absentee ballot marked by the voter, which self-affirmation shall be identical to those required of
electors returning regular absentee ballots, notifying voters how their electronically transmitted
ballots will be duplicated and processed, for tracking the receipt, duplication and casting of
electronically transmitted ballots by election officials or election judges, and for maintaining
voter confidentiality and ballot anonymity.
Sec. 9.10.080. Verification of Identification of Polling Place Electors
Any registered elector desiring to vote at a precinct polling place or vote center shall be
required to present an acceptable form of identification as defined by C.R.S. § 1-1-104(19.5), as
amended from time to time and in effect for the municipal election being conducted. When the
voter presents such identification, the election judge shall verify that the elector’s name on the
identification matches the name in the elector’s voter registration record as set forth in the
registration list or poll book, provided, however, that common variants of given names and
nicknames shall be acceptable. In addition, the election judge shall further verify that the
elector’s residence address as set forth in the identification, if listed, is in the State of Colorado.
Sec. 9.10.090. Provisional Balloting
P26
VII.a
(a) At any election conducted pursuant to this Chapter, a voter claiming to be properly registered
but whose qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be immediately established upon
examination of the poll book or registration list for the precinct or upon confirmation of the voter
registration records on file with the county clerk and recorder shall be entitled to cast a
provisional ballot in accordance with this Section.
(b) An elector who desires to vote but does not show identification in accordance with Section
9.10.080 of this Chapter may cast a provisional ballot.
(c) An elector who desires to vote at a polling place for a precinct other than the precinct of his
or her residence address as reflected in the poll book or registration list may cast a provisional
ballot in such polling place in accordance with this Section, or may proceed to the correct polling
place for the precinct of his or her residence address and cast a regular ballot, as such elector
may decide.
(d) If the poll book or registration list for a polling place or vote center reflects that an elector
has been issued an absentee or special absentee ballot, the elector shall not be permitted to cast a
regular ballot but may cast a provisional ballot at the polling place or vote center if the elector
affirms under oath that the elector has not and will not cast the absentee or special absentee
ballot. The provisional ballot shall be counted if the provisional ballot judges verify that the
elector is registered and eligible to vote and did not cast the absentee or special absentee ballot.
In the event it is determined that the elector’s representation on the provisional ballot affidavit is
erroneous and the elector both returned an absentee ballot to the clerk and submitted a
provisional ballot at a polling place or vote center, then the provisional ballot submitted by the
elector shall be rejected and the elector’s absentee ballot shall be processed in the manner set in
Section 9.10.060 of this Chapter.
(e) A provisional ballot shall contain text or bear a legend clearly identifying it as a provisional
ballot.
(f) An elector casting a provisional ballot shall complete an affidavit and receive information
and instructions on the voting and handling of provisional ballots. The provisional ballot
affidavit and instructions shall be printed on the outside of provisional ballot envelopes, which
shall have adhesive seals and detachable stubs. Each provisional ballot envelope and stub shall
be printed with the same unique and anonymous identifying number. The detachable stub shall
also contain instructions advising the elector submitting the provisional ballot to contact the
clerk’s office or visit the city’s website on or after a date certain in order to determine whether
his or her provisional ballot was counted or not counted. and the reason(s) it was not counted, if
applicable.
(g) Each polling place using paper provisional ballots shall have on hand a sufficient number of
provisional ballots and provisional ballot envelopes.
P27
VII.a
(h) Submission of Provisional Ballots by Electors.
(1) An elector desiring to submit a provisional ballot shall be issued a provisional
ballot by a polling place or vote center election judge. The election judge shall
write the word “Provisional” on the ballot stub, detach the ballot from the ballot
stub prior to issuance to the elector and note the style of provisional ballot, if any,
issued to the elector in the space provided on the provisional ballot. The issuance
of provisional ballots shall also be noted on a provisional ballot log in a form
approved by the clerk. The elector shall mark the provisional ballot in private,
insert the marked provisional ballot in the provisional ballot envelope provided by
the election judge, seal the provisional ballot envelope, and complete the
provisional ballot affidavit and sign the self-affirmation printed on the provisional
ballot envelope. A polling place or vote center election judge shall examine the
provisional ballot affidavit to ensure that it is complete and signed by the elector,
detach the stub from the envelope and deliver the same to the elector, and return
the sealed provisional ballot envelope to the elector, who shall deposit the same
into a separate ballot box or bin maintained at the polling place or vote center for
that purpose. All sealed provisional ballot envelopes deposited into the
designated ballot box or bin shall be gathered by the polling place election judges
at the end of voting on Election Day and delivered to the clerk in a segregated,
sealed and unopened state, together with the provisional ballot log and other
ballots, supplies and equipment from the polling place.
(2) The fact that an elector has submitted a provisional ballot shall be indicated
on the elector’s signature card and next to the elector’s name on the polling place
or vote center poll book or registration list.
(3) If an elector who submits a provisional ballot does not show identification as
required by Section 9.10.080 of this Chapter, the election official shall note such
fact in the space provided on the provisional ballot envelope.
(4) Once a provisional ballot has been deposited into the designated ballot box or
bin, it may not be changed, retrieved, or nullified by the elector.
Sec. 9.10.100. Electronic Vote Counting Equipment Testing
Pursuant to Section 31-10-801, C.R.S., the clerk is authorized to use the AccuVote
Optical Scan (“AVOS”) electronic vote counting equipment, version 1.94w, and related Global
Election Management Software (“GEMS”) ballot layout and tabulation software, for all
municipal elections. Prior to an election in which such electronic vote counting equipment is to
be used, the clerk shall have all system components prepared for voting and shall inspect and
determine that each vote recorder or voting device is in proper working order and shall conduct
testing in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Election Commission, . The Election
P28
VII.a
Commission may promulgate such other security protocols and procedures as it deems
appropriate for any municipal election, which protocols and procedures shall be implemented by
election officials and judges during the conduct of any municipal election. The clerk shall cause
a sufficient number of recorders or devices to be delivered to each election precinct in which an
electronic voting system is to be used.
Sec. 9.10.110. Post-election Audit.
(a) Not later than seven (7) days after each election, including run-off elections, the clerk shall
publicly conduct a manual random audit of at least one contest on at least one audit unit in
accordance with procedures adopted by the Election Commission, or such greater number of
contests and audit units as the Election Commission may determine. The audit shall be
conducted for the purpose of comparing the published initial tabulation of votes with the
tabulation of votes resulting from the audit.
(b) Upon completion of the audit required by subsection (a) of this Section, if there is any
discrepancy between the published initial tabulation of votes for the audit unit and the tabulation
of votes for the audit unit resulting from the post-election audit, the clerk, in consultation with
the Election Commission, shall investigate the discrepancy and shall take such remedial action as
the Election Commission deems necessary. In the event that the post-election audit reveals a
discrepancy with the published initial tabulation of votes for an audit unit that, when extrapolated
in the manner determined by the Election Commission to the total number of ballots cast in the
election, is sufficient to change the outcome of any ballot contest, then the term “remedial
action” as used in this subsection shall include the authority to order a recount of all ballots cast
in the election pursuant to Section 9.10.120 of this Chapter, without regard to the threshold for
such a recount set forth in Section 9.10.120(b) or § 31-10-1207, C.R.S.
(c) Upon receiving any written complaint from a registered elector from within the City of
Aspen containing credible evidence concerning a problem with the initial tabulation process, the
clerk, in consultation with the Election Commission, shall investigate the complaint and take
such remedial action as necessary.
(d) The clerk shall promptly make available for public inspection on the City of Aspen website
a report containing a description of the audit process undertaken, including any initial, interim,
and final results of any completed audit or investigation conducted pursuant to this Section.
(e) Any procedures adopted by the Election Commission for the conduct of an audit shall
ensure that at least two members of the Election Commission are present during the audit and for
the confidentiality of electors and the anonymity of the ballots cast.
Sec. 9.10.120. Recount.
P29
VII.a
(a) All recounts of municipal elections, including run-off elections, shall be conducted pursuant to
C.R.S., Section 31-10-1027, except as modified by subsection (b), below.
(b) The clerk shall appoint and convene a panel of election judges to conduct a manual recount of the
votes cast in any election, including run-off elections, if it appears, as evidenced by the survey of returns,
that the outcome of a contest turns on a number of votes less than or equal to one-half of one percent
of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the election, as set forth herein:
i. A recount of any election contest shall be held if the difference between the number of
votes required to be elected pursuant to Chapter 3 of the Aspen Municipal Charter and
number of votes received by a candidate in that election contest is less than or equal to
one-half of one percent of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the election.
ii. Pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Charter, Sections 3.2 and 3.3, a runoff can be required if
no candidate for the office achieves the threshold set forth for election. A recount shall
be required in the event a runoff is required and the difference in number of votes
between a candidate who would advance to the run-off and a candidate who would not
advance to the run-off is less than or equal to one-half of one percent of the total number
of ballots cast and counted in the election.
iii. A recount of the vote on any election question or election issue shall be held if the
difference between the number of yes votes and the number of no votes is less than or
equal to one-half of one percent of the total number of ballots cast and counted in the
election.
iv. Election contest shall mean the contest for a particular municipal office or a ballot issue
or ballot question.
Sec. 9.10.130. Preservation of Ballots and Election Records.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in § 31-10-616, C.R.S., the ballots, when not
required to be taken from the ballot box for purposes of conducting post-election audits, recounts
or election contests, examination , as set forth below, shall remain in sealed ballot boxes or
transfer cases in the custody of the clerk until six months after the election at which such ballots
were cast, or until the time has expired for which the ballots would be needed in any contest
proceedings or examination, as set forth below, whichever last occurs, at which time the ballot
box shall be opened by the clerk and the ballots destroyed by fire, shredding, or burial, or by any
other method approved by the executive director of the department of personnel. If the ballot
boxes are needed for a special election before the legal time for commencing any proceeding in
the way of contests has elapsed or in case the clerk, at the time of holding such special election,
has knowledge of the pendency of any contests in which the ballots would be needed or has had
P30
VII.a
a request for examination, as set forth below, the clerk shall preserve the ballots in some secure
manner and provide for their being kept so that no one can ascertain how any voter may have
voted.
(b) The clerk shall preserve all other official election records and forms for at least six months
following a regular or special election, or until the time has expired for which the official
election records would be needed in any contest proceedings, whichever last occurs.
(c) Pursuant to Colo. Const., art. XX, §6, the City of Aspen, as a home rule municipality, is
entitled to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise.
Pursuant to such authority, the City hereby incorporates herein the provisions of C.R.S. §24-72-
205.5 of the Colorado Open Records Act regarding the examination of ballots, except as
otherwise may be deemed modified by subsection (a), above.
Section 9.10.140. Reporting of Results.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Municipal Election Code to the contrary, all
preliminary, interim and final election results shall be reported by precinct for each manner of
voting other than provisional ballots, which may be reported cumulatively or in another manner
that, in the judgment of the Election Commission, best ensures voter confidentiality and ballot
anonymity.
Section 9.10.150. Election Commission to Adopt Rules and Procedures.
The Election Commission shall adopt such rules, policies and procedures as it deems
appropriate to implement the provisions of this Chapter and effectuate the integrity, security,
verifiability, purity and transparency of all municipal elections of the City of Aspen.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
P31
VII.a
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of February, 2013, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of February, 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 25h day of March 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P32
VII.a
Aspen Election Commission January 18, 2013
1
Kathryn Koch, chairman, called the meeting to order at 2 PM with members Bob Leatherman and Ward
Hauenstein present.
Minutes
Hauenstein moved to approve the minutes of December 27, 2012; seconded by Leatherman. All in
favor, motion carried.
Election Ordinance changes
Kathryn Koch reminded the commission there are two sets of changes to be considered for the 2013
regular municipal election; one set of legislative changes to be adopted by City Council and one set of
procedural changes to be adopted by the Election Commission. The changes considered at this meeting
will have to go to city Council. The first change is to Section 9.10.020 “Definitions” to add a definition of
precincts – “Precincts for the purposes of municipal elections shall be those established by the Pitkin
County Clerk’s Office for voters residing within the city of Aspen for the most recent county, state,
and/or federal election”. Hauenstein and Leatherman agreed with that change.
Ms. Koch recommended a change to Section 9.10.060 (b) absentee voting. For the 2011 election, the
Commission agreed not to follow permanent mail-in procedures but to mail post cards to all registered
voters telling them they would need to apply for an absentee ballot even if they were on the permanent
mail in voter list. Ms. Koch told the Commission the reasons for her recommendation to change this is
that her office received a few complaints that voters expected to receive ballots in the mail and there
have been 3 elections since May 2011 and voters on the permanent mail in list expect to receive ballots
in that method.
Hauenstein said the Commission discussed this in 2011 and his concern is that there are a lot of
opportunities for mishandling of ballots, ballots disposed and may not wind up in the actual voter’s
possession. Hauenstein said he wants to opt out of permanent mail-in voter section. Leatherman said
that is a compelling reason not to send ballots out to voters on the permanent mail-in list. Ms. Koch
reminded the Commission that in 2011 it was not known if there would be signature verification. For
the 2011 election, there was signature verification and the city’s election consultant, Dwight Shellman,
has said there will be signature verification for the 2013 election. For the 2011 election, the city clerk’s
office send post cards to 5824 voters to tell them they would have to come in an apply for ballots; this
was a cost of $1600 and post cards are still being returned by the post office 21 months later.
Hauenstein stated he is concerned about stray ballots. Ms. Koch pointed out the signature on the ballot
has to match that in the system and be approved by mail in ballot judges.
Marilyn Marks said there is evidence that people have ended up on the permanent mail in voter list that
have not intended to be there and it seems to be a default setting. Ms. Marks asked if the city has
proof that the Secretary of State will provide signatures for the May 2013 election. Ms. Koch said she
will contact the Secretary of State’s office for a commitment to provide signatures for verification. Ms.
Marks asked for reports on how many city of aspen permanent mail-in ballots came back as
undeliverable in the November 2012 election. Ms. Marks asked how many voters who received a mail
ballot in November came in and requested provisional ballots.
Hauenstein moved to recommend not changing 9.10.060(b); seconded by Leatherman. Leatherman and
Hauenstein in favor; Ms. Koch opposed. Motion carried.
P33
VII.a
Aspen Election Commission January 18, 2013
2
Ms. Koch noted the next recommended change to 9.10.060(e) casting and receipt of absentee ballots in
clerk’s office and two deletions; “the clerk shall write or stamp the date (and time) such envelope
was received in the clerk’s office and, if the ballot was delivered in person, the name (and
address) of the person delivery the same . . “ Deleting (and time) and (and address) will make
the ordinance and what happens in real time the same. Ms. Marks said the address should be
noted of people who bring in a batches of ballot, not only who they are but where they are
from. Ms. Koch said that has not been an issue in city elections; voters general bring in one or
at most two ballots. Hauenstein requested that if there is a spike in the number of people
brining in bunches of ballots, the election commission be informed.
Leatherman moved to recommend those deletions; seconded by Hauenstein. All in favor,
motion carried.
The next change is to Section 9.10.100 electronic vote count equipment testing and Ms. Koch
recommended deleting “provided that such testing shall be no rigorous than the testing for
such electronic vote counting equipment required by the Election Code of 1992, Section 1-1-
101 et. Seq. C.R.S. and the applicable Election Rules promulgated by the Colorado Secretary of
State”. The city’s testing is extremely vigorous and municipalities do not follow Section 1-1-
101 nor are they under the Colorado Secretary of State’s rules. Ms. Koch said the standards for
testing of machines are in the Election Commission’s procedures; there is a pre-printed test
deck as well as ballots filled out by test judges. Hauenstein noted there was not discrepancy in
the testing done in 2011.
Ms. Marks said she has spent a lot of time with a municipality on whether or not municipalities
have to follow 1-1-101 or the Secretary of State’s rules and the current position of the Secretary
of State is that municipal elections do follow some of the SOS’s rules on equipment testing. Ms.
Marks suggested she write a memorandum on why this assumption is not correct.
Hauenstein moved that based on the experience with Dwight Shellman, the Election
Commission recommend 9.10.100 be modified by striking the above; seconded by Hauenstein.
All in favor, motion carried.
Hauenstein said if Ms. Marks comes up with a memorandum on this point, it can be presented
to City Council.
The last issue is 9.10.120 Recount. Jim True, city attorney said there are two issues on recount;
recount for the position of Mayor is clear and it is less clear when there are two offices
available. The other issue is avoiding or having a runoff, which makes this more difficult to
write. Hauenstein said election night, the question arose if there is a recount, what threshold
should be used, at runoff or at having a winner declared of a contest.
True’s example in the Mayor election with 1000 people voting:
Candidate A 501 (which is 50% plus 1)
Candidate B 250
Candidate C 248
P34
VII.a
Aspen Election Commission January 18, 2013
3
The total of Candidates B and C is 498 which would be within the threshold of ½ of 1%;
Candidate A has been elected without a runoff by only 2 votes. The next highest candidate is
251 votes lower. Hauenstein said for him, the threshold is to declare a winner, not to have a
runoff. Hauenstein said in this example, 501 to 250, there is no question that candidate A has
won the contest and a recount will not change the outcome. An election is to decide the
outcome of a contest, not an election to decide if there is going to be a runoff.
Ms. Marks encouraged the Commission not to structure this to discourage recounts. Ms. Marks
said in the case of 750 votes
Candidate A 255
Candidate B 250
Candidate C 245
Is there a runoff. True said there is no doubt about a runoff; however, the recount would not be needed
because the next highest vote total is not within that ½ of 1%, which would be 2 votes. Ms. Marks
questioned whether the margin should be as small as it is. True said the way this is written and in the
above scenario, the margin for a recount would be 2 or 3 votes. Ms. Marks said other recount
provisions are written ½ of 1% of the total election, not of the winner of a context. Hauenstein
suggested writing the section about recount that “if the difference is less than the total number of votes
cast in that contest”.
