HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20130624
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
June 24, 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) Resolution #64, Series of 2013 - Approving Contract for 2013 Street Improvement
Project
b) Resolution #65, 2013 - Contract for Truscott Housing Re-Grading and Drainage
Design
c) Resolution #69, 2013 - Approving a Proposed Water Court Decree
d) Minutes - June 10, 2013
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #26, 2013 - 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) Subdivision
b) Ordinance 25, 2013 - 507 Gillespie TDRs
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #23, 2013 - S. Aspen Street Townhomes, PUD Amendment -
Continue to July 8
b) Resolution #66, 2013 - Policy PUD and SPA Code Amendment
c) Resolution #67, 2013 - Subdivision Code Amendment Policy
d) Resolution #68, 2013 - Temporary Use - Aspen Historical Society
IX. Action Items
X. Executive Session Consultation with Attorneys re: Litigation and negotiations.
C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e)
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting July 08, 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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager
DATE: June 24, 2013
RE: 2013 Asphalt Improvement Project 2013 - 059
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of a contract with Grand River Construction in the
amount of $633,975 to accomplish the 2013 Street Improvement Project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Asset Management Plan includes this project for 2013
construction. City Council approved the 2013 Asset Management Plan and appropriated
$634,810 for this project as part of the 2013 budget.
BACKGROUND: This contract is a result of competitive bid process. One other bid for the
work was received. Grand River Construction submitted the low bid for the asphalt overlay
project.
DISCUSSION: This contract is to do the 2013 Street Improvement Project as budgeted for this
year. The last extensive street overlay project was done in 2010. The 2013 scope includes work
that was postponed in 2011 and 2012 in order for development projects with significant utility
pavement cuts as well as for City curb and gutter replacement projects to be completed before the
overlays were done. The work to be completed this year involves asphalt overlays on sections of
the following streets that have been evaluated by a grading system and determined to be below
standard for the traffic volumes that they carry:
• Bleeker Street from Mill to Garmisch
• W. Hopkins Avenue from 1st to 3rd
• W. Hallam Street from Garmisch to 1st
• Park Circle from South Ave. to Silver Lode
• Park Avenue from Highway 82 to Park Circle
• Durant Avenue from Aspen to Galena
• Durant Avenue from Spring to West End
• S. Spring Street from Main to Durant
• Silverlode Drive from Park Circle to Williams Ranch Drive
• W. Cooper Avenue from Garmisch to 1st
P1
VI.a
• Ute Avenue from Aspen Mountain Road to the Cul-de-sac
• Marolt Road from Castle Creek Road to Marolt parking lot
Work to be performed under the contract primarily consists of 1.5 inch pavement overlays. This
will give the streets a greater structural stability for longevity and provide a longer wear factor.
Full width and edge roto-milling will take 1 inch off the top layer of the existing street surface.
A new 1.5 inch asphalt mat will be added back to complete the work. The funds remaining in the
budget along with some Street Department operating funds will be used to do asphalt patch work
prior to the paving project to keep cracks from reflecting up through the new asphalt mat. Some
Street Department operating funds will also be used to do crack sealing on other streets in the
city to prevent moisture from penetrating into the sub base and causing pothole conditions.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2013 Asset Management Plan approved $634,810 for
this work. The proposed scope of work to be awarded under the contract is below the budgeted
amount. The funds remaining in the budget will be used to do pre-paving patching and crack
sealing work.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approval of this contract with Grand River
Construction to accomplish the 2013 Street Improvement Project to keep the structural integrity
of the City Streets intact.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #64 of 2013 on the consent calendar of
June 24, 2013.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
P2
VI.a
RESOLUTION #64
(Series of 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND GRAND RIVER CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
2013 Street Improvement Project, between the City of Aspen and Grand River
Construction, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for 2013 Street Improvement Project, between the City of Aspen and Grand River
Construction, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does
hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City
of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 24th day of June, 2013.
___________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, June 24, 2013.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P3
VI.a
P5
VI.a
P6
VI.a
P7
VI.a
P8
VI.a
P9
VI.a
P10
VI.a
P11
VI.a
P12
VI.a
P13
VI.a
P14
VI.a
P15
VI.a
P16
VI.a
P17
VI.a
P18
VI.a
P19
VI.a
P21
VI.b
P22
VI.b
P23
VI.b
P25
VI.b
P26
VI.b
P27
VI.b
P28
VI.b
P29
VI.b
P30
VI.b
P31
VI.b
P32
VI.b
P33
VI.b
P34
VI.b
P35
VI.b
P36
VI.b
P37
VI.b
P38
VI.b
P39
VI.b
P40
VI.b
P41
VI.b
P42
VI.b
P43
VI.b
P44
VI.b
P45
VI.b
P46
VI.b
P47
VI.b
P48
VI.b
P49
VI.b
P50
VI.b
P51
VI.b
P52
VI.b
P53
VI.b
P54
VI.b
P55
VI.b
P56
VI.b
P57
VI.b
P58
VI.b
P59
VI.b
P60
VI.b
P61
VI.b
P62
VI.b
P63
VI.b
P64
VI.b
P65
VI.b
P66
VI.b
P67
VI.b
P68
VI.b
P69
VI.b
P70
VI.b
P71
VI.b
P72
VI.b
P73
VI.b
P74
VI.b
P75
VI.b
P76
VI.b
P77
VI.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
THRU: James R. True
DATE OF MEMO: 6/17/2013
MEETING DATE: 6/24/2013
RE: Resolution #69, 2013 approving a proposed water court decree
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: To approve the attached resolution authorizing the City’s water
counsel to execute a stipulation in water court case 2011CW198.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
BACKGROUND: The background of the particular water case is included in the attached draft
resolution and draft decree.
DISCUSSION: See attachments.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Click here to enter text.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution.
ALTERNATIVES: Request further information from Cindy Covell if needed.
P79
VI.c
Page 2 of 2
PROPOSED MOTION: Motion to approve Resolution No. 69, Series of 2013.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution #69, 2013
B. Draft Water Decree
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
P80
VI.c
1
RESOLUTION #69
(Series of 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
APPROVING A PROPOSED WATER COURT DECREE IN
WATER CASE NO. 2011CW198
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen filed a Statement of Opposition to Water Case No.
2011CW198, Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc. (“MAA”), presently pending in the
Water Court, Water Division No. 5; and
WHEREAS, MAA’s application seeks a water court decree for certain water rights in
connection with redevelopment of the campus of the Aspen Music Festival and School; in
particular, MAA seeks to modify existing but previously undecreed ponds, to confirm water
rights from Castle Creek to fill the ponds, and to obtain a plan for augmentation so that the ponds
may be kept full during periods of call, and used for recreation, irrigation, fire protection and
aesthetic purposes at the campus; and
WHEREAS, MAA receives treated water service pursuant to an extraterritorial water
service agreement with Aspen, which limits outdoor treated water irrigation at the campus; and
WHEREAS, MAA’s water service agreement with Aspen anticipates that MAA will
obtain a water court decree for the ponds for additional irrigation, fire protection and aesthetic
purposes, and for an augmentation plan; and
WHEREAS, Aspen’s water counsel, water resource consultants, and water department
staff have reviewed a proposed decree prepared in this case and have determined that the
proposed decree will adequately protect the Aspen’s water rights and related interests; and
WHEREAS, water counsel has recommended the City authorize counsel to enter into a
stipulation approving the proposed decree (draft dated April 1, 2013) in the form provided to
Council or in a form that is no less restrictive upon MAA, and no less protective of Aspen than
the proposed decree dated April 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the stipulation, Aspen will remain a party in the case and
will be notified of any changes to the decree in this case, and the Aspen may continue to
participate in the case to ensure that any ruling or decree which is ultimately entered in the case
contains terms and conditions which are no less restrictive upon MAA and no less protective of
Aspen than the terms and conditions of the April 1, 2013 draft decree.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
The City’s water counsel is hereby authorized to execute a stipulation with the Music
Associates of Aspen, Inc. in Case No. 2011CW198, approving the form of water court decree
P81
VI.c
2
dated April 1, 2013, or any subsequent form of decree that is no less restrictive upon MAA and
no less protective of Aspen than the form of decree dated April 1, 2013.
Dated:_______________________
______________________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is
a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held June 24, 2013.
_________________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P82
VI.c
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 5,
STATE OF COLORADO
109 Eighth Street, Suite 104
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER
RIGHTS OF:
MUSIC ASSOCIATES OF ASPEN, INC.
a Colorado non-profit corporation,
in Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties, Colorado.
Case No. 11CW198
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
RULING OF THE REFEREE, JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above-entitled Application was filed on December 30, 2011. This matter was
referred to the undersigned as Water Referee for Water Division No. 5, State of Colorado, by the
Water Judge of said Court in accordance with Article 92 of Chapter 37, C.R.S., known as the
Water Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969. The Referee, having made such
investigations as are necessary to determine whether the statements in the Application are true,
and having become fully advised with respect to the subject matter of the Application, does
hereby make the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Ruling as the Referee in
this matter:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The name, address and telephone number of the Applicant are as follows:
Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
2 Music School Road
Aspen, CO 81611
c/o Mark E. Hamilton, Esq.
Holland & Hart LLP
600 E. Main St., Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 925-3476
mehamilton@hollandhart.com
2. Timely and adequate notice of the filing of the Application were given as required by law.
C. R.S. § 37-92-302 (2011). This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these
proceedings and over all persons affected thereby, whether they have appeared or not.
P83
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 2
C.R.S. §§ 37-92-203 and -302. None of the water rights or structures involved herein is
located within a designated groundwater basin.
3. A properly verified Application was filed in this matter by the Applicant on December 30,
2011. Timely Statements of Opposition were filed in this matter by the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, Elk Mountain Lodge LLC, American Lake LLC, Ashcroft LLC,
Crystal LLC, and the City of Aspen. The time for filing additional statements of opposition
has expired. By order dated March 8, 2011, this matter was referred to the Water Referee.