Another example would be 750 voters
Candidate A 300
Candidate B 226
Candidate C 224
There will be a runoff of candidates A and B; is it fair not to have a recount for candidate C who is only 2
votes behind candidate B and has missed out on being in the runoff. True said if there are multiple
candidates for one office and candidate A is ahead but does not have the threshold to win outright and
the next 2 candidates are really close, does the Election Commission want to have a mandatory recount
and at what level between candidate B and C. Hauenstein reiterated that a contest is to decide a winner
not to decide a runoff. When one candidate clearly wins, there is no problem and if there is a runoff at
which point will there be a recount between candidates B and C. Ms. Koch said morally there should be
a recount if there are 2 votes from a candidate getting in the runoff to make sure a candidate is not
mistakenly omitted. True said he will work on language for section 9.10.120 to forward to city Council.
The Commission agreed a recount should be triggered at ½ of 1% of the votes cast in the election which
would not have to be divided by 2 for the Council race or not counting under votes.
Leatherman pointed out the Charter states that the top two vote getters go to the runoff so in the
above example it would be Candidates A and B. The question is if the difference is 2 votes, there should
be a recount to verify the ballots are counted correctly. Hauenstein said if the margin of who becomes a
runoff candidate is less than ½ of 1% of the total number of votes in that election, that triggers a recount
for the whole contest. True said he will forward to the Commission the language for amending this
section.
P35
VII.a
Aspen Election Commission January 18, 2013
4
Ms. Marks brought up Section 9.10.130 Preservation of Ballots and that the state law has changed and it
is clear ballots are open records and a matter or statewide interest. Ms. Marks suggested these
procedures follow state law. True agreed this section is different from what the legislature passed.
True asked the judge to consider whether the city had a right to pre-empt state law, just because it is a
matter of state wide interest does not mean one can override the constitutional requirement that
municipalities secure their own elections. Ms. Marks stated this is going to appeal court.
Leatherman moved that election commission recommends that 9.10.130 should be changed to conform
to state law; seconded by Hauenstein. All in favor, Ms. Koch abstained. Motion carried.
Hauenstein moved to adjourn at 3:25 PM; seconded by Ms. Koch. All in favor, motion carried.
P36
VII.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 2/4/2013
MEETING DATE: 2/11/2013
RE: Employee Generation Rates and GMQS Code Amendment
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:
P37
VII.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
P38
VII.b
2.11.2013 – First Reading Employee Generation Code Amendment
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Employee Generation and Double Dip Code Amendment
Ordinance 4, Series of 2013, First Reading
DATE OF MEMO: January 30, 2013
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2013
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance includes proposed code amendments to the employee generation figures in
the Growth Management Section of the Land Use Code, as well as the “double dip” provision in
Growth Management that allows a developer to mitigate for only the largest of multiple affordable
housing mitigation requirements if that mitigation is in the form of on-site units. The objective of
the proposed code amendments is to update the employee generation figures since the 2002 study
and to require affordable housing mitigation more closely related to the actual impact.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the 1st reading of proposed code amendments to update the Employee Generation figures
in the land use code and to eliminate the “double dip” mitigation provision. 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:
Employee Generation Figures: The Land Use Code includes employee generation figures for
commercial, lodging, and public uses. These figures are based on a 2002 survey of employers.
Staff has worked with land use consultant Economic Planning Systems (EPS) to conduct an
update to this study, which reflects the changed employment patterns since 2002. Staff presented
the preliminary draft to City Council at the December 11th work session, and received direction
to move forward with the code amendment.
P39
VII.b
2.11.2013 – First Reading Employee Generation Code Amendment
Page 2 of 3
EPS and city staff surveyed 128 managers and owners of local businesses and lodges during late
September and early January. The businesses and lodges surveyed represent a statistically valid
sample of business from the following categories: Hotel, Business/Professional Office, Non-
profit Office, Real Estate, Restaurant/Bar, Retail, and Services.
Using that information, as well as business license records and employment data from the State,
EPS was able to provide updated employee generation figures. Based on the study, there have
been minor fluctuations in all land uses, which is to be expected over a 10 year period. The table
below outlines those changes. The entire report is attached as Exhibit C.
It is important to note that the land use code currently aggregates all similar businesses into
general land use categories for purposes of mitigation and impacts fees – for instance, retail,
restaurant, and galleries are all considered “commercial uses,” and a small lodge and a large
lodge are both considered “lodge uses.” The generation rates are then based on geographic
areas, with different generation rates in the downtown, SCI zone, and on Main Street (Mixed Use
Zone). This standardization ensures that all businesses within specific geographic areas are
treated fairly, and that the city is not in a position to require affordable housing mitigation every
time a tenant changes in a particular space.
“Double dip” provision: In addition to updating the commercial and lodge employee
generation figures, the proposed code amendment would eliminate the “double dip” provision of
growth management. The provision allows a development to only meet the larger of multiple
affordable housing requirements when providing on-site affordable housing mitigation. This
provision has been in the Land Use Code for approximately ten (10) years, and was originally
added, in part, to encourage redevelopment after a period of little re-investment in the
downtown.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
P40
VII.b
2.11.2013 – First Reading Employee Generation Code Amendment
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2013, approving amendments related to the
employee generation figures and the “double dip” mitigation provision in the Growth
Management Chapter of the Land Use Code.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed Employee Generation and “double dip” Code Amendment
Language
Exhibit C – Approved Policy Resolution 104, Series 2013
Exhibit D – Employee Generation Study
P41
VII.b
City Council Ord #__ of 2013
Growth Management Code Amendments
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE No. 4
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN AMENDMNET TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 26.470.100 – GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM -
CALCULATIONS.
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 Employee Generation figures and the
“double dip” employee mitigation provision in the Growth Management Chapter of the Land
Use Code; 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 City Council regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on January 28, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No.15, Series of 2013, by a five to zero
(5 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the employee generation figures in the Land Use Code;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on August 27, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution No. 28, Series of 2012, by a three to
two (3 – 2) vote, requesting code amendments to the “double dip” employee mitigation provision in
the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.470.100 – Growth
Management Quota System - Calculations; 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: Sec. 26.470.100(A), Growth Management Quota System - Calculations, shall be
P43
VII.b
City Council Ord #__ of 2013
Growth Management Code Amendments
Page 2 of 4
amended as follows:
A. Employee generation and mitigation. Whenever employee housing or cash-in-lieu is
required to mitigate for employees generated by a development, there shall be an analysis and
credit for employee generation of the existing project, prior to redevelopment, and an employee
generation analysis of the proposed development. The employee mitigation requirement shall be
based upon the incremental employee generation difference between the existing development
and the proposed development.
1. Employee generation. The following employee generation rates are the result of the
Employee Generation Study, an analysis sponsored by the City during the fall and winter
of 2012 considering the actual employment requirements of over one hundred (100)
Aspen businesses. This study is available at the Community Development Department.
Employee generation is quantified as full-time equivalents (FTEs) per one thousand
(1,000) square feet of net leasable space or per lodge bedroom.
Zone District
Employees Generated per
1,000 Square Feet of Net
Leasable Space
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial (C-1)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Commercial Lodge (CL) commercial
space
Lodge (L) commercial space
Lodge Preservation (LP) commercial
space
Lodge Overlay (LO) commercial space
Ski Base (SKI) commercial space
4.7
Mixed-Use (MU) 3.6
Service Commercial Industrial (S/C/I) 3.9
Public1 5.1
Lodge Preservation (LP) lodge units .3 per lodging bedroom
Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Ski
Base (SKI) and other zone district lodge
units
.6 per lodging bedroom
1 For the Public Zone, the study evaluated only office-type public uses, and this
number should not be considered typical for other non-office public facilities. Hence,
each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be evaluated for actual employee
generation.
This Employee Generation Rate Schedule shall be used to determine employee
generation of projects within the City. Each use within a mixed-use building shall
require a separate calculation to be added to the total for the project. For commercial net
leasable space within basement or upper floors, the rates quoted above shall be reduced
P44
VII.b
City Council Ord #__ of 2013
Growth Management Code Amendments
Page 3 of 4
by twenty-five percent (25%) for the purpose of calculating total employee generation.
This reduction shall not apply to lodge units.
For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as "lock-off units,"
each separate "key" or rentable division shall constitute a unit for the purposes of this
Section. Timeshare units and exempt timeshare units are considered lodging projects for
the purposes of determining employee generation.
Applicants may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth management review procedures,
and according to the following criteria. All essential public facilities shall be reviewed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation. In
establishing employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the following:
a) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation
pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort economy.
b) Any unique employment characteristics of the operation.
c) The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a
related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions.
d) A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of
the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
e) Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual
employee generation.
f) For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees
required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the
Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit
towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the
project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee
generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge.
[Sections 2-5 are Not Changed]
6. No combination of multiple affordable housing requirements allowed. Whenever
multiple affordable housing mitigation requirements are required, each housing
requirement shall be met. For example: A mixed-use project may require two (2)
affordable housing units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation and
two (2) affordable housing units to mitigate free-market residential development. In this
case, four (4) affordable housing units are required.
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.
P45
VII.b
City Council Ord #__ of 2013
Growth Management Code Amendments
Page 4 of 4
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:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of February, 2013, 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 ____ day of ____________, 2013.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2013.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P46
VII.b
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 updates a code section
that is already in place. 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:
Earlier this year, City Council identified a number of AACP implementation priorities. One of
the top priorities was updating the ten-year old study of employee generation figures. The last
study was completed in 2002, and this update ensures the employee generation numbers in the
land use code account for the changes and fluctuations in the market since then. 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 a predictable and fair review of land use
applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P47
VII.b
Exhibit B
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – GMQS
Page 1
Chapter 26.470
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS)
Sections:
Sec. 26.470.100. Calculations.
26.470.100. Calculations.
A. Employee generation and mitigation. Whenever employee housing or cash-in-lieu is
required to mitigate for employees generated by a commercial or lodging development, there
shall be an analysis and credit for employee generation of the existing project, prior to
redevelopment, and an employee generation analysis of the proposed development. The
employee mitigation requirement shall be based upon the incremental employee generation
difference between the existing development and the proposed development.
1. Employee generation. The following employee generation rates are the result of the
Employee Generation Study, an analysis sponsored by the City during the summer and
fall and winter of 2002 2012 considering the actual employment requirements of over one
hundred (100) Aspen businesses. This study is available at the Community Development
Department. Employee generation is quantified as full-time equivalents (FTEs) per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable space or per lodge bedroom.
Zone District
Employees Generated per
1,000 Square Feet of Net
Leasable Space
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial (C-1)
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Commercial Lodge (CL) commercial
space
Lodge (L) commercial space
Lodge Preservation (LP) commercial
space
Lodge Overlay (LO) commercial space
Ski Base (SKI) commercial space
4.14.7
Mixed-Use (MU) 3.73.6
Service Commercial Industrial (S/C/I) 3.53.9
Public1 3.95.1
Lodge Preservation (LP) lodge units .3 per lodging bedroom
Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Ski
Base (SKI) and other zone district lodge
units
.5.6 per lodging bedroom
1 For the Public Zone, the study evaluated only office-type public uses, and this
number should not be considered typical for other non-office public facilities. Hence,
P49
VII.b
Exhibit B
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – GMQS
Page 2
Zone District
Employees Generated per
1,000 Square Feet of Net
Leasable Space
each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be evaluated for actual employee
generation.
This Employee Generation Rate Schedule shall be used to determine employee
generation of projects within the City. Each use within a mixed-use building shall
require a separate calculation to be added to the total for the project. For commercial net
leasable space within basement or upper floors, the rates quoted above shall be reduced
by twenty-five percent (25%) for the purpose of calculating total employee generation.
This reduction shall not apply to lodge units.
For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as "lock-off units,"
each separate "key" or rentable division shall constitute a unit for the purposes of this
Section. Timeshare units and exempt timeshare units are considered lodging projects for
the purposes of determining employee generation.
Applicants may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth management review procedures,
and according to the following criteria. All essential public facilities shall be reviewed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation. In
establishing employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the following:
a) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation
pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort economy.
b) Any unique employment characteristics of the operation.
c) The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a
related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions.
d) A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of
the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
e) Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual
employee generation.
f) For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees
required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the
Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit
towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the
project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee
generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge.
[Sections 2-5 are Not Changed]
P50
VII.b
Exhibit B
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – GMQS
Page 3
6. On-site housing serves No combination of multiple affordable housing requirements
allowed. Whenever multiple affordable housing mitigation requirements are required,
each housing requirement shall be met. Whenever affordable housing is provided on site
(with actual units) in order to satisfy one (1) requirement, the same on-site affordable
housing may also be used to satisfy any other affordable housing requirement
concurrently. For example: A mixed-use project may require two (2) affordable housing
units to mitigate an increase in commercial employee generation and two (2) affordable
housing units to mitigate free-market residential development. In this case, providing
twofour (24) on-site affordable housing units shall satisfy both requirements concurrently
are required.
Whenever required affordable housing is provided by means other than on-site provision,
such housing, or payment in lieu thereof, shall accrue consecutively to individual
requirements and shall not serve requirements concurrently. In the above example,
provision of four (4) units would be required.
P51
VII.b
RESOLUTION N0. 15,
SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEE GENERATION FIGURES IN
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 Employee Generation figures in the Growth Management Chapter of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with City Council regarding the code
amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended the Employee
Generation figures in Growth Management be updated from the 2002 employee generation
study; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on January 28, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No.15, Series of 2013,
by a five to zero (5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the employee generation
figures in the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the employee generation
figures in the Land Use Code to ensure they reflect current employment patterns.
Section 2•
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
Resolution No 15, Series 2013
Page 1 of 2
P53
VII.b
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3•
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 28th day of January 2013.
l-3a -2o 3
Michael C. freland,Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kathryn S och, City Clerk James R True,City Attorney
Resolution No 15, Series 2013
Page 2 of 2
P54
VII.b
D RAFT M EMORANDUM
To: Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen Long Range Planner
From: David Schwartz and Andy Knudtsen,
Economic & Planning Systems
Subject: Employment Generation Rate Updates
Date: February 1, 2013
Background
The City of Aspen contracted with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
to update its 2002 employee generation rates for its Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS). In addition to a need for updated
rates, economic volatility during the last decade, such as the housing
and financial crisis, contributed to substantial employment shifts in the
City and raised further questions regarding the applicability of the 2002
rates.
Maintaining effective housing policy solutions continues to be a critical
component of Aspen’s long-range planning efforts. The results of this
analysis will be used to update development code standards in the
GMQS with current employee generation rates. The timing of this effort
allows for an update to the rates as well as a brief examination of the
underlying trends. This memorandum is divided into four parts
including: survey methodology, updated employment generation rates,
comparable community implementation issues, and underlying trends.
Methodology
The 2002 employee generation rates were estimated using information
collected through a survey of 82 local businesses. An objective of this
update was to obtain an equal or greater number of responses in a
survey of local businesses. There was also a need to survey a sample of
businesses not only representative of existing commercial uses, but of
those most likely to be included in redevelopment proposals.
P55
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 2
123053-DR-012913
In September 2012, EPS and City of Aspen staff surveyed 111 businesses and an additional 17
businesses in January 2013 (totaling 128 businesses). The survey sample represents an
estimated 1,375 seasonally-adjusted jobs, as shown in Table 1, which accounts for
approximately 13 percent of the City of Aspen’s workforce. Some business types were
oversampled, such as hotels, restaurants, and retail in the interest of capturing the widest range
of staffing levels in industries with high seasonality.
Table 1
Survey Sample Characteristics
City of Aspen Employee Generation Study
Est.Jobs
See Note [2]
Business Type
Hotel282%1,18712%119%41430%39%35%
Office - Business / Professional35630%1,90519%2520%21215%7%11%
Office - Nonprofit / Civic292%1,46314%65%453%21%3%
Real Estate22319%8488%129%896%5%10%
Restaurant / Bar1018%1,75217%1613%33724%16%19%
Retail17114%9379%3729%16012%22%17%
Services 290 24%2,169 21%21 16%118 9%7%5%
Total1,198100%10,261100%128100%1,375100%11%13%
Note [2]: These job counts have been seasonally adjusted and are reported as totals of PT and FT jobs.
Source: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\123053-Aspen Employee Generation Study\Data\Survey Design\[123053-Survey-012913.xlsm]t1 - Survey Stats
as % of CDLESurvey (2012)CDLE (2011)
Note [1]: These are seasonally-adjusted Wage & Salary jobs as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; EPS has categorized them by the City's land use groups.
EstablishmentsJobsEstablishmentsJobs
See Note [1]
EPS and City staff conducted on-site interviews with managers or owners and asked a variety of
questions regarding length of operation in the City, past, current, and planned staffing levels,
and their perceptions on the extent that housing availability plays a role in hiring qualified staff.
As shown in Figure 1, 45 percent of businesses surveyed have been in operation in Aspen for
more than 20 years. (A copy of the survey instrument is included in the Appendix.)
Figure 1
Survey Respondents, Years in Aspen
Employee Generation Study
7%
10%
18%
20%
45%Less than 2 years
2 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
10 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Source: Economic & Planning SystemsSource: Economic & PlanningSystems
The following map illustrates the location of businesses surveyed. Specific locations were
targeted in the City to achieve desired response rates by business type and zone district.
P56
VII.b
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
by
Z
o
n
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
P57VII.b
Employee Generation
Businesses provided a breakdown of current staffing levels in part-time and full-time staff. The
numbers were converted to full-time equivalents (FTE) to be consistent with the current GMQS.
Rates by Business Type
Businesses in Aspen generate an average of 4.4 FTEs per one thousand square feet, as shown in
Figure 3. While shown in the chart, hotel uses are measured on a per-room basis, i.e. the rate
shown means 0.5 FTEs per room. Among other business types, rates range from 2.7 FTEs
(Retail) to 9.9 FTEs (Restaurant & Bar). The generation rate for hotel and lodge uses is 0.5 FTEs
per room.