4. Overview of Application: Applicant operates the Aspen Music Festival and School
(AMFS) campus along Castle Creek. Applicant is in the process of redeveloping its
campus. As a part of this redevelopment, Applicant is modifying four historical ponds on
the property that have existed for decades without adjudicated water rights priorities. In
particular, one pond will be eliminated and combined with another. Of the remaining
three ponds, one pond will be lined and operated for uses including fire protection and
augmentation, while the other two will remain under the influence of groundwater for the
near term. The purpose of this application is to confirm surface water rights to fill these
structures, storage water rights for lined ponds, underground water rights for ponds under
the influence of groundwater, and a plan for augmentation so that ponds may be kept full
during call periods so long as water is provided in time and amount to alleviate any
potential injury to other vested water rights. The subject water rights will also be utilized
for recreation, irrigation, fire protection and aesthetic enhancement purposes on the
AMFS campus.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
SURFACE WATER RIGHTS
5. Applicant requests confirmation of the following surface water rights:
A. Name of structure: MAA Spring
(1) Location: the spring consists of a seep/spring area located in the SE 1/4
SE 1/4 of Sec. 14, T. 10 S., R. 85 W., 6th P.M., at a point 820 ft from the
South sec. line and 100 ft. from the East sec. line of said Sec. 14, Pitkin
County, Colorado. See Figure 3.
(2) Source: seepage from hillside tributary to Castle Creek, tributary to the
Roaring Fork River, tributary to the Colorado River.
P84
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 3
(3) Uses: irrigation*, fire protection
*The area that may be irrigated by all of the water rights confirmed herein
is described as up to 1.13 acres in the NW¼ SW¼ SW¼ of Sec. 13, and
the NE¼ SE¼ SE¼ of Sect. 14, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. See Figure 4.
(4) Amount: 0.25 c.f.s., absolute, for pond filling for
recreation, aesthetic and fire protection purposes.
0.25 c.f.s., conditional, for pond filling for irrigation and
augmentation. purposes
(5) Appropriation information:
(a) Appropriation dates: October 24, 1945 (absolute uses), April 24,
2007 (conditional uses).
(b) Appropriations initiated by: usage of water since prior to
acquisition of Bonanza Placer Mining Claim October 1945 by
Walter Paepcke; initiation of land use application to Pitkin County
in April 2007 for redevelopment of MAA campus, including
existing ponds thereon.
(c) Date of application of water to beneficial use: October 24, 1945
(absolute uses); N/A (conditional uses).
(6) Remarks: Any out-of-priority depletions resulting from the use of the
MAA Spring will be augmented under the plan for augmentation and
exchange described in the Fourth and Fifth Claims, below. This structure
is a near-surface structure pursuant to C.R.S. 37-92-103(14)(b). This
structure will also be used to fill the Great Pond and Shallow Pond for
irrigation and fire protection purposes, as well as for the other decreed
uses for these two ponds (augmentation, recreation and aesthetic
purposes).
(7) Name and address of owner of land upon which structure is located:
Applicant.
B. Name of structure: MAA Pump & Pipeline.
(1) Location: the point of diversion is located in the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Sec. 14,
T. 10 S., R. 85 W., 6th P.M., at a point 1210 ft from the South sec. line
P85
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 4
and 50 ft. from the East sec. line of said Sec. 14, Pitkin County, Colorado.
See Figure 3.
(2) Source: Castle Creek, tributary to the Roaring Fork River, tributary to the
Colorado River.
(3) Uses: irrigation*, fire protection
*The area that may be irrigated by all of the water rights confirmed herein
is described as up to 1.13 acres in the NW¼ SW¼ SW¼ of Sec. 13, and
the NE¼ SE¼ SE¼ of Sect. 14, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. See attached
Figure 4.
(4) Amount claimed: 0.50 c.f.s., conditional.
(5) Appropriation information:
(a) Appropriation date: April 24, 2007.
(b) Appropriation initiated by: initiation of land use application to
Pitkin County in April 2007 for redevelopment of MAA campus,
including existing ponds thereon.
(c) Date of application of water to beneficial use: N/A.
(6) Remarks: any out-of-priority depletions resulting from the use of the
MAA Pump & Pipeline will be augmented under the plan for
augmentation and exchange described in the Fourth and Fifth Claims,
below. This structure will also be used to fill the Great Pond and Shallow
Pond for irrigation and fire protection purposes, as well as for the other
decreed uses for these two ponds (augmentation, recreation and aesthetic
purposes).
(7) Name and address of owner of land upon which structure is located:
Applicant.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
GROUNDWATER RIGHTS (POND WELL)
6. Applicant requests confirmation of underground water rights for the following structures:
A. Name of structure: MAA Enchanted Pond Well.
P86
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 5
(1) Location: the centerline of the dam at the outlet pipe is located in the SW
1/4 SW 1/4 of Sec. 13, T. 10 S., R. 85 W., 6th P.M., at a point 960 ft from
the South sec. line and 70 ft. from the West sec. line of said Sec. 13, Pitkin
County, Colorado. See Figure 3.
(2) Source: groundwater tributary to Castle Creek, tributary to the Roaring
Fork River, tributary to the Colorado River.
(3) Uses: irrigation*, fire protection, recreation and aesthetic purposes.
*The area that may be irrigated by all of the water rights confirmed herein
is described as up to 1.13 acres in the NW¼ SW¼ SW¼ of Sec. 13, and
the NE¼ SE¼ SE¼ of Sect. 14, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. See Figure 4.
(4) Amount claimed: 0.002 c.f.s. (1.0 g.p.m.), 0.50 acre-feet annual diversion,
absolute for recreation and aesthetic; conditional for other uses
(5) Surface area: 0.18 acres.
(6) Depth: 4.0 feet.
(7) Appropriation information:
(a) Appropriation date: October 24, 1945 (recreation and
aesthetic); December 30, 2011 (irrigation and fire protection).