Figure 3
Rates by Business Type
Employee Generation Study
3.6
3.9
4.1
9.9
2.7
4.3
0.5
4.4
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0
Office ‐ Business / Professional
Office ‐ Nonprofit / Civic
Real Estate
Restaurant / Bar
Retail
Services
Hotel [1]
Overall [2]
Full‐Time Equivalents per 1,000 square feet
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[Note 1]: The hotelgeneration rate is estimated on PER ROOM basis.
[Note 2]:The overall average generation rate excludeshotels.
These rates represent a slight increase over the rates estimated in 2002. As shown in Figure 4,
the overall average increased 0.5 FTEs from 3.9 to 4.4 FTEs per thousand square feet. It is
important to note that this does not indicate greater staffing levels; rather, more employees are
being used in the same amount of space. Most noticeable are the changes to
business/professional office uses, real estate, restaurant/bars, and services. Non-profit, retail,
and hotel uses stayed fairly consistent with 2002 rates.
P58
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 5
123053-DR-012913
Figure 4
Change in Rates by Business Type
Employee Generation Study
‐0.8
0.2
‐1.9
2.6
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.5
‐2.0 ‐1.00.01.02.03.0
Office ‐ Business / Professional
Office ‐ Nonprofit / Civic
Real Estate
Restaurant / Bar
Retail
Services
Hotel
Overall
Full‐Time Equivalents per 1,000 square feet
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Seasonality
Two factors contribute to variation in employee generation rates – seasonality and the level on
which the business is located. The following illustration (Figure 5) is based on responses
indicating staffing levels during high and low season. As with most resort-oriented economies,
employment levels in the hospitality industry (hotels and lodges, as well as retailers, restaurants
and bars) fluctuates greatly from high to low season.
Figure 4
Seasonal Variations in Rates
Employee Generation Study
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Hotel [1]RetailRestaurant /
Bar
Office ‐
Nonprofit /
Civic
Office ‐
Business /
Professional
Real EstateServices
Fulltime
Equivalents
per
1,000 sqft
High Season Low Season
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
[Note1]: The employee generation rate for hotels is defined on a full‐time equivalent "per room" basis.
P59
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 6
123053-DR-012913
Floor Level
The City’s GMQS currently allows for a 25 percent reduction in the employee generation number
for a business located on either an upper level or the basement. The following illustrates the
percent variation in rates for businesses located on either of these levels compared to the
generation rates found in Figure 3. Overall, the generation rates of businesses on upper levels
average 24 percent lower, while businesses operating on lower floors have rates 17 percent
lower.
In this analysis, businesses with operations solely in basement levels were grouped with
businesses operating on the basement as well as street level (to preserve sample size).
Businesses with operations on solely on an upper level were also grouped with those operating
on street and upper levels. In some instances, the sample size was not large enough to
determine a reliable percentage difference (e.g. non-profit uses on the basement level, or service
uses on an upper level).
Figure 5
Generation Rates by Floor Level
Employee Generation Study
‐23%
N/A
‐11%
‐13%
6%
0%
‐17%
53%
‐62%
‐1%
‐26%
‐28%
N/A
‐24%
‐80%‐60%‐40%‐20%0%20%40%60%
Office ‐ Business / Professional
Office ‐ Nonprofit / Civic
Real Estate
Restaurant / Bar
Retail
Services
Total
Basement (and Street)Upper Levels (and Street)
Source: Economic & PlanningSystems
Rates by Zone District
Updated rates by zone district for 2012 are shown below in Table 1 contrasted against the 2002
rates. Overall, there has been a slight increase in rates. In the City’s GMQS, four zone districts
are aggregated in a general commercial district (commercial, commercial core, neighborhood
commercial, and commercial lodge), which generate an average of 4.1 FTEs per 1,000 square
feet. Using 2012 employment information, the aggregation of these same zone district
businesses yields an average of 4.7 FTEs per 1,000 square feet.
P60
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 7
123053-DR-012913
Two rates have changed slightly, including the hotel and lodge rate, as well as the Mixed-Use
zone rate. The hotel and lodge rate has increased slightly to 0.6 FTEs per room, and the lodge
preservation rate has stayed the same at 0.3 FTEs per room, but the mixed-use rate has
dropped to 3.6 FTEs. Rates in the SCI (service, commercial, industrial) district have increased
0.4 to 3.9 FTEs, and the rate in public uses has increased 1.2 FTEs to 5.1 FTEs per thousand
square-feet.
Table 3
Generation Rates by Zone District
City of Aspen Employee Generation Study
20022012Change
Zone District
Commercialn/a4.5 per 1,000 sqftn/a
Commercial Coren/a4.9 per 1,000 sqftn/a
Neighborhood Commercialn/a4.1 per 1,000 sqftn/a
Commercial Lodgen/a 3.2 per 1,000 sqft n/a
Zone Average4.1 per 1,000 sqft4.7 per 1,000 sqft0.6 per 1,000 sqft
Lodge Preservation0.3 per room0.3 per room0.0 per room
Hotel / Lodge0.5 per room0.6 per room0.1 per room
Mixed-Use3.7 per 1,000 sqft3.6 per 1,000 sqft-0.1 per 1,000 sqft
Public3.9 per 1,000 sqft5.1 per 1,000 sqft1.2 per 1,000 sqft
Service / Commercial / Industrial3.5 per 1,000 sqft3.9 per 1,000 sqft0.4 per 1,000 sqft
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\123053-Aspen Employee Generation Study\Data\Survey Design\[123053-Survey-012913.xlsm]t3 - Rates by Zone
P61
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 8
123053-DR-012913
Comparable Community Implementation Issues
This section provides a general overview of several comparable mountain communities’
commercial linkage implementation programs. Specifically, EPS tried to more clearly understand
if these programs supply employee housing units required by the mitigation programs on-site,
off-site, or whether developers often pay fees-in-lieu. In addition, of the off-site units being
built, are they concentrated in just a few areas of the community or are they relatively
dispersed? How does the community react to this? Finally, we asked whether each community
has plans to significantly revise its commercial linkage program in the near future.
For comparison purposes, the following Table 2 shows the employee generation rates by
business type for a selection of comparable resort communities, including all communities that
RRC Associates has surveyed between 1990 and 2010. Among the various uses, there is a wide
variation in real estate rates, mostly the result of the year those generation rates were sampled
(i.e. Eagle County’s rate was more than 10 FTEs per thousand square feet in 2007, the height of
the housing bubble).
Table 2
Comparable Community Generation Rates
City of Aspen Employee Generation Study
Aspen (2012)
All RRC
Communities
(1990-2010)
Teton County
(2006)
Eagle County
(2007)
San Miguel
County (2010)
Business Type
Office - Business / Professional3.63.33.04.82.0
Office - Nonprofit / Civic3.91.63.40.92.2
Real Estate4.14.46.310.61.6
Restaurant / Bar9.96.59.810.15.9
Retail2.72.52.02.51.6
Services4.31.71.62.01.5
Hotel 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.8
Overall4.4N/AN/AN/AN/A
Source: RRC Associates; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\123053-Aspen Employee Generation Study\Data\Survey Design\[123053-Survey-012913.xlsm]Comp Communities
P62
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 9
123053-DR-012913
Telluride
The Town of Telluride is relatively successful in having employee housing units generated by its
commercial linkage program built on-site. Several factors contribute to this success, including a
code that makes it much more complicated to build such units off-site.
The Town’s Land Use
Code requires more
burdensome
guidelines for
building employee
units off-site, and in
addition, developers
often encounter
unfriendly Home
Owners Associations
which must approve such units within their developments. Town zoning always allows for mixed
use development; while the first 35 vertical feet has to be pure commercial use in certain zones,
upper floors can always be used for residential, allowing developers to more easily include the
required employee units on-site. In addition, commercial developers can only “buy out” of 10
percent of their total mitigation requirements or when the mitigation calls for less than the
required minimum 500 square feet per employee unit, further encouraging the building of on-site
units.
Off-site units built or provided by developers tend to be scattered throughout the town, while the
units built using the town’s housing fund are more concentrated in a few developments, mostly
toward the western end of town. In general the location and level of concentration of affordable
units are not viewed as a problem by the community.
In general, Telluride feels its commercial linkage program is working well and meeting its goals,
although there is a slight imbalance between affordable units for sale (which are often not being
purchased) and available affordable units for rent (which are very scarce). There are no plans to
significantly modify the program in the near future. The Town of Telluride currently mitigates
commercial and hotel uses consistently at 40 percent of the employee generation rate.
San Miguel County
The commercial linkage program in
San Miguel County was last updated
in 2012, and requires that
15 percent mitigation of the
employee generation across all use
categories. In spite of differentiable
use categories, San Miguel County’s
generation rates are consistent
across uses.
The County also has a separate employee impact fee for residential construction jobs (based on
floor area) as well as for construction employment. Information is still being collected on this
program and may be supplemented for a final memorandum.
Employee Generation Rate
Business Type
Office3 per 1,000 square feet
Restaurant3 per 1,000 square feet
Retail3 per 1,000 square feet
Hotel1.5 per unit
Source: San Miguel County; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\123053-Aspen Employee Generation Study\Data\Comp programs research\[Employee Generation Rate Implementation Prog
Employee Generation Rate
Business Type
Commercial/Public facility Uses4.5 employees per 1,000 s.f. of Net Floor Area
Hotels and Accomodations Uses0.33 employees per unit
Multi-family Dwelling and Mixed Use Residential0.33 employees per dwelling unit
One and Two-family Dwellings0.07(e)(0.000322 X Gross SQFT)
Source: Town of Telluride; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\123053-Aspen Employee Generation Study\Data\Comp programs research\[Employee Generation Rate Implementation Programs.xlsx]t2 - Telluride
P63
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 10
123053-DR-012913
Vail
The Town of Vail’s employee housing mitigation program was established in 2007 and requires
that at least 50 percent of employee housing mitigation be provided on-site unless the developer
provides sufficient evidence that such units are not possible. The regulations governing such
exemptions were modified somewhat in 2008 in response to the economic downturn which has
limited commercial development in Vail over the past five years. To the extent that development
has occurred, however, this basic requirement has been very successful, although there is a
clear distinction between the types of development where on-site mitigation happens. Hotels
provide almost all of their required mitigation on-site, while commercial/retail projects generally
provide almost all required units off-site.
Because the Town of Vail is almost completely built out, there are nearly no available sites for
building off-site units. Instead, developers purchase individual condominiums which are then
designated as deed-restricted employee housing. These tend to be concentrated in several
condominium associations in West Vail. This concentration is generally not viewed as a problem
by the community, as many of these buildings have long been employee housing. Thus, new
affordable units represent a continuation of current use rather than a noticeable change in use.
In general, Vail’s
commercial linkage
and employee
housing mitigation
programs are not
likely to change
significantly in the
near future. Two
issues that might
soon be addressed
relate to balancing
business needs
(lowering
development costs) against community needs (providing ample affordable housing), and the
concern that the on-site requirement provides only the smallest type of housing units (often
dormitory in nature), and fails to create more family-oriented units in the valley. The Town of
Vail currently requires a consistent mitigation rate of 20 percent of employees generated by all
types of uses.
Steamboat Springs
The Town of Steamboat Springs is illustrative of the challenges faced by mountain communities
when balancing the needs of affordable housing options with economic vitality. The town
implemented its first commercial linkage program in the mid-2000s, only to remove the program
in the face of the economic crisis in 2008. The town council and planning leadership decided that
the additional burdens such a program placed on developers and businesses impeded growth and
negatively impacted the business climate. Due to the limited duration of the program’s
existence, town planners say it is difficult to ascertain whether the program would have
successfully generated the levels of affordable housing needed in Steamboat. Given the still
struggling economy and changes in the town council, there are no immediate plans to revive the
program.
Employee Generation
Rate
Business Type
Accomodation unit/limited service lodge unit0.7 employee per unit
Business office and professional office (excluding real estate office)3.2 employees
Conference facility0.8 employee
Eating and Drinking establishment6.75 employees
Health Club 0.96 employee
Real estate office5.1 employees
Retail store/personal service/repair shop2.4 employees
Spa 2.1 employees
Source: Town of Vail; Economic & Planning Systems
H:\123053-Aspen Employee Generation Study\Data\Comp programs research\[Employee Generation Rate Implementation Programs.xlsx]t1 - Vail
P64
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 11
123053-DR-012913
Trends & Issues
This section provides additional contextual information about the City of Aspen’s employment
trends, as well as issues cited by businesses surveyed.
Employment Trends
The following chart illustrates the trend in wage and salary jobs for the City as well as number of
establishments. Between 2002 and 2007, the increase in jobs outpaced the growth in
establishments, implying more intense use of space (i.e. possibly higher employee generation
rates than represented by the 2002 or 2012 survey data). The growth in employment was
largely attributable to the increase of jobs in the office professional businesses, as shown in the
Appendix Figure A1). From the onset of the recession in 2007, employment fell more
considerably than the number of establishments, bringing the two metrics in line proportionally,
implying a rebalance of employment intensity per establishment. (It should be noted here that
CDLE does not report on floor area of establishment.)
Figure 6
Wage & Salary Job Trends
Employee Generation Study
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011
EstablishmentsJobs
Jobs Establishments
Source: CDLE, Quarterly Censusof Employment & Wages; Economic & Planning Systems
7%over 2001
Projection of Employment
Employers were asked whether they planned to increase or decrease their workforce for next
year or hold it constant. The net effect of those changes is illustrated in Figure 7. Hotels and
services indicated their intent to increase their workforces by approximately 16 percent in the
following year, followed by real estate and business professional office users at approximately 8
percent. Nonprofits indicated they would increase jobs by approximately 2 percent, but retail
and restaurants planned for no net change.
P65
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 12
123053-DR-012913
Ninety of the 128 businesses responded that they planned to either reduce or increase their
staffing level in the next year. The numbers shown in Figure 7 are the anticipated net percent
increases to staffing levels. Neither retailers nor restaurant owners gave indications they would
hire or eliminate staff over the next year, thus their absence from the reporting. These
industries are highly dependent on the growth and demand from other sectors of the economy.
It should also be noted that the estimated increase in hotel staffing level for next year (15.4
percent) is primarily the result of a large increase in employment at the Hotel Jerome as a result
of its expansion.
Figure 7
Anticipated Staffing Change
Employee Generation Study
15.7%
10.0%
2.4%
8.6%
15.4%
0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%18.0%
Services
Real Estate
Office ‐ Nonprofit / Civic
Office ‐ Business / Professional
Hotel
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Employers were also asked whether they considered the availability of housing to be an
impediment to hiring qualified staff. Interestingly, in 2002 more than half of businesses (54
percent) indicated that it was a major concern versus just 28 percent. Still, 24 percent viewed it
then and now as a minor concern, but nearly half do not see it now as an issue today.
Table 4
Impact of Housing on Ability to Hire
City of Aspen Employee Generation Study
Major
Concern
Minor
ConcernNot an Issuen =
Business Type
Hotel67%0%33%6
Office - Business / Professional26%32%42%19
Office - Nonprofit / Civic25%0%75%4
Real Estate25%38%38%8
Restaurant / Bar33%25%42%12
Retail22%17%61%23
Services 24%29%47%17
Total28%24%48%89
in 200254%22%23%81
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
H:\123053-Aspen Employee Generation Study\Data\Survey Design\[123053-Survey-012913.xlsm]t4 - Housing Avail
Housing Availability as Problem
P66
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 13
123053-DR-012913
Implementation
Based on these considerations, it is recommended that the City of Aspen to continue with the
current system of requiring mitigation at time of development approval, using the updated
generation rate data. This recommendation is based on the following considerations.
Use vs. Zone District: EPS recommends that the City continue to estimate employee
generation on the basis of zone district as opposed to business type. Changing the
administration of the program to mitigate on the basis of business type would require a
complex administrative effort.
Mitigation Rate: It is recommended that the City of Aspen maintain a consistent mitigation
requirement across all zone districts. Comparable communities, such as San Miguel County,
the Town of Telluride, and the Town of Vail also maintain consistent mitigation rates across
various commercial uses. Based on the evolution of local business activity over the past
decade, average employee generation rates have increased by 12 percent. Accordingly, it is
recommended that the City keep its standard current with business practices and increase its
rates to reflect changes over the past decade.
Reduction for Upper Floor/Basement: EPS also recommends that the City maintains its
current policy of giving a 25 percent reduction in the employee generation rate for uses in
either an upper or lower floor.
P67
VII.b
Revised Memorandum February 1, 2013
Employment Generation Rates Page 14
123053-DR-012913
Appendix
Survey Instrument
P68
VII.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 1/21/2013
MEETING DATE: 2/11/2013
RE: 435 W. Main St., Aspen Jewish Community Center
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:
P69
VIII.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
P70
VIII.a
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
City Council Memo, 2/1/13
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 435 West Main Street, Jewish Community Center – Growth Management
Review for an Essential Public Facility and Subdivision Amendment
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 2 (Series 2013) – Public Hearing
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2013
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Jewish Resource Center Chabad of
Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman Planning Services
LOCATION:
435 West Main Street, Lots A thru
I, Block 38, City and Townsite of
Aspen
CURRENT ZONING:
MU, Mixed Use Zone District with
the Main Street Historic District
Overlay
SUMMARY:
The Applicant seeks to amend the
previously approved site plan by
developing a parsonage onsite
rather than a social hall. City
Council is the final review body for
a Growth Management Review for
an Essential Public Facility as well
as an amendment to the subdivision
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions.
Image 1: 435 West Main Street, aerial view of property.
Image 2: 435 West Main Street, historic cabins along the alley.