(b) Appropriation initiated by: construction of pond well; usage of
water since prior to acquisition of Bonanza Placer Mining Claim
October 1945 by Walter Paepcke (absolute uses); filing of water
rights application in this matter (conditional uses).
(c) Date of application of water to beneficial use: October 24, 1945
(for recreation and aesthetic purposes).
(8) Remarks: any out-of-priority depletions resulting from the use of the
MAA Enchanted Pond Well will be augmented under the plan for
augmentation and exchange described in the Fourth and Fifth Claims,
below.
(9) Name and address of owner of land upon which structure is located:
Applicant.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
P87
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 6
WATER STORAGE RIGHTS (PONDS)
7. Name of structure: MAA Shallow Pond.
a. Location: the centerline of the dam at the outlet is in the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Sec.
14, T. 10 S., R. 85 W., 6th P.M., at a point 1180 ft. from the South sec. line and
20 ft. from the East sec. line of said Sec. 14, Pitkin County, Colorado. See Figure
3.
b. Source: MAA Spring (0.25 c.f.s.) and MAA Pump & Pipeline (0.50 c.f.s), both of
which divert surface water directly from or tributary to Castle Creek, tributary to
the Roaring Fork River, tributary to the Colorado River (see First Claim, above).
c. Uses: irrigation*, fire protection, geothermal heat exchange, recreation, aesthetic
and augmentation.
*The area that may be irrigated by all of the water rights confirmed herein is
described as up to 1.13 acres in the NW¼ SW¼ SW¼ of Sec. 13, and the NE¼
SE¼ SE¼ of Sect. 14, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. See Figure 4.
d. Amount claimed: 1.75 acre-feet (all active storage) with the right to fill and
refill in priority provided that cumulative refills of this pond and the MAA Great
Pond shall not exceed 6.05 acre-feet per year; 1.75 acre-feet absolute for
recreation and aesthetic purposes;1.75 acre-feet conditional for other uses.
e. Surface area: 0.32 acres.
f. Dam information:
(1) Length: 150 feet.
(2) Height: less than 10 feet.
g. Appropriation information:
(1) Appropriation dates: October 24, 1945 for absolute uses; April 24, 2007
for conditional uses.
(2) Appropriations initiated by: construction of pond; usage of water since
prior to acquisition of Bonanza Placer Mining Claim in October 1945 by
Walter Paepcke; initiation of land use application for MAA campus
redevelopment on April 24, 2007.
P88
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 7
(3) Date of application of water to beneficial use: October 24, 1945 (absolute
uses); N/A (conditional uses)
h. Remarks: any out-of-priority depletions due to evaporation from the surface of
this structure during times of water rights calls from below the Roaring
Fork/Fryingpan confluence will be augmented under the plan for augmentation
and exchange described in the Fourth Claim, below. This structure will be lined
prior to operation of the plan for augmentation and exchange.
i. Name and address of owner of land upon which structure is located: Applicant.
8. Name of structure: MAA Great Pond.
a. Location: the centerline of the dam is in the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Sec. 13, T. 10 S.,
R. 85 W., 6th P.M., at a point 1120 ft. from the South sec. line and 130 ft. from
the West sec. line of said Sec. 13, Pitkin County, Colorado. See Figure 3.
b. Source: MAA Spring (0.25 c.f.s.) and MAA Pump & Pipeline (0.50 c.f.s), both of
which divert surface water directly from or tributary to Castle Creek, tributary to
the Roaring Fork River, tributary to the Colorado River (see First Claim, above).
c. Uses: irrigation*, fire protection, geothermal heat exchange, recreation and
aesthetic.
*The area that may be irrigated by all of the water rights confirmed herein is
described as up to 1.13 acres in the NW¼ SW¼ SW¼ of Sec. 13, and the NE¼
SE¼ SE¼ of Sect. 14, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M. See Figure 4.
d. Amount claimed: 2.7 acre-feet absolute, 1.6 acre-feet conditional, with the
right to fill and refill in priority, provided that cumulative refills of this pond and
the MAA Shallow Pond shall not exceed 6.05 acre-feet per year.
e. Surface area: 0.80 acres.
f. Dam information:
(1) Length: 350 feet.
(2) Height: less than 10 feet.
g. Appropriation information:
(1) Appropriation date: April 24, 2007.
P89
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 8
(2) Appropriation initiated by: initiation of land use application for MAA
campus redevelopment on April 24, 2007.
(3) Date of application of water to beneficial use: N/A.
h. Remarks: Any out-of-priority depletions due to evaporation from the surface of
this structure will be augmented under the plan for augmentation and exchange
described in the Fourth Claim, below. The Great Pond does not presently intercept
groundwater; if such changes in the future this structure will be lined.
i. Name and address of owner of land upon which structure is located: Applicant.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION
9. Water rights to be augmented (all described above):
MAA Spring
MAA Pump & Pipeline
MAA Enchanted Pond Well
MAA Shallow Pond
MAA Great Pond
10. Water rights to be used for augmentation:
Shallow Pond (described above in Third Claim)
Basalt Water Conservancy District (“BWCD”) water rights, to be supplied pursuant to a
water allotment contract between BWCD and Applicant, including the following:
a. Green Mountain Reservoir:
i. Source: Blue River, tributary of Colorado River.
ii. Legal description: located approximately 16 miles Southeast of the Town
of Kremmling in Summit County, Colorado, and more particularly in all
or parts of Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 24 of Township 2 South, Range
80 West, and in Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 34, Township 2
South, Range 79 West of the 6th P.M.
iii. Adjudication Date: October 12, 1955.