P71
VIII.a
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
City Council Memo, 2/1/13
Page 2 of 4
REQUEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to amend the
approved site plan:
• Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the development of a
parsonage to replace the approved plan for a social hall, pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.470.090.4 (The City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine the required
employee mitigation rate).
• Subdivision – Other Amendment for an amendment to the Subdivision approval,
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.080. B (The City Council is the final review
authority).
The Applicant is requesting to replace the approved social hall with a parsonage. As the existing
approvals are site specific and outline the uses permitted on the site as well as the size and
footprint, this amended proposal is driving the growth management and subdivision review.
Essentially, Council will be amending both approvals to reflect the new proposal, nullifying the
applicant’s ability to build a social hall. No reduction to the existing affordable housing
mitigation requirement is proposed.
BACKGROUND/ PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
The Jewish Community Center project has been in the land use process since 2004 including
reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and City
Council. A development order was granted in 2007 for a sanctuary, preschool, administrative
building, social hall, and the historic preservation of six historic 1940s era tourist cabins along
the alley and Third Street. Three of the historic cabins are approved to be deed restricted onsite
employee housing to fulfill the mitigation requirement and the other three historic cabins are to
be used as lodging for visitors related to religious events and programming. Deed restrictions
have already been recorded for the six cabins. The project originally approved by City Council
was approximately 19,655 sq. ft. in size and included historic landmark designation of the entire
site. As part of Special Review for an Essential Public Facility, nine onsite parking spaces are
required and 44% of the 9.63 employees determined to be generated is required to be mitigated
onsite in the three deed restricted historic cabins (2 studios and 1 1-bedroom for a total of 4.25
FTEs).
Since the original entitlements were granted in 2007, numerous amendments to the size and
design of the project have been granted by HPC resulting in a reduction of the approved project
to 17,100 square feet. The project was approved for phasing - phase 1 (currently under
construction) is the sanctuary, pre-school, administration area, and restoration of the cabins; and
phase 2 was the social hall and is the subject of this application. In addition to the amendments,
the vested rights of the project were extended to March 1, 2013.
The current application is to amend phase 2 by replacing the approved social hall with a
parsonage. The parsonage replaces earlier approvals for a social hall that was originally intended
P72
VIII.a
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
City Council Memo, 2/1/13
Page 3 of 4
to supplement the social space available in the sanctuary structure. Aspen Jewish Community
Center (AJCC) has determined that the ability to have the Rabbi and his family live on site and
receive the congregation in the parsonage is a higher priority need. On August 15, 2012 the
applicant received Conceptual approval from HPC for the proposed parsonage. Through the
Special Review process a requirement of one parking space for the parsonage was established.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application on December 18, 2012,
approving Resolution No. 23 (Series of 2012). The resolution recommended City Council
approve the growth management review for and Essential Public Facility and determined that no
additional employees will be generated by the development of the parsonage instead of the social
hall, reconfirming the employee generation rate of 9.63 FTEs as previously approved.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The applicant proposes to replace the approved 4,575 sq. ft. social hall with an approximately
4,000 sq. ft. parsonage. The proposal reduces the total floor area on the property from 17,100 sq.
ft. to 16,525 sq. ft. The allowable floor area for this property is 20,235 sq. ft (0.75:1 for arts,
cultural, civic use). The proposed parsonage includes a basement and two above grade levels,
and a single stall garage.
The rabbi and his family will reside in the parsonage and host social functions of the
congregation in the parsonage. Community Development determined that the parsonage
contributes to the fulfillment of AJCC’s mission which makes it accessory to the arts, cultural,
civic use as an Essential Public Facility.
The applicant represents that no new employees are generated by the change from the social hall
to the parsonage and proposes to maintain the approved requirement of 44% mitigation rate for
9.63 generated employees as approved in 2007 by City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. Staff finds that the conversion of
the social hall to a smaller parsonage reduces the intensity of the use and in turn does not
generate new employees. The parsonage is about 575 square feet of floor area smaller than the
approved social hall. It will house the Rabbi and his family and also host Friday night dinners
after services and other small social engagements for guest speakers, etc. Staff finds that the
proposed change does not increase employee generation and is supportive of the request to
maintain the approved employee generation rate of 9.63 employees that are mitigated at 44%
onsite.
Subdivision – Other Amendment. The subject property was required to go through subdivision
review as the development originally included multiple dwelling units. This application does not
affect the original dwelling units and adds the parsonage. More importantly the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement will need to amended, updating the project to reflect the current
proposal as well as adding restrictions through the agreement to ensure the parsonage will be in
permanent ownership of the Jewish Community Center and will never be conveyed as a separate
use or interest from the Jewish Community Center. The applicant commits to including
P73
VIII.a
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
City Council Memo, 2/1/13
Page 4 of 4
restrictions in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement that permanently link the parsonage to
the AJCC to disallow the parsonage from ever becoming a single family home.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amended development with the condition, as provided in the
ordinance, that the subdivision improvements agreement be amended to ensure the parsonage
will be in permanent ownership of the Jewish Community Center and will never be conveyed as
a separate use or interest from the Jewish Community Center.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 2, Series 2013, approving Growth Management Review for
an Essential Public Facility and Subdivision Amendment for the Aspen Jewish Community
Center.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility
(provided 1/28/13 and 2/11/13)
Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Subdivision – Other Amendment (provided 1/28/13 and 2/11/13)
Exhibit C – P&Z Resolution No. 23 (Series of 2012) (provided 1/28/13 and 2/11/13)
Exhibit D – P&Z meeting minutes, 12/18/2012(provided 1/28/13 and 2/11/13)
Exhibit E – Application (provided 1/28/13 or refer to the 2/11/13 SIRE agenda item)
Exhibit F - Perspective of parsonage, viewed from Main St. (dated 1/8/13)
P74
VIII.a
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2013
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 2
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND
SUBDIVISION-OTHER AMENDMENT, FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
CENTER, ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS
A- I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2735-124-81-100
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen,
represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, submitted an application (hereinafter
“the application”) requesting approval of a Growth Management Review to Determine
Employee Generation, Subdivision and a Growth Management Review as an Essential
Public Facility, to construct the Jewish Community Center, located at 435 W. Main St.,
Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Director determined that
the parsonage is accessory to the Jewish Community Center which is an Essential Public
Facility, and that the application met the applicable review standards, and recommended
approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is a designated landmark and is located within
the Main Street Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution
24, Series of 2006 approving 9 parking spaces and an employee generation of 9.63 FTEs
for the project including a sanctuary, preschool, administrative building, social hall, and
the historic preservation of six historic 1940s era tourist cabins along the alley and Third
Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 36, Series of 2006
approving Subdivision and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility,
including a mitigation rate of 44% for the 9.63 FTEs generated, for the project with a
total of 19,665 square feet for a sanctuary, preschool, administrative building, social hall,
and the historic preservation of six historic 1940s era tourist cabins along the alley and
Third Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission adopted the following
resolutions related to the design of the project: HPC Resolution 19, Series of 2006
(conceptual approval); HPC Resolution 5, Series of 2007 (final approval); HPC
Resolution 40, Series of 2007 (substantial amendment); HPC Resolution 7, Series of
2011 (substantial amendment); and HPC Resolution 20, Series of 2012 (conceptual
approval for parsonage and parking); and,
P75
VIII.a
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2013
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Resolution 7, Series of
2011 reduced the size of the social hall and reduced the total floor area for the entire
project to 17,100 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolution 17, Series of 2010
extending the vested rights of the project to March 1, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution
23, Series of 2012 determining an employee generation rate for the subject application
and recommending approval of a growth management review; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application
under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development
proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular
meeting of the City Council on February 11, 2013, at which time the Council considered
and found the application to meet the review standards, and approved a Growth
Management Review of an Essential Public Facility and Subdivision – Other Amendment
with conditions, by a vote of ___ to ____ (__ – __); and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 General Approvals:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves with conditions a Growth
Management Review for an Essential Public Facility and Subdivision – Other
Amendment to amend the approved project located at 435 W. Main Street by replacing
the 4,575 square foot social hall with an approximately 4,000 square foot parsonage. The
total Floor Area for the Essential Public Facility is 16,525 square feet (12,525 square feet
for Phase 1 including the sanctuary and six cabins, and 4,000 square feet for Phase 2
including the parsonage)
P76
VIII.a
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2013
Page 3 of 4
Section 2: Affordable Housing
The City Council hereby determines that maintaining the 9.63 FTEs determined by the
Planning and Zoning Commission via Resolution 24, Series of 2006 for the original project
remains valid as well as the mitigation rate of 44% to be provided on-site.
An employee audit consistent with the recorded Subdivision Improvement Agreement for
the project (Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder reception # 543901), Section 5, part d,
remains a requirement.
Section 3: Amendment to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement
The Applicant, within 180 days of this ordinance’s approval, commits to amending the
existing Subdivision Improvements Agreement, to the satisfaction of the city attorney,
requiring the parsonage to be an accessory use to the Aspen Jewish Community Center and
prohibit its use as a single family residence unrelated to the center.
Section 4:
The approvals set forth in City Council Ordinance 36, Series of 2006 and Planning and
Zoning Commission Resolution 24, Series of 2006 remain valid unless specified herein.
Section 5:
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 Planning and Zoning 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:
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 ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 7:
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.
Section 8:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 11th day of February, 2013, 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.
P77
VIII.a
Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2013
Page 4 of 4
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 28th day of January, 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11TH day of February, 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
P78
VIII.a
Exhibit A – GMQS Review Criteria
2/11/2013
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A
Growth Management Review Criteria
26.470.090 (4), Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility,
upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or
structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also
be part of an essential public facility project.
Staff Response: The Community Development Director determined that the parsonage
contributes to the fulfillment of Jewish Community Center’s mission which makes it
accessory to the arts, cultural, civic use as an Essential Public Facility. The parsonage will
be used as the home of Rabbi or other spiritual leader of the congregation and specific
religious functions are proposed to occur in the parsonage such as Friday night dinners for
the congregation following services and receptions for visiting scholars and speakers. The
applicant commits to permanently link the parsonage to the Aspen Jewish Community Center
through a revised Subdivision Improvement Agreement to ensure that the parsonage will be
in permanent ownership of the Jewish Community Center and will never be conveyed as a
separate use or interest from the Jewish Community Center. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City
Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation
requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting
civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee
generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed
for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.
Staff Response: The original 2007 approvals adopted a mitigation rate of 44% for 9.63
generated employees. The applicant represents that the conversion from a social hall to a
parsonage does not change the employee mitigation rate or generation amount established in
2007. The Housing Board recommends approval of the proposed change without requiring
additional employee mitigation.
The proposed parsonage is smaller (about 575 sq. ft.) than the social hall. The smaller building
size, half of which houses the Rabbi’s family, translates into a less intense use on the property
and in turn less employee generation. The parsonage will receive guests and host social events,
but on a much smaller scale than the approved social hall. While the parsonage will not be deed
restricted affordable housing, it will house the Rabbi and his family who currently reside in
affordable housing. Staff is supportive of the proposed parsonage without additional employee
mitigation.
P79
VIII.a
Exhibit A – GMQS Review Criteria
2/11/2013
Page 2 of 3
26.470.050 General Requirements. All development applications for growth management
review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve,
approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on
the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific
type of development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Application for multi-
year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be
required to meet this standard.
Staff Response: There is no annual limit for Essential Public Facilities. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as
well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Response: The proposed parsonage is consistent with the approved arts, cultural, civic use
for the property. The project is located within the Main Street Historic District and is a
designated landmark under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission which ensures
design compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The proposed development meets the requirements of the Mixed Use Zone
District for the Arts, Cultural and Civic Use. The project proposes 16,525 sq. ft. which is well
below the 20,235 sq. ft. allowable floor area for arts, cultural, civic use (0.75:1).
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Response: The proposal is consistent with the August 15, 2012 Conceptual HPC approval.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to
Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be
approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4
rate 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. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be
extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate.
P80
VIII.a
Exhibit A – GMQS Review Criteria
2/11/2013
Page 3 of 3
Staff Response: Not applicable.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal
to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable
area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,
Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate 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. Affordable
housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may
be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an
applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation,
pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to
Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate,
utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage
Conversion.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the
project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage
treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police
protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Response: The proposed change from a social hall to a parsonage does not increase the
impact on public infrastructure. The original 2007 approvals address the demands of the overall
project and remain valid. An additional parking space is required for the parsonage as per HPC
Resolution 20, Series of 2012. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P81
VIII.a
Exhibit B – Subdivision
2/11/2013
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit B
Subdivision Review Criteria
26.480.080. Amendment to subdivision development order.
B. Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by the City Council,
provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed
change is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review
as a new development application for plat.
Staff Response: The subject property was required to go through subdivision review as the result
of the development originally including multiple dwelling units. This application does not affect
the original dwelling units and adds the parsonage. More importantly the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement will need to amended, updating the project to reflect the current
proposal as well as adding restrictions through the agreement to ensure the parsonage will be in
permanent ownership of the Jewish Community Center and will never be conveyed as a separate
use or interest from the Jewish Community Center. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P83
VIII.a
P85
VIII.a
P86
VIII.a
P87
VIII.a
P89
VIII.a
P90
VIII.a
P91
VIII.a
P92
VIII.a
P93
VIII.a
AV-
ASPEN JEWISH
COMMUNITY CENTER
LAND USE APPLICATION FOR
RABBI'S PARSONAGE
GMQS REVIEW
SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
SUBMITTED BY
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
P.O. BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
920-1125
SEPTEMBER, 2012
LU
CO. IT
P95
VIII.a
0
4
k,.*
44
Awi
4-,;
t,
P96
VIII.a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Summary of Prior Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
111. Subdivision Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV. Growth Management Review For An Essential Public Facility . . . . . . . . . 10
V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
EXHIBITS
1. General Warranty Deeds
2. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application
3. Pre-Application Conference Summary
4. City Council Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2006
5. HPC Resolution 5, Series of 2007
6. HPC Resolution 31, Series of 2007
7. HPC Resolution 40, Series of 2007
8. City Council Resolution 17, Series of 2010
9. HPC Resolution 7, Series of 2011
10. HPC Resolution 20, Series of 2012
11. Aspen Jewish Community Center Subdivision - Recorded Plat
12. Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Jewish Community Center
DRAWINGS
Vicinity Map
Site Plan: Proposed Parsonage and Approved JCC
Previously Approved Phase 1 Site Plan
Previously Approved Phase 2 Site Plan
Proposed Parsonage Floor Plans
Building Elevations: Main Street and Third Street
P97
VIII.a
I.Application Request
This is an application for an amendment to the development approvals previously granted
to the Aspen Jewish Community Center (AJCC). The purpose of the amendment is to
authorize the development of the Rabbi's Parsonage on the property, to be located
between the historic cabins and the new Community Center building. The parsonage will
provide a place for the Rabbi and his family to live. The parsonage will also host important
functions for the congregation. For example, the Rabbi will hold communal dinners with
the congregation at the parsonage following Friday night services. Social activities for
scholars, speakers and other guests of the congregation will also occur at the parsonage.
The property on which the development is proposed to occur is Lots A through I, Block 38,
City and Townsite of Aspen (more commonly known as 435 West Main Street). The
Parcel ID #for the property is 273512481100. The property is approximately 26,981 sq. ft.
in size and is zoned Mixed Use (MU). A vicinity map locating this property within the City
of Aspen has been provided.
The subject property is owned by The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen ("the
applicant"). Proof of the ownership of the property is provided by Exhibit #1, the general
warranty deeds. A letter from Rabbi Mendel Mintz of the Jewish Resource Center
authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services and Arthur Chabon Architects to submit this
application is attached as Exhibit#2.
The applicant held several pre-application meetings with staff prior to the submission of
this application. A pre-application conference summary was issued by the staff (see
Exhibit #3, Pre-Application Conference Summary). This document indicates that the
proposal is subject to the following land use review procedures:
Subdivision Review ("Other"Amendment) pursuant to Sec. 26.480.080 B; and
Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility pursuant to Sec.
26.470.090.4.
The proposal is also considered to be a major development requiring conceptual and final
review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section
26.415.070 D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. HPC is also authorized to establish the
parking requirements for the project by special review. HPC granted the conceptual
approval and established a one (1) space parking requirement during a hearing held on
August 15, 2012. Final HPC review will occur following completion of the subdivision and
growth management review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
This application has been organized to respond to the applicable review standards of the
Land Use Code. First, however, a summary of the prior approvals granted to the Jewish
Community Center and a description of the current plans for the property are presented to
establish the context for this application.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 1
P98
VIII.a
B. Development Plan for the Parsonage
Early in 2012 the Jewish Resource Center reached a conclusion as to how best to utilize
the remainder of the property. The applicant concluded that it is essential to provide a
space for the Rabbi and his family to live on the property and for the Rabbi to be able to
host important social functions of the congregation in this parsonage. Therefore, it was
decided that the plans for the social hall would be abandoned and replaced by a new plan
for the Rabbi's parsonage, in a similar location to the former Phase II building.
A site plan and building elevations for the parsonage have been prepared and are
included in this application booklet. The site plan shows the following basic elements of
this amended plan:
The Jewish Community Center is located along the western side of the property.
This building has received all of its approvals and is now under construction.
The parsonage is located to the east of the Jewish Community Center. The
parsonage will cover significantly less of the eastern side of the property than the
previously approved Phase II building and also does not require a physical
connector to the Phase I building. This allows a playground to be established
between the JCC and the parsonage. The playground will be used by children who
attend the pre-school that is planned for the JCC
To the west of the parsonage is another open space area, which will be a yard for
the Rabbi and his family. The yard creates a generous separation between the
parsonage and the cabins along Third Street, as required by HPC as part of its
conceptual approval of the parsonage.
Six of the original cabins will be preserved along Third Street and the alley. The
three cabins along Third Street have been deed restricted as affordable housing
while the three cabins along the alley have been deed restricted as temporary
lodging for scholars and other guests of the JCC.
A total of 9 parking spaces are shown on the site plan, as required by the original
approvals for the JCC. One additional parking space will be provided for the
parsonage, in a small (350 sq. ft.) garage that will be attached to the parsonage.
The building elevations show a relatively modest two story building, located toward the
center of the property, surrounded by open space on its east and west sides. The building
stands alone, without the connections to the JCC that were required for the previously-
planned social hall. This will open up views through the block, allowing some of the cabins
along the alley to be seen from Main Street. The cabins can also be seen from the Third
Street side of the property and there is a generous setback between the cabins and the
parsonage, creating room for a yard for the Rabbi and his family.
Aspen Jewish Community Center- Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 4
P99
VIII.a
II. Summary of Prior Approvals/Description of Current Plans
A. Development Plans for the Jewish Community Center Buildinq
The applicant purchased the subject property in 2004 and began the process of working
with the City's review bodies on development plans for the property. The applicant spent
eighteen months working with the HPC on the original conceptual designs for this
property. Formal public hearings or scheduled work sessions were held with the HPC in
February, July, and October of 2004, and January, February, April, June, and August of
2005, at which time conceptual approval for a new Jewish Community Center project was
granted pursuant to HPC Resolution 31, Series of 2005.
Following completion of the HPC conceptual review process the applicant submitted a
land use application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
That application requested designation of the property as an historic landmark; growth
management review for an essential public facility and for affordable housing; special
review to establish the parking requirements; and subdivision review. The P&Z
recommended that City Council approve the project pursuant to Resolution No. 24, Series
of 2006, approved on July 18, 2006. City Council then approved the project pursuant to
Ordinance 36, Series of 2006, adopted on September 25, 2006 (see Exhibit#4).
The applicant then returned to HPC to obtain final approval of a major development. This
approval was granted pursuant to HPC Resolution 5, Series of 2007 (see Exhibit #5).
HPC later granted a side yard setback variance to the project pursuant to Resolution 31,
Series of 2007 (see Exhibit #6). Finally, HPC granted approval to an amendment of the
final approval pursuant to Resolution 40, Series of 2007 (see Exhibit #7). This
amendment provided detailed responses to many of the conditions established in
Resolution 5 of 2006.
The approved project design included an eastern wing and a western wing, connected by
a central lobby and courtyard. The western wing, along Fourth Street, was approved to
contain a religious sanctuary, a pre-school with an outdoor play space, administrative
offices, religious classrooms and a library. The eastern wing, along Third Street, was
designed to be used as a social hall.
The approved project also had six of the nine remaining original cabins remaining in place.
Three cabins along Third Street would be used as affordable housing, while three cabins
along the alley would be used as lodging for scholars and guests of the JCC. The other
three original cabins were approved to be relocated off-site. The cabins have recently
been relocated, two to a site in the County and one to a site along Lake Avenue.
The project that was originally approved by City Council was for a building that was
approximately 19,655 sq. ft. in size. The amended project was approximately 2,345
square feet smaller, at a size of approximately 17,310 sq. ft.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 2
P100
VIII.a
Once the necessary approvals were in place the applicant recorded the subdivision plat
and agreement and applied for a building permit for the project. However, by that time the
economy was beginning to slow down and descend into the recession. It became
apparent that funding for the project would not be available and so the applicant withdrew
the building permit application.
Subsequently, the applicant applied for an extension of the vested rights for the project.
City Council extended the vested rights to March 1, 2013 pursuant to Resolution 17,
Series of 2010 (see Exhibit #8) providing the applicant with additional time to initiate
project construction. Then, as economic conditions began to improve the applicant began
the process of re-thinking how to move forward with the project. Amended plans were
submitted to HPC and in September, 2011 the applicant received approval to establish a
two phase development plan for the project. That approval further reduced the project's
floor area to 17,100 sq. ft. Approval was granted pursuant to HPC Resolution 7, Series of
2011 (see Exhibit#9).
The approved Phase I involves the re-development of the site with a new building located
along the Main Street/Fourth Street side of the property that will house a sanctuary/social
hall, pre-school, religious school classrooms, and the administration area. Phase I also
involves the restoration of the six historic cabins along Third Street and the alley, for use
as affordable housing for employees of the AJCC and temporary guest/scholar lodging.
Deed restrictions formalizing the use of these six cabins as affordable housing and
temporary guest lodging were recently recorded as Reception No. 592066 and 592018,
respectively.
A site plan showing the approved Phase I is included in this application booklet. The
approximate floor area to be developed in Phase I is 10,550 sq. ft. in the new building plus
1,975 sq. ft. for the 6 cabins, for a total of 12,525 sq. ft. Phase I of the project has recently
begun to be constructed, as the non-historic cabins have been removed from the site and
earth moving has been initiated.
Phase II of the project, as it was approved at that time, would complete the development of
the property with a building on the Third Street side, linked to the Phase I building by a
loggia. The floor area of this building was limited to 4,575 sq. ft. (with the total Phase I and
Phase II being 17,100 sq. ft.).
As explained above, the original plan for the Phase II building was that it would be the
social hall for the congregation. However, when HPC granted approval for the phased
project, the applicant suggested that it would make more sense for the congregation to
use the Phase I building for several years and see how the demands for its facilities evolve
over time before settling on the uses for the additional space in Phase II. For example, it
might turn out that there is a greater need for pre-school classrooms than for the social
hall, which would result in a different type of addition than was originally anticipated. So
the Phase II site plan that was approved at that time (which is depicted on a drawing
included in this application booklet), should be considered to be a "place holder" until such
time as the applicant determines the long term needs of the congregation.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 3
P101
VIII.a
B. Development Plan for the Parsonage
Early in 2012 the Jewish Resource Center reached a conclusion as to how best to utilize
the remainder of the property. The applicant concluded that it is essential to provide a
space for the Rabbi and his family to live on the property and for the Rabbi to be able to
host important social functions of the congregation in this parsonage. Therefore, it was
decided that the plans for the social hall would be abandoned and replaced by a new plan
for the Rabbi's parsonage, in a similar location to the former Phase II building.
A site plan and building elevations for the parsonage have been prepared and are
included in this application booklet. The site plan shows the following basic elements of
this amended plan:- - - - - - -
The Jewish Community Center is located along the western side of the property.
This building has received all of its approvals and is now under construction.
The parsonage is located to the east of the Jewish Community Center. The
parsonage will cover significantly less of the eastern side of the property than the
previously approved Phase II building and also does not require a physical
connector to the Phase I building. This allows a playground to be established
between the JCC and the parsonage. The playground will be used by children who
attend the pre-school that is planned for the JCC
To the west of the parsonage is another open space area, which will be a yard for
the Rabbi and his family. The yard creates a generous separation between the
parsonage and the cabins along Third Street, as required by HPC as part of its
conceptual approval of the parsonage.
Six of the original cabins will be preserved along Third Street and the alley. The
three cabins along Third Street have been deed restricted as affordable housing
while the three cabins along the alley have been deed restricted as temporary
lodging for scholars and other guests of the JCC.
A total of 9 parking spaces are shown on the site plan, as required by the original
approvals for the JCC. One additional parking space will be provided for the
parsonage, in a small (350 sq. ft.) garage that will be attached to the parsonage.
The building elevations show a relatively modest two story building, located toward the
center of the property, surrounded by open space on its east and west sides. The building
stands alone, without the connections to the JCC that were required for the previously-
planned social hall. This will open up views through the block, allowing some of the cabins
along the alley to be seen from Main Street. The cabins can also be seen from the Third
Street side of the property and there is a generous setback between the cabins and the
parsonage, creating room for a yard for the Rabbi and his family.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 4
P102
VIII.a
The parsonage will be composed of traditional building elements, with a porch and entry
facing Main Street, one and two story building elements and a steeping sloping roof form.
All of these features come together in the form of a building that provides an appropriate
transition from the larger Community Center to the much smaller historic cabins.
The floor plans show that the parsonage contains a master bedroom and four bedrooms
for the children. It also contains a family living room and a dining room that would be used
to host dinners with congregation members and other visitors. The parsonage has been
designed to have a floor area of around 3,500 sq. ft., which is about 1,000 sq. ft. less than
the floor area that was approved for the social hall.
The Conceptual plans for the parsonage were approved by HPC on August 15, 2012
pursuant to HPC Resolution 20-2012 (see Exhibit#10)
The conformance of the proposed parsonage with the applicable provisions of the Land
Use Code is addressed in the following sections of this application.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 5
P103
VIII.a
III. Subdivision Amendment
The original land use application for the Jewish Community Center that was submitted in
2006 included a request for subdivision review. The proposal did not involve "subdivision"
in the classic sense of the term, in that no land parcels were proposed to be divided off.
Rather, the project was subject to subdivision review because the Land Use Code
definition of "subdivision" includes land that is used for multiple family dwelling units. One
element of the Jewish Community Center program is the conversion of three of the lodge
units to affordable housing. By definition, "Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Sites and Structures consisting of three or more detached dwelling units" are
considered to be multi-family dwellings and are therefore subject to subdivision review.
There are two documents that were recorded as a result of the 2006 Subdivision Review.
A subdivision plat was recorded for the property in Plat Book 85 at Page 39. A reduced
size copy of that plat is included in this application booklet (see Exhibit#11). It shows that
the plat did not create any development parcels and does not show the buildings that were
approved in 2006. Instead, the plat vacated the former L'Auberge Condominium Plat and
re-established the property as a single land parcel. Therefore there is no need to amend
the plat as part of this subdivision amendment process.
A subdivision agreement was also recorded for the project as Reception No 543901 (see
Exhibit #12). The subdivision agreement describes the approved project and documents
all of the conditions that were applied to the project by Ordinance 36, Series of 2006. The
applicant has reviewed the recorded document and has determined that there are several
minor elements of the subdivision agreement that will need to be revised if the City Council
approves this subdivision amendment. These changes are as follows:
On Page 2, section 1, the description of the project should be amended. The
revised description would eliminate references to the eastern building (the social
hall) and the basement (which is not being built). These elements of the project
would be replaced with a written description of the parsonage.
On page 3, the approved dimensional requirements should be amended to replace
the approximate floor area of the buildings (17,100 sq. ft.) and to insert the
additional 1 space of parking that is being provided for the parsonage. The table
from the recorded agreement has been reproduced below. The proposed deletions
are shown in strike through font and the additions are shown in bold.
On pages 3-7, the conditions of development approval should be amended to add
any new conditions that are imposed by the P&Z and City Council as part of the
review of the parsonage. The applicant has reviewed the prior conditions of
approval and remains committed to comply with all of them. The applicant has no
requests to amend any of those conditions.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 6
P104
VIII.a
Municipal Code Requirement Approved Dimensional Requirement
Minimum Lot Size The Property contains 26,981 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width The Property is 270 feet wide.
Minimum Front Yard New Buildings: 5'
Variances for cabins granted by HPC.
Minimum Side Yard New Buildings: 5'
Variances for cabins granted by HPC.
Minimum Rear Yard 5 feet
Maximum Height 32 feet
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.75:1 (20,235 sq. ft.) is allowed by
Code; the approved buildings are
approximately 49,665 17,100 sq. ft. in
size.
Minimum Number of Off-Street Parking 9 spaces will be provided along the
Spaces alley. At least 2 of the spaces will be
allocated to and reserved for the on-
site affordable housing units. 1
additional space will be provided in
a garage attached to the parsonage.
Following is an explanation of why this application is considered to be an "other
subdivision amendment. Section 26.480.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code authorizes
amendments to approved subdivisions. It provides for what are identified as "insubstantial
amendments" (Sub-section A) and "other amendments" (Sub-section B).
An insubstantial subdivision amendment is limited to "technical or engineering
considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be
anticipated during the approval process or any other minor change to a plat that has no
effect on the conditions and representations limiting the original plat". An insubstantial
amendment may be authorized administratively.
Other subdivision amendments (that is, amendments which do not qualify as insubstantial
amendments) require review and approval by the Aspen City Council, "provided the
proposed change is consistent with the approved plat".
Staff has determined that the proposed amendments do not qualify as an insubstantial
subdivision amendment because they are not technical or engineering considerations.
Therefore, by definition the amendments must be considered to be "other amendments".
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 7
P105
VIII.a
This means that the amendments must be determined to be consistent with or an
enhancement of the approved final plat in order for them to be approved.
The change that is proposed to the subdivision approval previously granted to this property
is the replacement of the social hall with the parsonage. This change is an enhancement
of the original plan for the following reasons:
1. The parsonage will be the home for the Rabbi and his family, allowing them to live
on the same site as the Jewish Community Center. This live/work arrangement provides a
leadership presence on the site. Having the Rabbi living on the site will ensure that the
Jewish Community Center will operate at all times in a manner that is respectful of its
impacts on its neighbors and in conformance with all of the commitments made to the
community (such as the commitments to manage drop off and pick up of children from the
pre-school) as a part of the land use application process.
2. The parsonage will host important functions of the congregation and be an integral
part of the Jewish Community Center. For example, the Rabbi will host communal dinners
with the congregation at the parsonage following Friday night services. Social activities for
scholars, speakers and other guests of the congregation will also occur at the parsonage.
3. The design of the social hall, which was linked to the main Community Center
building and stretched across most of the block, created a long wall of buildings along
Main Street. The parsonage, which will be a free-standing, residentially-scaled structure,
allows for a more open character along Main Street. The mass of the buildings will be
broken up into distinct forms because the parsonage is set back sufficiently from the
Community Center to read as a separate building.
4. Because the parsonage is more compact than the social hall, functional open
spaces can be established to the east and to the west of the building, providing a
playground for children who will attend the pre-school on the site. The open space will
also permit the public to view the historic cabins along the alley. HPC's conceptual review
has also assured that the parsonage is sufficiently set back from the cabins along Third
Street to respect their scale and historic character.
5. The parsonage will contain approximately 500 to 1,000 sq. ft. less in floor area than
the social hall, thereby reducing the overall buildout of the site. It should be pointed out
that the total buildout that has been approved for this block is only approximately 17,100
sq. ft. This is more than 3,000 sq. ft. below the allowable 0.75:1 floor area ratio for public
uses in the Mixed Use (MU) zone district (26,981 x 0.75 = 20,235) and nearly 10,000 sq.
ft. below the overall 1:1 (26981 sq. ft.) floor area ratio permitted for a mixed use project in
the Main Street portion of the MU zone district.
The staff has also requested that as part of a revised subdivision agreement, the applicant
address how the parsonage will be permanently linked to the AJCC. The reason this is
necessary is that from a Code standpoint staff has determined that the parsonage should
be considered to be part of the "arts, cultural and civic use" (that is the Community Center)
and is not defined as a single family residence.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 8
P106
VIII.a
Following are the applicant's commitments to permanently link the parsonage to the JCC:
The parsonage will be permanently owned by the Jewish Resource Center Chabad
of Aspen and will not be owned by the Rabbi. The residence will never be
conveyed as a separate use or separate interest from the Jewish Resource Center.
The parsonage will be used as the home of the Rabbi or other spiritual leader of the
congregation. Certain basic functions of the congregation will occur in the
parsonage. These functions are anticipated to include, but not be limited to, Friday
night dinners for the congregation following services, receptions for visiting scholars
and speakers, and similar types of social activities.
The applicant is prepared to discuss any additional commitments that may be requested
by the City to permit the parsonage as an accessory use to the Jewish Community Center.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 9
P107
VIII.a
IV. Growth Management Review For An Essential Public Facility
Chapter 26.470 of the Land Use Code requires all new development in Aspen to obtain a
growth management allotment or to be eligible for a growth management exemption. As
part of its review of the 2006 application, the City Council determined that the development
of the Jewish Community Center qualifies for a growth management exemption as an
essential public facility. Since the parsonage is intended to be an essential element of the
overall Community Center, it too should qualify for this exemption.
Section 26.470.090.4. establishes the criteria for review of the development of essential
public facilities. These criteria and the applicant's responses to them are as follows:
a.The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or
structure to be an Essential Public Facility (see definition). Accessory uses may
also be part of an Essential Public Facility project.
Response: The Land Use Code definition of an essential public facility is as follows:
A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by,
or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community".
Development of a Jewish Community Center which includes a sanctuary, religious
classrooms and a non-denominational pre-school clearly meets the test of serving an
essential public purpose. The facilities will be available for use by and will benefit the
general public (not just the Jewish community) and will serve the needs of the community.
The parsonage will be accessory to and a part of the Community Center and will be
permanently linked to the Community Center by the commitments listed above.
b.Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City
Council may assess, waive, or partially waive, affordable housing mitigation
requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting
civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee
generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed
for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations
Response: According to Section 26.470.050 A.1, Employee Generation Calculations, "All
Essential Public Facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to
determine employee generation".
Section 26.470.050 A.1 goes on to provide guidelines for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to use in establishing the employee generation for such facilities. First, the
Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the expected employee
generation of the use, any unique employment characteristics of the operation, and the
extent to which employees of various uses within the property will overlap or serve multiple
functions.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 10
P108
VIII.a
The applicant completed a detailed evaluation of the planned operation of the Jewish
Community Center in 2006. The applicant concluded, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission concurred that the Community Center will have a total of 9.63 full time and
part time employees. Following is a position-by position listing of these employees:
There will be one Rabbi who will lead the Jewish Community Center.
There will be six employees who operate the pre-school, since each of the three
pre-school rooms is required to be run by two employees. One of these six
employees will be the Rabbi's wife.
There will be one secretary who runs the administrative functions for the Jewish
Community Center. This person will also operate the on-site religious articles shop.
There will be one caretaker for the Jewish Community Center.