P90
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 9
iv. Appropriation Date: August 1, 1935.
v. Case Nos.: 2782, 5016, and 5017, Court: United States District Court,
District of Colorado and Case No. 88CW022, District Court, Water
Division No. 5.
vi. Decreed Amount: 154,645 acre feet and a refill right in the amount of
3,856 acre feet absolute and 150,789 acre feet, conditional.
vii. Decreed Uses: in accordance with paragraph 5(a), (b), and (c) of the
section entitled "Manner of Operation of Project Facilities and Auxiliary
Facilities" in Senate Document 80.
b. Ruedi Reservoir:
i. Source: Frying Pan River, tributary of Colorado River.
ii. Legal description: an on-channel reservoir located in Sections 7, 8, 9, 11,
and 14 through 18, Township 8 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. The
reservoir is located in portions of Eagle and Pitkin Counties.
iii. Adjudication Date: June 20, 1958.
iv. Appropriation Date: July 29, 1957.
v. Case No.: C.A. 4613, Garfield County District Court.
vi. Decreed Amount: 102,369 acre feet (Originally decreed for 140,697.3 acre
feet; reduced to 102,369 acre feet in Case No. W-789-76).
vii. Decreed Uses: generation of electric energy, domestic, municipal,
industrial, irrigation, piscatorial, and stock watering.
viii. Refill: By decree of the Water Court in Case No. 81CW34, Ruedi
Reservoir was decreed a refill right in the amount of 101,280 acre feet,
conditional. In Water Court Case No. 95CW95, 44,509 acre feet of the
refill right was made absolute. In Water Court Case No. 01CW269, an
additional 25,257 acre feet of the refill right was made absolute, for a total
of 69,766 acre feet absolute in the refill right.
c. Troy Ditch and Edith Ditch:
STRUC
TURE
PRIORIT
Y
COURT
CASE
ADJ
DATE
APP
DATE
DECREED
AMT
USE
AMOUNT SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR
RESERVED
AMOUNT
REMAINING (10)
P91
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 10
NO. (CFS) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) CFS AF
Troy
Ditch (1)
370 3082 8/25/19
36
5/01/1906 5.10 I 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.064 0.035 4.906 N/A
Troy
Ditch
1st
Enlg
427 3082 8/25/19
36
5/01/1928 10.80 I 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.134 0.073 10.393 N/A
Troy
Ditch
2nd
Enlg
669 4613 6/20/19
58
6/01/1942 6.20 I 0.000 0.000 0.115 0.077 0.042 5.966 N/A
Edith
Ditch
353 3082 8/25/19
36
5/01/1904 2.72 I 0.110 0.1320 0.050 0.000 0.018 2.410 N/A
Edith
Ditch
1st
Enlg
673 4613 6/20/19
58
7/01/1946 3.23 I 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.022 3.148 N/A
Troy
Ditch
Water
System
aka
Lower
Headga
te
(2) W-
2281
15.50(3) I,D,M
C,P
0.110 0.1320 0.520 0.275 0.190 14.273 412.89
(1) Originally diverted from Miller Creek. All others originally diverted from Frying Pan River.
(2) Alternate point for all priorities of Troy and Edith Ditches.
(3) Combined amount limited to 15.5 cfs and 453 AF of consumptive use, 300 AF of which can be stored.
(4) I = Irrigation, D = Domestic, M = Municipal, C = Industrial and P = Piscatorial.
(5) Transferred to Edith Ditch Well in Case No. 80CW1 with 1.0 AF.
(6) Transferred to three springs on Cap K Ranch in Case No. 82CW189 (1.29 AF assumed to be included).
(7) Deeded to George Yates with 15.4 AF in 1983. 0.2 cfs and 10.60 cfs was included in Case No. 82CW357 for Ruedi South Shores
augmentation plan.
(8) Deeded to Joan Wheeler in 1987 for diversion at the Troy Ditch 1st and 2nd Enlargement (16.9 AF assumed to be included).
(9) Reserved for augmentation of Cap K Ponds with 5.52 AF. Case No. 91CW220.
(10) A total of 40.11 AF of the original 453.00 AF has been sold or transferred.
In Case No. W-2281, Division 5, the Court decreed that 453 acre feet of annual
consumptive-use credits were available to these ditches, and that 300 acre feet could be
P92
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 11
stored in an unnamed reservoir. The Basalt Water Conservancy District owns 412.89
acre feet of the 453 acre feet, and makes the water rights available to contract allottees for
use pursuant to an approved substitute supply plan or decree of Court. The Troy and
Edith augmentation water can be delivered to the Frying Pan, Roaring Fork or Colorado
Rivers by by-passing water at the headgate on the Frying Pan River.
d. Robinson Ditch:
STRUCTURE DECREED
AMOUNT/
Cfs
AMT.
OWNED
BY
BWCD
(cfs)(1)
ADJ. DATE APP. DATE PRIORIT
Y
CASE
NO.