There will also be some contract employees who assist the Center from time-to-time. For
example, there will a contract employee who will work 1 to 2 hours per week to support the
pre-school. There will also be contract employees engaged by the caterers who may
serve functions in the social hall from time-to-time. Finally, there may be a small summer
camp that operates from the property, which would have up to 4 camp counselors
religious school students) working on a part time basis (from 9 AM to 2 PM) for 2-3
months per year. The Planning and Zoning Commission, based on a recommendation
from the Housing Authority, determined that these part time employees are equivalent to
0.63 full time employees, resulting in the total generation determination of 9.63 employees.
The applicant agreed to mitigate the demand for affordable housing for the employees of
the .Community Center through the conversion of the three on-site cabins along Third
Street to deed restricted housing. The deed restrictions have since been recorded as
Reception No.592066. The Land Use Code credits the applicant with 1.25 employees for
each of the two studio units, and 1.75 employees for the 1 bedroom unit. This means that
4.25 of the 9.63 employees (44%) have been mitigated by the applicant. This 44%
mitigation ratio was accepted by the City and is specified in the subdivision agreement.
With the development of the parsonage, two more employees of the Community Center
the Rabbi and his wife) will be provided with housing by the project. It is worth noting that
the Rabbi and his family currently live in an affordable housing unit in the Alpine Cottages.
Development of the parsonage will, therefore, allow that affordable housing unit to be sold
to another employee of the community
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning
Commission to require a follow-up analysis of the project, such as an audit, to confirm that
the forecast of employee generation was accurate. The Planning and Zoning Commission
established such a condition in its original approval and it has been memorialized in the
Subdivision Agreement. It states that an audit must be completed 2 years after the date of
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 11
F
P109
VIII.a
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. It goes on to require that if the audit
determines additional employees are on the payroll, the applicant must mitigate for those
employees at the 44% mitigation rate. The applicant remains committed to completing the
audit according to the terms specified in the Agreement.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 12
P110
VIII.a
V. Conclusion
We believe the above responses and the attached exhibits and figures provide the
information you require to process this application and demonstrate that the application
complies with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if there is anything else you need.
Aspen Jewish Community Center-Application for Rabbi's Parsonage Page 13
P111
VIII.a
EXHIBITS
P112
VIII.a
ii
r . -
v .: '. +,.
t.> + '
at.
fi _'
v-
J '
e
m ' +
a $
dw.
3
w.
a ".'*
a &.
v. .
r
m.} . ., +,
a
P113
VIII.a
CaTY OF ASPEN
CITY
FROM
ASPEN FEMPT FROM HRETT
ITT Opt-'s WATT DATE REP NO. EXHIBIT #1
TF REF_.
k863 ti(bl v
NO*
li Icy
Recording requested by:
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen
When recorded, mail to:
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen
c/o Menachem Mintz
104 Robinson Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
ALH HOLDING COMPANY-GUNNISON ("Grantor") , with an address of
435 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for Ten Dollars and
no/100 ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby
bargains, sells and conveys to THE JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD
OF ASPEN, whose address is c/o Menachem Mintz, 104 Robinson Road,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, the real property situated in Pitkin
County, Colorado, described as follows:
CABIN UNITS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 AND 29, L'AUBERGE D'ASPEN
CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Plat thereof recorded March
21,2000 in Plat Book 52 at Page 81 and as defined and
described in the Amended and Restated Declaration of
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for L'Auberge D'Aspen
recorded June 15, 2001 as Reception No. 455538
L
J together with all its appurtenances and WARRANTS the title against
J all persons, subject to those items set forth on Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3
Dated: April I' 2004
GRANTOR:
ALH HOLDI G COMPANY- ISON, a
Col d c ora
By:
Mic ael D. is ield, as attorney in
fact for
President 441-1 AbAl 6p
STATE OF l or(jO )
s s.
COUNTY OFP A41_ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me April ,
2004 by Michael D. Haisfield, as attorney in fact for AudrP
lTQ'1DL2414, f ALH Holding CQQany-Gunnison, a Colorado
n
AM corporation.
My commission expires 67
Witness my hand and official sea .
Notary Public
2805\2GWD.02
011/1/0-7
496576
04/16/2004 1 1:34LVIADAVISPITKINCOUNTYCOR11.00 0 505.36
W tWW"
Page 1 of 2
496576
TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 04/1612004
P114
VIII.a
EXHIBIT A TO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
4
1
1
Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at
Pages 273, 316,530 and Page 536 and in Book 79 at Page 61, providing as follows- `That no title shall
be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver,cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or
4
possession held under existing laws'
Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of Perkins Subdivision recorded August 14,
1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 25 and Condominium Plat of L'Auberge D'Aspen recorded March 21, 2000
in Plat Book 52 at Page 81.
s Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Statement of Exemption from the Definition of
Subdivision for Perkins Subdivision as set forth in Instrument recorded July 11, 1980 in Book 391 at Page
574
Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Subdivision Agreement as set forth in instruments,
recorded August 14, 1980 in Book 393 at Page 49.
I
Terms, conditions, provisions,obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners recorded June 10, 1996 as Reception No.393526 as Resolution No 95-50
Terms, conditions, provisions,obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1995
by Aspen City Council recorded July 24, 1995 in Book 788 at Page 43.
Terms, conditions, provisions,obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the
Condominium Declaration for L'Auberge D'Aspen recorded June 15, 2001 as Reception No. 455538,
deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin
wr
I
S
496576
Page: 2 of 2
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00
4 18D2 34N
506.36
E'
i
f
II
I
P115
VIII.a
CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPENM(EMPT FROM WRETT EXEMPT FROM H%7T
ATEy REP re) NO.y gJ S DATE qEp No
4 Rec.Omn,g requested by: y
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen
When recorded, mail to:
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen
c/o Menachem Mintz
104 Robinson Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
AUDREY LEA HAISFIELD ("Grantor") , with an address of 3204
Midway Pike, Versailles, KY, for Ten Dollars and no/100 ($10.00)
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby bargains,
sells and conveys to THE JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN,
whose address is c/o Menachem Mintz, 104 Robinson Road, Aspen,
Colorado 81611, the real property situated in Pitkin County,
j4 Colorado described as follows:
HOUSE UNIT A, L'AUBERGE D'ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS, according to
the. Plat thereof recorded March 21,2000 in Plat Book 52 at
Page 81 and as defined and described in the Amended and
Restated Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for L'Auberge D'Aspen recorded June 15, 2001 as
Reception No. 455538
together with all its appurtenances and WARRANTS the title against
all persons, subject to those items set forth on Exhibit A attached
4 hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Dated: April d-, 2004
Y
G
ti Michael D. aiafield, as attorney in
r(
fact for Audrey Lea Haisfield
STATE OF 0 to u`O )
ss.
j COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me April
2004 by Michael D. Haisfield, as attorney in fact for Audrey Lea
Iv Haisfield.
r4 My commission expires I i V'
Witness my hand and official se
2805\2GWD.02
Notary Public
496577
TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 04/16/2004
Page 1 of 2
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 496577
04 2 .
SIIVIR DAVIS
VIIIIIIIIIII 11.35A
i ITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 D 123.67
P116
VIII.a
r+
i
i
i
EXHIBIT A TO GENERAL WARRANTY DEEDw
Aft
Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at
Pages 273, 316, 530 and Page 536 and In Book 79 at Page 61, providing as follows- 'That no title shall
be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or
possession held under existing laws'
Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of Perkins Subdivision recorded August 14,
1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 25 and Condominium Plat of L'Auberge D'Aspen recorded March 21, 2000
in Plat Book 52 at Page 81,
Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Statement of Exemption from the Definition of
Subdivision for Perkins Subdivision as set forth in Instrument recorded July 11, 1980 in Book 391 at Page
574
Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Subdivision Agreement as set forth in instrument
j recorded August 14, 1980 in Book 393 at Page 49
Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners recorded June 10, 1996 as Reception No. 393526 as Resolution No 95-50
Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1995
by Aspen City Council recorded July 24, 1995 in Book 788 at Page 43.
Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the
Condominium Declaration for L'Auberge D' Aspen recorded June 15, 2001 as Reception No. 455538,
deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin
496577
Page, 2 of 2
R 11 00
4/16 p 0 23.67
iji35A
SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO
t
r
I
I
i
P117
VIII.a
EXHIBIT#2
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner
Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR PARSONAGE AT ASPEN JEWISH
COMMUNITY CENTER
Dear Amy and Sara,
The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen is the owner of the Aspen Jewish
Community Center located at 435 West Main Street. I hereby authorize Alan Richman
Planning Services and Arthur Chabon Architects to submit an application to build a
parsonage on the property. Mr. Richman and Mr. Chabon are authorized to submit this
application on our behalf and to representing us in meetings with staff and the applicable
decision-making bodies.
Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this
application please do so by calling Mr. Richman at the phone number he has provided in
the application.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Mendel ' tz
435 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
544-3770
P118
VIII.a
CITY OF ASPEN
EXHIBIT #3
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER:Sara Adams, (970) 429-2778 DATE: 04.09.12PROJECT:435 E. Main Street
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Planning Service, 970-920-1125
OWNER: Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen
DESCRIPTION: Aspen Jewish Community Center received final approvals in 2006/2007, including:P&Z Resolution #24, Series of 2006; Council Ordinance #36, Series of 2006; HPC Resolution 19,Series of 2006 for Conceptual Approval; HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2007, for Final Approval; HPCResolution #31, Series of 2007 for a Setback Variance, HPC Resolution, #40, Series of 2007 for an
amendment to Final Approval; and HPC Resolution #7, Series of 2011 for a substantial amendment toFinalApproval. Council approved an extension of vested rights via Resolution #17, Series of 2007
allowing the project to remain protected from changes in the Land Use Code until March 1, 2013. A
subdivision plat and agreement were recorded in November of 2007.
The applicant is interested in amending the approvals to change the social hall to a parsonage for the
Rabbi to receive members of the congregation, to conduct Friday night dinners for large groups in a
communal dining hall, and other events associated with the Jewish Community Center mission. In
addition the Rabbi shall live in the parsonage with his family. The new building is proposed to have abasementandtwolevelsabovegrade. The purpose of the parsonage to contribute to the fulfillment of
the mission of the Jewish Community Center deems the building as part of the "arts, cultural and civic"
use and as such the building counts toward the 0.75:1 FAR allowed for the use in the Mixed Use ZoneDistrict. The applicant shall propose conditions to be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement that permanently attach the parsonage to the Jewish Community Center and disallow anyfutureuseoftheparsonageasasinglefamilyhome.
The proposed parsonage requires Major Development design review by the Historic Preservation
Commission for development of a historic landmark and for development within the Main Street HistoricDistrict. The applicant shall apply the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Guidelines and
Objectives (Main Street Historic District Chapter) and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (paycloseattentiontoChapter11 — New Buildings on Landmarked Properties). The Commercial Design
Standards and the Residential Design Standards do not apply to this project.
Special Review to establish parking requirements for the parsonage is required and is conducted by theHistoricPreservationCommission. This shall amend the parking requirements approved via PlanningandZoningCommissionResolution #24, Series of 2006 and City Council Ordinance #36, Series of2006.
A substantial amendment to Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility is required.The allotments granted in 2006 remain valid. There is no annual limit on allotments for Essential Public
Facilities. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines employee generation for the project and
City Council determines the mitigation rate for the employees generated. City Council determines the
mitigation rate for the generated employees. The original 2006 approvals granted a mitigation rate of44% for 9.63 employees generated by the development which required 4.25 employees to be housed
onsite. The application needs to address any changes to employee generation resulting from removingthesocialhallandaddingaparsonage.
1
P119
VIII.a
An "Other Amendment" to the Subdivision approval by the City Council is required. Only the
subdivision improvements agreement needs to be amended since the subdivision plat is not affected by
the proposed changes.
Recently, City Council adopted a Code Amendment that requires neighborhood outreach prior to the
first public hearing. A summary of the outreach shall be presented at the first HPC public hearing.
For a complete description of this new requirement see Ordinance #3, Series of 2012 pages 4 —6:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Recent-
Code-Amendments/
Please note that Ordinance #3, Series of 2012 (a link is above) also changes the requirement that a
project comply with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 1-n addition; "call-up" procedures by City
Council are de novo. This application is subject to Ordinance #3 which went into effect on March 27,
2012.
The review schedule is as follows:
Step 1: HPC for Major Development Conceptual review, Special Review for Parking.
Step 2: P&Z to review Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility.
Step 3: City Council to review Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility and Subdivision
amendment.
Step 4: HPC for Major Development Final review.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.D Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development
26.430 Special Review
26.470.090.4 Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facilities
26.480.080.6 Subdivision - other amendment
26.515.040 Parking - Special Review Standards
26.610 Impact Fees
26.620 School Land Dedication
26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU) Zone District
Land Use Code (including all code sections cited above):
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-Code/
HPC Design Guidelines:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Historic-
Preservation/Historic-Properties/
HPC application and regular land use application:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Applications-and-Fees/
Review by:Staff for completeness, HPC, P&Z and CC.
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC, P&Z and CC.
Referral Agencies: Housing ($945), Engineering ($265 per hour).
P120
VIII.a
Planning Fees: For HPC application: $1,890 for 6 billable hours (additional hourly rate
billed at $315 per hour).
For GMQS/Subdivision application: $4,410 for 14 billable hours
additional hourly rate billed at $315 per hour).
Referral Agency Fees: $1,210 **payable with land use application for Subdivision and GMQS.
Total Deposit: For HPC application: $1,890.
For GMQS/Subdivision application: $5,620.
Please submit (along with specific requirements listed in the process for each type of land use
review):
Proof of ownership with payment.
Signed fee agreement.
Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
Total deposit for review of the application.
10 Copies of the complete application packet and maps for HPC review.
An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,
including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land
surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be
waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant >
a survey document.)
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of
how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the
development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed.
List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing
Copies of prior approvals.
Applicants are advised that building plans will be required to meet the International Building
Code as adopted by the City of Aspen, the Federal Fair Housing Act, and CRS 9.5.112.
Please make sure that your application submittal addresses these building-related and
accessibility regulations. You may contact the Building Department at 920-5090 for additional
information.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is
based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations
that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
01
P121
VIII.a
EXHIBIT #4
ORDINANCE N0. 36
SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
SUBDIVISION,GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS AN ESSENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITY AND HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION,FOR THE
JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER,ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W.
MAIN STREET,LOTS A-I,BLOCK 38,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-81-001
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen,
represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, submitted an application (hereinafter
the application") requesting approval of Growth Management Review as an Essential
Public Facility and Subdivision Review to construct the Jewish Community Center,
located at 435 W. Main St., Lots A-I,Block 38,City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the
process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if HPC and City Council
determine sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Director determined that
the Jewish Community Center is an Essential Public Facility, and that the application met
the applicable review standards, and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 20, 2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to July 11,2006; and,
WHEREAS,during a continued public hearing on July 11,2006,the Planning
and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing until July 18,2006;
and
WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on July 18,2006, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 24, Series of 2006,by a five to one(5-
1)vote, approving with conditions, a Growth Management Review to determine
employee generation, and Special Review to establish off-street parking requirements;
and recommended approval to City Council of a Growth Management Review as an
Essential Public Facility, and Subdivision review; and,
WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken,and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
1
P122
VIII.a
f
e. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan, and
drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department'srequirements. The construction management plan shall include an
identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a
construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the CityEngineerandStreetsDepartmentSuperintendent. The construction
management plan shall also identify.that the adjacent sidewalks will be
kept open and maintained throughout construction.
f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the CityEngineeringDepartment.
g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet the building coderequirements.
Section 4: Dimensional Re uirements
The redevelopment of the site is limited to the dimensional requirements established in
the Site Plan, Floor Plans, Building Sections and Exterior Elevations in the February2006Subdivisionapplication, and further subject to Historic Preservation CommissionFinalReview.
Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area
The trash containers shall be wildlife proof.
Section 6: Sidewalks Curb and Gutter
The sidewalks shall be constructed as per Resolution No. 31, Series of 2005, of the
Historic Preservation Commission, and shall be upgraded to meet City Engineer's
requirements and ADA requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy onanyoftheunitswithinthedevelopment. The Applicant shall also repair any curb and
gutter adjacent to the property that is deemed to be in disrepair by the City Engineerbeforeacertificateofoccupancyisissuedforanyoftheunitswithinthedevelopment.
Section 7: Affordable Housing
The three (3) on-site affordable housing units shall be in compliance with theAspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Employee Housing Guidelines. The Applicant
shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units at the time of
recordation of the subdivision plat and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancyfortheunits,classifying the units as Category 2 units.
a)At least two parking spaces shall be allocated and reserved for the employee-housingunitsonsite.
b)The units will be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become
ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such
time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance for a period of one year or more.At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified inthedeedrestrictionattheCategory2maximumsalesprice.
3
P123
VIII.a
designation shall be decided in cooperation with the City and the neighbors on the
alley.
S_ection 11: Transportation and Parking
a)Applicant shall pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee if said fee is in
place by building permit submittal. Fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building
permit.
b)Applicant shall print on all event flyers that on-site parking is not available, and
attendees are strongly encouraged to car pool,use bicycles,walk or take the bus.
c)Applicant shall require any person who rents the social hall to print on their invitation
that on-site parking is not available and attendees are strongly encouraged to car pool,
use bicycles,walk or take the bus.
d) Applicant shall maintain information on its website regarding the lack of on-site
parking, and information regarding car-pooling or use of public transit.
e)Applicant's daycare operation shall make a good faith effort to work with parents
of enrolled children to establish and maintain a carpool program.
f)Applicant shall actively participate in the City's Transportation Options Program
TOP).
g)Applicant shall provide covered and secure bike storage.
h)Applicant shall provide free bus passes to employees who do not live on-site.
i) Applicant shall cooperate with the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority regarding the upgrade of the bus stop/shelter adjoining
the subject property on Main Street; the upgrade of the bus stop/shelter may be
subject to a City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission review pursuant to
Section 26.415.
Section 12: Fire Mitigation
The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the
requirements of the Fire Marshal.
Section 13: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title
25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing
Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water
Department.
Section 14: Sanitation District Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and
regulations. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may
require installation of a pumping system.One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service
line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may
impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
5
P124
VIII.a
0 Realignment of the ditch will require specific coordination between the Parks
Department and the contractor. The realignment will have to take place during a
time period when the ditch is closed for the off-season. Realignment will also
require the use of a Bentomat type material in order to reestablish the integrity oftheditch.
9)Utility connections: these connections will need to be designed on the plan in a
manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones
h)Play Yard fence shall be installed on posts, all posts need to be hand dug. Any root
greater than 2"encountered during the installation will require approval before
removal. Play yard fence must be constructed according to State of Colorado
standards for daycare centers.
i) The installation of the new sidewalk at the corner of 4`h and Main Streets needs to
be designed at grade bridging over the root systems of the existing cottonwood
trees.
Section 19: Historic Preservation Commission Aaarovals Required
Final Development Plan approval by the Historic Preservation Commission must be
obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Project.
Section 20: Historic Landmark Designation
Pursuant to Section 26.415.030.B of the Municipal Code, Criteria for listing on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the property is hereby designated
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as the site possesses sufficient
integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and the site
is related to designation criteria 26.415.030.B.2.a and 26.415.030.B.2.c.
Section 21: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render thedevelopmentordervoidwithinthemeaningofSection26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessarytoobtainadevelopmentorderassetforthinthisOrdinance,the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
7
P125
VIII.a
Section 26:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 25`''day of September, 2006, at 5:00intheCityCouncilChambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) 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.
Section 27:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty(30)days following final adoption.
INTRODUCED,READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the CityCounciloftheCityofAspenonthe28`day of August,2006.
Attest:
7
0,
00
Kathryn S. 0 ch,City Clerk Helen Kalin ud,Mayor
FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this 25th day of September,2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S.I ch,Ci Clerk e d rud,Mayor
Approved as to form:
oz ter, ity Attorney
9
P126
VIII.a
EXHIBIT #5
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING APPROVAL FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A-I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 5, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur
Chabon, architect, and Design Workshop, Inc., has requested Major Development (Final) for the
property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-1, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; 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 a
designated historic property or 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;" and
WHEREAS, for 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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.4.b.2
t:
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January 24, 2007, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards have been met, and
recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 24, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Major Development(Final)with the following conditions:
1. Final resolution of Relocation should be delayed until a site has been determined. To
the extent that a new location site remains unresolved, this will not affect permit
review and issuance, although an approved relocation site is ultimately a requirement.
2. The historic cabins are to have wood shingle roofs.
3. Alternative exterior light fixtures for the historic cabins must be provided for review
and approval by staff and monitor.
4. The applicant is to study providing more green space around the base of the historic
cabins, minimizing hardscape that meets the foundation of these buildings.
P127
VIII.a
5. A structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or information
about how the cabins will be stabilized must be submitted with the building permit
application.
6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of$15,000 for each cabin must be submitted
with the building permit application to insure the safe relocation of the structures.
7. A relocation plan detailing how and where the buildings will be stored and protected
during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
8. The original chimneys on the cabins should be carefully documented and
reconstructed using the same material.
9. HPC must review and approve stone samples and mock-ups for the new structure.
10. Restudy the fence on Main Street and its wrap around to Fourth based on comments
provided at the Final hearing. The design is to be reviewed and approved by staff and
monitor.
11. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location
of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or
installing the fixtures.
12. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
13. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
14. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
15. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation
Officer prior to applying for the building permit.
16. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of January,
2007.
Approved as to Form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jeffrey Halferty, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P128
VIII.a
k
EXHIBIT #6
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET,LOTS A-I,BLOCK 38,CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN,COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 31, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Design
Workshop, Inc., has requested a west sideyard setback variance for the property located at 435
W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38,City and Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, for approval of setback variances, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415.110.13 of
the Municipal Code, is met; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 11, 2007, performed an analysis of the
application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and recommended
approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 11, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
approved the application by a vote of 4 to 0.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves a setback variance within the required west sideyard of 435 W, Main
Street as represented in the application reviewed on July 11, 2007.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 11th day of July,2007.
App ve s to Form•
David Hoefer, Assistailt City Attorney
Approved as to nten
HI C SE A ON C SION
Jeffrey Halferty, i
A E T:
I-Cathy Stri Gland,Chief Deputy Clerk RECEPTION#:540887, 08/10/2007 at09:55:01 AM,
1 OF 1. R $6.00 Doc Code RESOLUTIONJaniceK.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County,CO
P129
VIII.a
EXHIBIT #7
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A-I,
BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 40, SERIES OF 2007
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur
Chabon, has requested an amendment to the Major Development (Final) approval granted for the
property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, for approval of an amendment, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415 of the
Municipal Code, is met; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated November 14, 2007, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 14, 2007, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and approved the application by a vote of 4 to 1.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves an amendment to the Major Development (Final) approval for 435 W.
Main Street as represented with the following conditions:
1. The stone sample and mock-up provided, which is described as "Comanche", from
Pueblo, Colorado, is approved for the new structure.
2. The use of cement board siding for the new structure is approved.
3. The east patio front wall will be aligned with the north wall of the meeting hall.
Plantings will be placed in front of the east patio wall.
4. An updated landscape plan must be approved by staff and monitor.
5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
6. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation
Officer prior to applying for the building permit.
P130
VIII.a
8. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
9. All conditions of Major Development Final approval (see HPC Resolution# 5, Series
of 2007) not inconsistent with those conditions set forth herein shall remain in full
force and effect.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of November,
2007.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Special Counsel
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman,Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
t
P131
VIII.a
EXHIBIT #8
RESOLUTION NO. 17
Series of 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY HPC RESOLUTION
5,SERIES OF 2007,FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER AT 435 W.MAIN
STREET,LOTS A-I,BLOCK 38,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY,COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from The Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Alan Richman
Planning Services, requesting approval of a three-year extension of the vested rights
granted for the Jewish Community Center through HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2007;
and,
WHEREAS, HPC adopted Resolution #5, Series of 2007, which approved
worship space, library, office and community areas, affordable housing, and a preschool
until February 25, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is described as 435 W. Main Street, lots A-I,
Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land
Use Code, City Council may adopt a resolution granting an extension of vested rights
after a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application
and has recommended approval of the extension of vested rights for the Jewish
Community Center; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested
extension of vested rights for the Jewish Community Center under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the
recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered
public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested rights proposal
meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of
vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; 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 ASPEN,
COLORADO,THAT:
City Council Resolution No. 17,
Series of 2010. Page 1
P132
VIII.a
Section 1
The Aspen City Council does hereby extend the statutory vested rights as approved by
HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2007 for the Jewish Community Center at 435 W. Main
Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado to March 1, 2013, with
the following condition:
1. The statutory vested property right shall not preclude the applications or
regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject
to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The
developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes, and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building
permit,unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2•
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 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 3•
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 ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 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.
Section 6:
A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 22"d day of February,2010
at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,Aspen City Hall,Aspen,Colorado.
FINALLY, resolved, adopted, passed, and approved by a 5 to 0 vote on this 22"d day of
February,2010.
City Council Resolution No. 17,
Series of 2010. Page 2 t;
P133
VIII.a
Approved as to form:Approved as to content:
4f ZO,
orces er,City Attorney Michael C.Ireland,Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S.K ,City Clerk
City Council Resolution No. 17,
Series of 2010. Page 3
P134
VIII.a
EXHIBIT#9
h
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION(HPC)
GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W.MAIN
STREET, LOTS A-I,BLOCK 38,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 7, SERIES OF 2011
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-001
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur
Chabon Architect and Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested a substantial amendment
to Major Development approval granted for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-1,
Block 38,City and Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, for approval of an amendment, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine that Section 26.415 of the
Municipal Code, is met; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated September 14, 2011, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were met, and t;
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 14, 2011, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review
standards and approved the application by a vote of 5 to 1.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves a substantial amendment to Major Development approval for 435 W.
Main Street, as represented in the HPC packet and drawings presented at the HPC meeting and
labeled Exhibit II,with the following conditions:
1. The historic cabins remaining on the site are to have wood shingle roofs.
2. Alternative exterior light fixtures for the historic cabins remaining on the site must be
provided for review and approval by staff and monitor.
3. The applicant is to study providing more green space around the base of the historic
cabins remaining on the site, minimizing hardscape that meets the foundation of these
buildings.
4. The applicant is required to run advertisements in newspapers twice in an effort to
find a site within the City of Aspen or outside of the City of Aspen for one or more of
the historic cabins that is approved to be moved off site. If that is unsuccessful for
any or all of the cabins, the applicant will be required to run two advertisements in
newspapers offering the remaining buildings for salvage of materials. If that is
unsuccessful, the applicant is permitted to dispose of the remaining cabins as they see
fit. This process must be fully completed before issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for Phase 1.
RECEPTION#:583422, 10111/2011 at
03:36:21 PM,
i OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitki+n County, CO
P135
VIII.a
5. If any or all of the cabins described in Condition #4 are to be relocated, or if any of
the historic cabins remaining on the site are to be temporarily moved during
construction, a structural report demonstrating that the buildings can be moved and/or
information about how the cabins will be stabilized must be submitted with the
building permit application.
6. If any or all of the cabins described in Condition #4 are to be relocated, or if any of
the historic cabins remaining on the site are to be temporarily moved during
construction, a bond or letter of credit in the amount of$15,000 for each cabin must
be submitted with the building permit application to insure the safe relocation of the
structures.
7. If any or all of the historic cabins remaining on the site are to be temporarily moved
during construction, a relocation plan detailing how and where they will be stored and
protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application.
8. The original chimneys on the historic cabins remaining on the site should be carefully
documented and reconstructed using the same material.
9. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location
of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or
installing the fixtures.
10. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the
information is available.
11. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first
being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
12. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
13. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation
Officer prior to applying for the building permit.
14. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty
license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit.
15. The stone sample and mock-up provided, which is described as "Comanche", from
Pueblo, Colorado, is approved for the new structure.
16.The use of cement board siding for the new structure is approved.
17. The fenestration on the connector element in the Phase 2 construction must be
restudied for review and approval by staff and monitor before submitting a building
permit for Phase 2.
P136
VIII.a
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 14th day of September,
2011.
Approved as to Form:
m True, Special Counsel
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
1
Ann Mullins,Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
t
P137
VIII.a
EXHIBIT #10 RECEPTION#: 591629,08/2412012 at
03:45:42 PM,
1 OF 2. R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County,CO
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT,SPECIAL REVIEW AND
SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W.
MAIN STREET,LOTS A-I,BLOCK 38,CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 20,SERIES OF 2012
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-81-100
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur
Chabon Architect and Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Conceptual Major
Development, Special Review for Parking and Setback Variance approval for the property
located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; 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 a
designated historic property or 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;"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 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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, HPC may establish parking requirements for the project based on the Special
Review standards of Section 26.430.040.D; and
WHEREAS,the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C.I a,
Variances; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 15, 2012, performed an analysis of
the application based on the standards, found that the review standards could be met with restudy
and recommended that the public hearing be continued; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 15, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
approved the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to 3.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Special Review and a Setback
Variance for 435 W. Main Street, with the following conditions:
P138
VIII.a
1. The approved site plan is represented in Option B, Exhibit II of the August 15, 2012
meeting record.
2. The roof over the dining room is to be restudied for Final.
3. The front door of the parsonage must face Main Street.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 15th day of August,
2012.
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
nn Mullins,Chair
Approved as to Form:t
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathy Stricidand,Chief Deputy Clerk
P139
VIII.a
EXHIBIT#
11
FINAL
PLAT
ASPEN
JEtiV'
ISH
COMMUNITY
CENTER
SUDDIVIS10N
S
A
VACATION
OF
L'
1(
BERGE.
D
ASPEN
CONDOMINIUM
PLAT
RECORDED
MARCH
21,
2000
IN
PLAT
BOOK
52
AT
PAGE
81
xi
AN.
ak.
s.
AND
RF.
SUBDIVISION
OF
LOTS
1
AND
2,
PERKINS
SUBDIVISION,
RECORDED
IN
PLAT
BOOK
10
AT
PAGE
25
CONSISTING
OF
LOTS
A
THROUGH
1,
BLOCK
38.
CITY
AND
TOR'
NSITE
OF
ASPEN
COUNTY
OF
PITKIN,
STATE
OF
COLORADO
a
a
I
SUBJECT'
GNAPNIC
SCALE
f/ *..
zq+
PROPERTY
r--
Ol
t,,
f
8
6:
a "°°°'
ACC
L. ,
s,
t ""
r.
F
I
gt
4-
cam.
ese
I
4
e
W''!
t`
x`
r -
MAP
ikl—
r
a
g
y
a,.....
a
s8
zj Z
ouY
OZW
zz
Y
I
awc„
a.
cwe,
ro...
Ra,
m
rzrnm..
4.
Essen
na,
s.
g.
Y
2•
Y„— >.
w
r
oa. '
4'
7m"'--
I
i
C
a
mvrs ,
Kxoo.
cwx.
as
moia'
so
odd°, ..
w
Mrs
kr.
o
rt,
yo
Qaw '°
j °
0,
Vo°
we.
es
s
iK
s
me.
s
raro
NI.
S-
C7—
O •
U
ssscme .
wc>
R,
u ..
a
ro.
asas. '"'
Aa..:
awr.
ro .,.
c4a..
mw.
z._>,
ra.
c
ms....
mf ..
n• -_,—
z
Z
G
nm,
s
s®
a
ro..
axs..
n..
0
rzm,
c-.
oa.,
cw¢
o.
w
a
2- ___._
csnc,
s
h..>
n•.
0
c
Ems. ...
U
r
x¢
ruwus,
w
x .
rv.
n...
t
us,
osc
u,•
u.
w
M
FR
wsu
p
sre
cnw,
ry.
rasc
wv
e•
watsa
a
sm.
s
va.
x
r
PaU
E
ThO
gym'
l0wl0b700 M27
ai
uR
nrvo„
rcz.
rw
mu.
r.
nc.
f_
xM•
n •
im,
am..
s
au
av`~
i.
rrr
wa.
v.
c.
r
nLV..
ur
w'
v,.
x
P140
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 1 OF 9, R $46.00
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
EXHIBIT#12
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR
ASPEN JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT("the Agreement")is made this day of
007, by and between the Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen,a non-
fit Col orad 0 corpor aI!on (,Ow ner) and the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal
corporation and home rule charter city("City").
RECITALS
WHEREAS,the Owner owns that certain real property located In the City of Aspen,
County of Pitkin,legally described as Lots A through I, Block 38,City and Townsite of
Aspen("the Property");and
WHEREAS,in February,2006 the Owner submitted to the City for approval a land
use application to develop a Jewish Community Center on the Property,to include, but
not be limited to, a place of religious worship, a pre-school, Hebrew school, teen and
adult programs, and a social hall("the Project");and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 36 (Series of 2006), the City granted
approval to the Project for Subdivision, Growth Management Review as an Essential
Public Facility,and Historic Landmark Designation;and
WHEREAS, the City imposed conditions and requirements on the Owner in
connection with the approvals described above,such conditions and requirements being
necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health,safety and welfare. Such
conditions are set forth in Ordinance No. 36(Series of 2006);and
WHEREAS,under Section 26.480.070of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
the City Is entitled to assurance that the matters agreed to herein will be performed bytheOwnerandItssuccessorsorassigns; and
WHEREAS,the Owner is willing to enter into such agreement with the City and toprovidetotheCityassurances,as set forth herein;and
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution, and
recording a final plat for the Project(the"Plat")and the City agrees to approve, execute,
and record the Plat at the Owner's expense on the agreement of the Owner to the
matters described herein,subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City ofAspenandotherapplicablerulesandregulations.
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein
and the approval, execution,and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City,it isagreedasfollows:
fl,
P141
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 2 OF 9,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
1. DeacriptIon of Protect. The Project consists of the following elements:
The Community Center will consist of two buildings that are connected by
a recessed gallery. The western building, along Fourth Street,will Include
the classrooms and office space. The religious sanctuary will be on the
second floor. The eastern building, along Third Street, will include the
social hall. The basement area below both buildings will include the library,teen activity rooms, and other support spaces.
Six(6)of the original cabins on the Property will be preserved and restored.
The three (3) cabins along Third Street will be remodeled into affordable
housing units, including 1 one bedroom unit and 2 studio units. Three(3)
of the cabins along the alley will be used as lodging for persons associated
with the Jewish Community Center and for other uses to support the
functions of the Project.
The other three (3) original cabins along the alley will be relocated to
another site,subject to review and approval of the relocation plan by theHistoricPreservationCommission (HPC).
2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties
hereto, and upon approval of the Plat by the Engineering Department and PlanningOffice,the City will approve and execute the Plat for the Project,which conforms to the
requirements of Section 26.480.060 of the Municipal Code. The City will accept the Plat
for recording in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon Owner's
payment of the recordation fee.
The Owner and the City hereby acknowledge that the Plat,this Agreement,and
Ordinance No. 36 (Series of 2006)constitute the final development plan for the Project.
3. Construction Schedule and Phasing. The City and Owner mutuallyacknowledgethatanexactconstructionschedulecannotbedeterminedfortheProject
at this time. However,it is anticipated that construction of the Project will begin no later
than three(3)years after the vesting of the Owner's rights in the Project,with substantial
completion of construction occurring within eighteen(18) months thereafter.
4. Dimensional Reguirements. The dimensional requirements applicable totheProjectareasfollows:
2
P142
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 3 OF 9,
Janice K. Von Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
Municipal Code Requirement Approved Dimensional
Requirement
Minimum Lot Size The Property contains 26,981 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width The Property is 270 feet wide.