(2)
ROBINSON
DITCH
5.00 1.21 05/11/1889 06/15/1882 38 132
ROBINSON
DITCH
2.50 0.60 05/11/1889 04/15/1886 140 132
ROBINSON
DITCH
2.00 0.48 05/11/1889 11/15/1886 167 132
ROBINSON
DITCH
10.70 2.59 12/29/1903 04/25/1899 212C 1061
ROBINSON
DITCH
20.06 4.85 08/25/1936 04/25/1900 326 3082
(The BWCD owns 441 shares of Class 1 stock issued by the Robinson Ditch Company.
The said 441 shares equal 24.16% of the total shares and are associated with 9.73 cfs of
the 40.26 cfs decreed to the Robinson Ditch).
i. Legal Description of Point of Diversion: The point of diversion as
decreed is located on the North bank of the Roaring Fork River one-half
mile below the mouth of Sopris Creek in Section 11, T. 8 S., R. 87 West,
6th P.M.
ii. Historic Use: Irrigation of approximately 137.2 acres of hay and pasture
under BWCD’s interest in the Robinson Ditch water rights. In Case No.
93CW319, the Court decreed that 360 acre feet of annual consumptive-use
credits are associated with said irrigation. In that case, the Court also
decreed a change of use of BWCD’s Robinson Ditch rights to include
augmentation. BWCD makes the credits available to contract allottees for
use pursuant to an approved substitute supply plan or decree of Court.
11. Statement of plan for augmentation:
P93
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 12
The Applicant owns and operates the Aspen Music Festival and School (AMFS) upon the
campus depicted upon Figure 1. The Applicant is presently pursuing redevelopment of this
property as shown on Figure 4. Upon completion of this project, total pond (including pond well)
surface area upon the MAA campus will be 1.31 acres, with assumed annual evaporation of 3.61
acre-feet feet per year (38 inches). Total augmented landscape area (not including areas irrigated
by water supplied by City of Aspen) will be 1.13 acres (see Figure 4), with assumed depletions
of 2.0 acre-feet (1.77 acre-feet per acre per year). Therefore, total annual project depletions are
estimated to be 5.61 acre-feet per year. Detailed diversion and depletion information is set forth
on attached Tables 1-3.
a. Downstream irrigation calls.
Castle Creek, the Roaring Fork River and the Colorado River are all subject to periodic
water rights calls from downstream irrigation water rights after spring runoff each year.
Historically, the “Cameo call” from downstream on the Colorado River has been placed for one
week in April, one week in May, two weeks in June, all of July through October, and one week
in November. The proposed plan for augmentation herein will provide replacement water from
the BWCD sources listed above in Paragraph 9 to satisfy the Cameo call with regard to all out-
of-priority pond evaporation and new landscape irrigation of the MAA campus (shown on
attached Figure 4--Castle Creek Campus Master Plan). Applicant’s Fifth Claim, below, includes
appropriative rights of exchange for the reaches between the point of depletion on Castle Creek
and the downstream points of replacement on the Roaring Fork and/or Colorado Rivers, as
applicable. A proposed dry year operational analysis to address the Cameo call is attached as
Table 4. Total out-of-priority depletions are estimated at 4.09 acre-feet, with downstream
replacement of 4.5 acre-feet, including attribution of 10% estimated transit losses for BWCD
contract deliveries to the Roaring Fork and Colorado River systems.
b. Local calls.
This plan also addresses local call potential. In particular, the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB) holds instream flow water rights on Castle Creek (12 c.f.s.) and the
Roaring Fork River from Maroon Creek to the Fryingpan River (30 c.f.s from Oct. 1 through
Mar. 31; 55 c.f.s. from Apr. 1 through Sep. 30). There is potential for a CWCB call from these
rights to affect Castle Creek during August and September of very dry years. Therefore, the
proposed plan for augmentation also provides for local replacement water to be released from the
Shallow Pond as necessary to replace any out-of-priority depletions due to new landscape
irrigation of the MAA campus (shown on attached Figure 4).
Applicant shall replace all out-of-priority evaporative depletions by releasing water from
the Shallow Pond any time MAA Exchange Nos. 1 and 2 are operating and there is a local call
on Castle Creek (including a CWCB call). However, Applicant does not propose to replace
evaporative depletions to satisfy a CWCB call when the MAA Exchange Nos. 1 and 2 are not
being operated because these historical evaporative depletions have routinely occurred since
P94
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 13
prior to the CWCB’s appropriation of instream flow water rights and are therefore exempted
from the call pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-102(3)(b) whenever the Exchanges are not in operation
(a 1962 aerial photo showing ponds upon the MAA campus is attached as Figure 2). When
required to make local replacement releases from the Shallow Pond pursuant to this plan,
Applicant shall commence such releases within 24 hours of a local call being placed on Castle
Creek. Prior to irrigating out of storage, Applicant shall first ensure that it will have enough
stored water on hand to make required local augmentation releases to replace out-of-priority
evaporation from the surface of the Enchanted Pond Well.
A proposed dry-year operational analysis for a local call on Castle Creek is attached as
Table 5. Out-of-priority irrigation depletions are estimated at 1.68 acre-feet, all of which would
be replaced by releases from the Shallow Pond into Castle Creek. Any time Castle Creek or the
Roaring Fork River above its confluence with the Fryingpan River are under administration,
evaporation from the surface of the Shallow Pond shall not be replaced. In the unlikely event of a
local call outside of the Aug. 1 through Sept. 30 time period, if there is not sufficient replacement
water in storage in the Shallow Pond, Applicant will discontinue irrigation with the water rights
confirmed herein and cease replacement of evaporation from the Great Pond and the Shallow
Pond.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
APPROPRIATIVE RIGHTS OF EXCHANGE
12. Applicant requests confirmation of the following conditional appropriative rights of
exchange:
A. Name of exchange: MAA Exchange No. 1 (Castle Creek/Roaring Fork).
(1) Upstream Terminus: location of MAA Pump & Pipeline; see Section 5.B
above and attached Figure 3.