Minimum Front Yard New Buildings: 5'
Variances for cabins granted by
HPC.
Minimum Side Yard New Buildings: 5'
Variances for cabins granted by
HPC,
Minimum Rear Yard 5 feet
Maximum Height 32 feet
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.75:1 (20,235 sq. ft.)is allowed by
Code; the approved buildings are
approximately 19,665 sq. ft.in size.
Minimum Number of Off-Street 9 spaces will be provided along theParkingSpacesalley. At least 2 of the spaces will be
allocated to and reserved for the on-
site affordable housing units.
6
5. Conditions of Development Approval. The Owner will satisfy the
conditions of approval established in Ordinance 36(Series of 2006),as follows:
a. Trash/Utility Service Area. The trash containers installed in the
trashfutility service area will be wildlife proof.
b. Sidewalks,Curb and Gutter. The sidewalks on the Property will be
constructed as specified in HPC Resolution 31,Series of 2005. They will be designed to
meet the City Engineer's requirements and ADA requirements prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project. The Owner will also repair any
curb and gutter adjacent to the Property that is deemed to be in disrepair by the CityEngineerpriortotheissuanceofacertificateofoccupancyforanyportionoftheProject.
C. Affordable Houslna. The three (3) affordable housing units ("AHUnits") in the Project will comply with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing AuthorityAPCHA")Employee Housing Guidelines. A deed restriction will be placed on each of
the AH Units classifying them as Category 2 rental units. The deed restrictions for the AH
Units will be submitted by the Owner to the APCHA prior to the issuance of a certificate
3
k,
P143
VIII.a
RECEPTION$: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 4 OF 9,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
of occupancy for the units.
The deed restriction will provide that if the occupant of an AH Unit is an
employee of the Owner,then the income and asset occupancy requirements applicable
to the AH Unit will be waived. The deed restriction will also provide that an AH Unit maybeconvertedtoasaleAHUnitatsuchtimeastheOwnerrequeststhischange,or at
such time as the APCHA determines that an AH Unit has been out of compliance with its
deed restriction for a period of one(1)year or longer. At such time,the AH Unit will be
listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category2maximumsalesprice.
The Owner will convey to the APCHA an undivided one-tenth of one percent
fractional interest in the ownership of the Property for the purposes of complying with therecentColoradoSupremeCourtdecisionregardingrentcontrols. As part of this
conveyance, the Owner will indemnify and hold harmless the APCHA and the City of
Aspen from any claims, liabilities,fees, or similar charges related to ownership of an
interest in the Property. The City of Aspen shall have no voting rights,or rights to notices
of meetings, etc. in the Jewish Resource Center by reason of the conveyance of thisfractionalinterest.
At such time as the Owner can demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction
of the City that another mechanism then exists(including but not limited to the conversion
of the AH Units to sale AH Units)making the affordable housing guidelines enforceable
absent an ownership Interest by the City,then the Owner may request,and the City shall
deed back to the Owner,the City's undivided ownership interests in the Property. In anyevent,the City's undivided ownership interests shall automatically expire and revert to theOwnerthirty(30)years from the date the deeds are recorded.
d. Employee Audit. The Owner will conduct an employee audit of the
number of full time equivalent employees of the Project two (2) years after the date of
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project. The Owner will be responsible for
retaining and paying for the services of the auditor. The Owner shall obtain the approval
of the selection of the auditor from the Housing Office.
The auditor shall make a determination of the number of full time
equivalent(FTE)employees generated by the Project. The Aspen Planning and ZoningCommissionhasdeterminedthat9.63 employees will be generated by the Project. TheOwnerisresponsibleforprovidingaffordablehousingforforty-four percent (44%) of
those employees in the three(3)on-site affordable housing units,which provide mitigation
for 4.25 employees. If the audit determines that the Project generates more than 9.63
FTE employees, then the Owner shall provide supplementary mitigation for those
additional FTE's, by mitigating for forty-four percent (44%) of the FTE employees in
excess of 9.63. Mitigation may be provided via a cash-in-lieu payment or by deedrestrictingadditionalAHUnits.
4
P144
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 5 OF 9,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
e. Off-Street Parking Management. At least one of the Project's
employees shall establish and facilitate a temporary off-street drop-off and pick-up area
for the pre-school operation, using up to seven of the parking spaces located along the
alley. Safety cones or similar materials shall be used to convert the traditional parking
spaces into a one-way,continuous movement drop-off zone. The Owner will maintain this
drop-off zone in a manner that provides for public safety,including snow and Ice removal.
The Owner hereby requests that the City of Aspen post the alley
behind the Property as a one-way alley. The direction of the one-way traffic shall be
decided upon by the City, in consultation with the neighbors along the alley.
f. Transportation Demand Management. The Owner will pay the City's
Air Quality Impact Fee if said fee is In effect at the time of building permit submittal. The
fee will be paid prior to the Issuance of a building permit for the Project.
The Owner will print on all event flyers that on-site parking is not
available and attendees are strongly encouraged to car pool, use bicycles,walk,or take
the bus. The Owner will require any person who rents the social hall to print on their
invitation that on-site parking is not available and attendees are strongly encouraged to
car pool, use bicycles,walk,or take the bus.
The Owner will make a good faith effort to work with parents of
children enrolled in the pre-school to establish and maintain a car pool program
The Owner will maintain information on Its web site explaining the lack
of on-site parking and describing car-pool and transit options available to the Property.
The Owner will actively participate in the City's Transportation Options
Program. This will include,but not be limited to,providing free bus passes to employees
who do not live on-site. The Owner will also provide covered, secure bike storage
facilities on-site.
The Owner will cooperate with the City of Aspen and the Roaring
Fork Transportation Authority if those entities decide to upgrade the bus stop/shelter
adjoining the Property on Main Street.
g. Fire Safety. The Owner will install a fire sprinkler system and alarm
system that meets the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal.
h. Water Department Requirements. The Project will be designed to
comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and the applicable standards of
Titles 8 and 25 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
I. Sanitation District Requirements. The Project will be designed to
5
P145
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 563901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 6 OF 9,
Janice K. Von Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
comply with the rules and regulations of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
ACSD"). On-site utility plans will be provided to ACSD for review and approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit. No more than one tap will be requested for each
building. A shared service line agreement will be prepared if any service line that serves
more than one unit. No permanent improvements will be Installed in any sewer easement
or right of way. Landscaping plans will be provided to ACSD for review if any soft or
hard landscaping will Impact a public right of way or easement to be dedicated to ACSD.
J. Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting for the Project will be designed
to comply with the City's Outdoor Lighting Code (Section 26.575.150 of the Code).
k. School Land Dedication Fee. The Owner will pay a fee In lieu of
dedicating land for schools. The fee will be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the Project. The City will calculate the amount of the fee that is due, using the
methodology and fee schedule that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal,
The Owner will provide the market value of the land, including site improvements, but
excluding the value of the structures on the site,so the City may calculate the amount of
the fee that is due.
I. Park Development Impact Fee. The Owner will pay a fee in lieu of
dedicating land for parks. The fee will be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the Project. The City will calculate the amount of the fee that is due, using the
methodology and fee schedule that are in effect at the time of building permit submittal.
M. Landscapina. The Owner will obtain an approved tree permit before
any demolition or excavation takes place on-site and prior to the submission of an
application for a building permit for the Property. Any required mitigation associated with
the permit will be paid via cash-in-lieu or by on-site mitigation. A permit authorizing
excavation under the drip line will be obtained along with the tree permit.
A vegetation protection fence will be erected at the drip line of each
individual tree or group of trees that will be preserved. A plan indicating the location of
the tree protection fence will be submitted as part of the building permit application. The
fence will be inspected by the City Forester or his designee before any construction
activities commence. No excavation; storage of materials, construction back fill or
equipment; or foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the drip line of any tree that is
to be preserved.
The Owner will contract with a tree service and have them on-call to
address all roots greater than two Inches(2")in diameter. Root trenching will be used
around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line.
Any planting in the public right-of-way will be subject to the City's
landscaping in the right-of-way requirements. Improvements to the right-of-way will
6
P146
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 7 OF 9,Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
Include new grass and irrigation. The right-of-way trees along Thins and Fourth Streetswillbeaspeciesotherthancottonwood.
Realignment of ditches on the Property will be coordinated with theParksDepartment. The realignment will take place during a time period when the ditchisclosedfortheoff-season. Realignment will be accomplished using a Bentomat typeofmaterialtore-establish the integrity of the ditch.
Utility connections will be designed so as not to encroach into thetreeprotectionzones.
The play yard fence will be installed on posts that are hand dug. AnytreerootthatisgreaterthantwoInches(2")in diameter that Is encountered during fenceInstallationwillnotberemoveduntilitsremovalisapprovedbytheParksDepartment.The play yard fence will be constructed to comply with the State of Colorado standardsfordaycarecenters.
The new sidewalk that will be installed at the corner of Fourth StreetandMainStreetwillbedesignedatgradetobridgeovertherootsystemoftheexistingcottonwoodtrees.
6. Material Representations. All material representations made by the OwneronrecordtotheCityinaccordancewiththeapprovaloftheProjectshallbebindingupontheOwner,its successors, and assigns.
7. Enforcement. In the event the City determines the Owner is not in
substantial compliance with the terms of the Agreement or the Plat,the City may serveaNoticeofNon-Compliance and request that the deficiency be corrected within a periodofforty-five(45)days. In the event the Owner believes that it is in compliance,or that thenon-compliance is insubstantial,the Owner may request a hearing before the City Counciltodeterminewhethertheallegednon-compliance exists,or whether any amendment,variance,or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shallconductahearingaccordingtostandardproceduresandtakesuchactionasitthendeemsappropriate. The City shall be entitled to ail remedies at equity and at law toenjoin,correct, and/or receive damages for any non-compliance with this Agreement.
8. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by U.S.Certified Mail,returnreceiptrequested, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth below, or to any otheraddresswhichthepartiesmaysubstituteinwriting. Such notices shall be deemedreceived,if not sooner received,three(3)days after the date of mailing of same.
To the Owner. Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen
104 Robinson Road
Aspen,Colorado 81611
7
t
1f
P147
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 8 OF 9,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
With a copy to: Leonard M.Oates, Esquire
Oates Knezevich&Gardenschwartz
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To the City Community Development Department Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen,Colorado 81611
With a copy to: City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
9. Bindina Effect. The provisions of the Agreement shall run with and
constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding and
enure to the benefit of the Owner, its successors and assigns and to the City, its
successors, and assigns.
10. Amendment. The Agreement may be altered or amended only by written
instrument executed by all the parties hereto,with the same formality as this Agreement
was executed.
11. Severability. If any of the provisions of the Agreement are determined to be
invalid,it shall not effect the remaining provisions hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision
Agreement on the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
a municipal corporation
Y
Katherine S ch, City Clerk Mic C. and,May
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J-ohn WC
Worcester,Cityohn Attomey
8
P148
VIII.a
RECEPTION#: 543901, 11/07/2007 at 02:20:57 PM, 9 OF 9, a=
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
THE JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER
CHABAD OF ASPEN,
a non-profit Colorado corporation
By:
enachem Mintz abbi
and Authorized ignatory
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this lday of pjMF ,
2007 by Michael C. Ireland,as Mayor,and Katherine S. Koch, as City Clerk of the CityofAspen.
O.GAgOoWitnessmyhandandofficialseal. QS',•uTAl•_•L
mayMycommissionexpires: 41
Notary Public
CJkOeP
MN Commnsn.I E:r m Name
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2007 by Menachem Mintz,as Rabbi and Authorized Signatory of The Jewish
Resource Center Chabad of Aspen,a non-profit Colorado Corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
CHRIS DEELY
N07'ARY PUBLICSTATEOFCOLORADO
9 MY Carimia•rm F•rpr-+n5iq;?Oi t
P149
VIII.a
P151
VIII.a
P152
VIII.a
P1
5
3
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
5
4
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
5
5
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
5
6
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
5
7
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
5
8
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
5
9
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
6
0
VI
I
I
.
a
P1
6
1
VI
I
I
.
a
P163VIII.a
a Meta P Barton
4475N Ocean Blvd Apt 43Jq I ��
Delray Beach FL 33483 � 7�
1 v yr�►� Cif �n�;ta�,� �0�° car
o
3�?-Y)v)) t
CL
jr
� � a� � �e �� �`�'� s�U'�►��S d vii � �
any
Car, N\oj�) 3� -,
ati rA I>
n i ?� r ��d cJl c✓J C Y v,) � }l cvw� \ ,cC�
r Y
(5 UIAL
G Gl nG�v�1 try Ao
°.�rterLf''ltor r'nwn�ny �GLt h `u `,�
ButLimu,c,—Nfmry+arrd 272D2
'v1 /W POA�
n Y-
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: jim pomeroy, community development
THRU: Click here to enter text.
DATE OF MEMO: 2/4/2013
MEETING DATE: 2/11/2013
RE: Policy Reso - Code Amendment: various business obstacles
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.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
P166
VIII.b
02.11.13 – Business Obstacle Code Amendments Policy Direction
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Pomeroy, Code Enforcement Officer
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Business Friendly Code Amendments
Resolution 17, Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2013
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for code amendments. The objective of
the proposed code amendments is to make changes to the land use code that eliminate or hinder
business growth, while preserving the overall feel of the code and the previous policy directions
from Council.
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:
As part of the 2012 City Council retreat, Council members identified their top ten goals for the
upcoming year. One of these goals was to make the City more business friendly. As part of this
goal, the Community Development Department examined the land use code to determine if there
were any changes that could be made to erase hindrances to businesses within the code language.
Staff identified some obvious changes that could be made, and the attached Policy Resolution
shows those changes.
P167
VIII.b
02.11.13 – Business Obstacle Code Amendments Policy Direction
Page 2 of 3
Staff Comments:
1. Definitions: Staff suggests minor tweaks to the definitions section of Chapter 26.104 to
eliminate language that would hinder an already approved business use from opening and
operating their business correctly.
A. Brewery – Eliminate the language referring to “liquor License” to ensure our regulations
are in line with state law. This definition would also be expanded to allow for a
distillery.
B. Coffee Roasting Facility – Any roasting facility that is has direct to consumer sales needs
to have a way for potential customers to be able to taste and purchase their products.
This language would be “tweaked” to allow for this.
C. Design Studio – Eliminate possible confusion if a design studio that works primarily in
electronic media wanted to open.
2. Use Square Footage Limitations: Staff suggests deleting entirely Section 26.575.070. Staff
believes that this language is obsolete, and no longer fits the current business environment in
Aspen. This language has been in the code since at least the 1980’s. It was originally
intended to exclude “big box” stores from opening, and preserve local businesses. The real
estate market, however, has effectively taken care of that problem on its own, and in fact
there are currently several businesses that are locally owned and don’t fit this section of the
code.
3. Home Occupations: Staff suggests modifying several elements of Section 26.575.090. The
sections being eliminated either contain hard to understand and enforce language, contain
obsolete references, are dealt with in other portions of the code, or contain technical
references that may be no longer be valid.
4. Non-street delivery access: The current code has long had a provision that all restaurants
should have direct alley access. Unfortunately, this creates two challenges – 1) Restaurants
are treated differently than any other business, many of whom may also have several
deliveries a week, 2) New commercial developments may or may not provide adequate alley
access for deliveries. Therefore we are looking at modifying the code to make all new
development provide for alley access for all of their tenants.
Related Efforts: Community Development staff, in cooperation with other City departments, has
been looking at a number of non-regulatory programs to assist new small businesses. These
efforts include:
1. Creating a welcome package for new businesses.
2. Creating combined and/or discounted fees for new businesses.
3. Creating a new portion of our website specifically crafted to the needs of new small
businesses.
4. Creating a business mentoring program.
5. Contemplating potential staffing changes needed to properly service these new City
services.
P168
VIII.b
02.11.13 – Business Obstacle Code Amendments Policy Direction
Page 3 of 3
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. 17, Series of 2013, approving a Policy Resolution outlining
direction for business friendly code amendments to the Land Use Code.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P169
VIII.b
Resolution No __, Series 2013
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION N0. 17
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
CODE AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS 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
making the Land Use Code more business friendly; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A)(4), the Communit y
Development Director initiated various business friendly amendments to sections of the
Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, discussions with the Community Development Staff on various
business friendly amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to
various 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:
P171
VIII.b
Resolution No __, Series 2013
Page 2 of 2
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
• The objective of the proposed code amendments is to erase hindrances to
businesses found within the Land Use Code, as part of a general effort to make
the City more business friendly.
Section 2: General Policy Directions
City Council provides the following direction regarding amendments to the Land Use
Code:
A. Simplifying the definitions of Brewery, Coffee Roasting Facility, and Design Studio.
B. Eliminating the Use Square Footage section of the Land Use Code.
C. Simplifying and updating the Code section dealing with Home Occupation.
D. Modifying the section of the code dealing with restaurant alley access.
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 __________ 2013.
_______________________________
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P172
VIII.b
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Date March 11, 2013
Call to order at: m.
I. Councilmembers present: Councilmembers not present:
ick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland
Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
b�VAdarn Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch
E�orre ❑ Torre
erek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson
Motion to go into executive session by l ; seconded by
Other persons present:
FOR: AGAINST:
ick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland
Steve Skadron rr ❑ Steve Skadron ll
Adam Frisch t aJ Adam Frisch V
ff�erek orre z G) ® `� _� --�G z-(�
❑ Torre
Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson
III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF:
C.R.s. 24-6-402(4)
The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest
b)Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal
questions. W V
(c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations.
(d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic
and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the
purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law;
(9 Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations;
and instructing negotiators;
(f) (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if
the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting.
IV. ATTESTATION:
The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the
subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-clie ommunication:
The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions in this e c 've session were limited
to the topic(s)described in Section III, above.
31p,
Adjourned at: r