(2) Downstream Terminus: the confluence of the Roaring Fork and
Fryingpan Rivers, located in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 7, T. 8 S., R. 86 W. of the
6th P.M., Eagle County, at a point approximately 750 ft. from the S. sec.
line and 1440 ft. from the E. sec. line; see Figure 5.
(3) Appropriation date: April 24, 2007
(4) How appropriation was initiated: initiation of land use application for
redevelopment of MAA campus.
(5) Maximum instantaneous rate of exchange: 0.50 c.f.s., conditional (with
maximum monthly average exchange of 0.02 c.f.s. and maximum monthly
volume of exchange of 1.28 acre-feet per month).
(6) Uses: augmentation by exchange of irrigation, fire protection, recreation,
P95
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 14
and replacement of evaporative losses.
(7) Remarks: releases from the BWCD’s Roaring Fork River replacement
sources pursuant to the augmentation plan described above in Applicant’s
Fourth Claim will enter the Roaring Fork River at the confluence of the
Fryingpan and Roaring Fork Rivers. The subject exchange will therefore
operate between this confluence up the Roaring Fork River and Castle
Creek to the various locations of the structures described in Applicant’s
First, Second and Third Claims, above.
B. Name of exchange: MAA Exchange No. 2 (Castle Creek/Roaring
Fork/Colorado).
(1) Upstream Terminus: location of MAA Pump & Pipeline; see Section 5.B
above and attached Figure 3.
(2) Downstream Terminus: the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Colorado
Rivers, located in the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 of Section 9, T. 6 S., R. 89 W. of the
6th P.M., Garfield County, at a point approximately 2200 ft. from the N.
sec. line and 2350 ft. from the W. sec line; see Figure 5.
(3) Appropriation date: April 24, 2007
(4) How appropriation was initiated: initiation of land use application for
redevelopment of MAA campus.
(5) Maximum instantaneous rate of exchange: 0.50 c.f.s., conditional (with
maximum monthly average of 0.02 c.f.s. and maximum monthly volume
of exchange of 1.28 acre-feet).
(6) Uses: augmentation by exchange of irrigation, fire protection, recreation,
and evaporative losses.
(7) Remarks: releases from the BWCD’s Colorado River replacement sources
pursuant to the augmentation plan described above in Applicant’s Fourth
Claim will be delivered to at the confluence of the Colorado and Roaring
Fork Rivers. The subject exchange will therefore operate between this
confluence up the Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek to the various
locations of the structures described in Applicant’s First, Second and
Third Claims, above.
Neither MAA Exchange No. 1 nor MAA Exchange No. 2 may operate at times any of the
following senior instream flow water rights have placed calls that are being administered
by the Division Engineer:
CWCB
Case No.
Stream/Lake Amount
(c.f.s.)
Approp.
Date
Watershed County
P96
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 15
5-76W2947 Castle Creek 12 1/14/1976 Roaring
Fork
Pitkin
5-76W2948 Roaring Fork River 32 1/14/1976 Roaring
Fork
Pitkin
5-85CW646 Roaring Fork River 55/30 11/8/1985 Roaring
Fork
Pitkin
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
13. The foregoing Findings of Fact are incorporated in these Conclusions of Law as though
fully set forth herein.
14. The Application filed herein was complete, covering all applicable matters required under
C.R.S. § 37-92-302.
15. All notices required by law were given, and no further notice need be given.
16. The Court has jurisdiction of this matter and of all persons, whether they have appeared or
not, pursuant to C.R.S. §s 37-92-301(2) and -303(1).
17. This Court has authority to confirm the water rights and plan for augmentation requested in
this application pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 37-92-301(2), -302 and -303(1).
18. The Court finds that Applicant has demonstrated an intent to appropriate water for all of
the above-described underground, surface and storage water rights, and for the above-
described conditional appropriative rights of exchange. Applicant has taken a substantial
first step towards such appropriations in the amounts and for the purposes specified
above. As to all conditional amounts and uses described above, the Court also finds that
waters can and will be appropriated, diverted, stored or exchanged in the times, amounts
and for the uses described above, and that such waters will be beneficially used and that
the project can and will be completed with diligence and within a reasonable time. C.R.S.
§ 37-92-305(9)(b).
19. A change of water rights or plan for augmentation shall be approved if it will not injuriously
affect the owner or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or decreed
conditional water right. C.R.S. § 37-92-305(3).
20. The Court finds that the plan for augmentation described above in Applicant’s Fourth
Claim, subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein, will not injuriously affect the
owners of or persons entitled to use water under a vested water right or decreed conditional
water right.
P97
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 16
21. Any decree approving a change of water right or plan for augmentation must be conditioned
upon the retained jurisdiction of the court for a period necessary or desirable to preclude or
remedy any injury to the vested rights of others. C.R.S. § 37-92-304(6).
22. The proposed plan for augmentation meets the statutory criteria for a plan for augmentation
set forth in C.R.S. §§ 37-92-103(9), -302(1), and -305(8), as one contemplated by law and, if
operated in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Ruling, the use of water
pursuant to said plan will not injuriously affect the owner of or persons entitled to use water
under a vested water right or decreed conditional water right.
RULING OF THE REFEREE
23. The foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are incorporated in this Ruling of
the Referee as though fully set forth herein.
24. Subject all terms and conditions set forth in this Ruling of the Referee, the Court hereby
confirms conditional and/or absolute water rights (as indicated above) for each of the
structures and exchange described above in Applicant’s First, Second, Third, and Fifth
Claims for Relief, as more fully described above in the Findings of Fact.
25. The plan for augmentation described above in Applicant’s Fourth Claim is hereby approved,
subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein. Applicant shall be allowed to utilize the
water rights described above out-of-priority so long as, pursuant to the above-described plan
for augmentation, replacement water is provided in time and amount to alleviate any injury
that may otherwise occur to other vested water rights. The Referee finds that the
substituted water provided for under this plan for augmentation is of a quality, quantity
and continuity so as to meet the requirements for which the water of senior appropriators
has normally been used.
26. The approval of such augmentation plan shall be subject to reconsideration by the Water
Judge on the question of injury to the vested rights of others for a period of five (5) calendar
years after the date of the decree and continuing until five years after the Applicant
provides written notice to the parties, the Division Engineer and the Court via electronic
filing in this proceeding that the augmentation plan has become fully operational and that
the proposed uses are all in place. Such notice must confirm that the Shallow Pond is in
place, that the terms and conditions necessary to operate the plan as required by the
decree have been met, and that the augmented uses and augmentation have been initiated.
As to the Shallow Pond, the notice shall include an as-built stage capacity table, an
estimate of the active capacity of the reservoir, a profile of the reservoir showing the
elevation of inlet and outlet structures, and confirmation that an operable and lockable
outlet structure has been installed. In determining the period of reconsideration, the Court
has taken into account the proposed uses of the subject water rights.
P98
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 17
27. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-92-305(8), in administering the augmentation plan approved herein,
the State Engineer shall curtail all out-of-priority diversions, the depletions from which are
not so replaced as to prevent injury to vested water rights.
28. The Applicant shall install appropriate measuring devices on all structures and provide
accounting, and supply calculations regarding the timing of depletions as may be required
by the Division Engineer.
29. Should the Applicant desire to maintain the conditional rights confirmed herein, an
Application for Reasonable Diligence shall be filed in the same month of the sixth calendar
year following entry of this decree, unless a determination has been made prior to that date
that such conditional rights have been made absolute by reason of completion of the
appropriations, or are otherwise disposed of. All of the water diversion and storage
structures described herein are integrated structures for the purposes of future reasonable
diligence findings.
30. Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions, upon
the sale or transfer of the conditional water rights decreed herein, the transferee shall file
with the Division 5 Water Court a notice of transfer which shall state:
A. The title and case number of this Case No. 11CW198;
B. The description(s) of the conditional water right(s) transferred;
C. The name of the transferor;
D. The name and mailing address of the transferee;
E. A copy of the recorded deed.
The owner of said conditional water rights shall also notify the Clerk of the Division 5
Water Court of any change in mailing address. The Clerk shall place any notice of
transfer or change of address in the case file of this Case No. 11CW198 and in the case
file (if any) in which the Court first made a finding of reasonable diligence.
31. The Applicant shall file for and obtain well permits for the pond wells described in
Applicant’s Second Claim, above, pursuant to the Colorado Groundwater Management
Act, C.R.S. §§ 37-90-101 to – 143, prior to operation of the same pursuant to the plan for
augmentation described herein.
It is ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed with the Water Clerk subject to judicial
review.
P99
VI.c
Water Division 5
Application of Music Associates of Aspen, Inc.
Ruling of the Referee, Judgment and Decree
Case No. 11CW198
Page 18
It is further ORDERED that a copy of this Ruling shall be filed with the appropriate
Division Engineer and the State Engineer.
DATED this ____ day of _________________________, 2013.
BY THE REFEREE
__________________________________
Water Referee, Water Division No. 5,
State of Colorado
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
No protest was filed in this matter, and accordingly, the foregoing Ruling is confirmed and
approved, and is made the Judgment and Decree of this Court. The month and year for filing an
Application for Finding of Reasonable Diligence as to each of the conditional water rights
confirmed above shall be __________________, 2019.
SO ORDERED this ____ day of _________________________, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
District Court Judge, Water Division No. 5,
State of Colorado
P100
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 2013
1
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARD ....................................................................... 2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2013 –Code Amendments: Common Areas; Small Expansions;
Outdoor Vending ............................................................................................................................ 3
ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Campaign Contributions ................. 4
SWEARING IN MAYOR AND COUNCIL .................................................................................. 5
CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................................................................................................. 5
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 5
RESOLUTION #60, SERIES OF 2013 – Contract Arapaho Roofing Marolt Roofs ..................... 5
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2013 – S. Aspen Street Townhomes, PUD Amendment ........... 5
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2013 - 604 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split and
Transferable Development Rights .................................................................................................. 6
PROCEDURE COUNCIL VACANCY ......................................................................................... 7
P101
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 2013
2
Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM with Councilmembers Johnson, Frisch,
Torre and Skadron present.
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARD
Mayor Ireland and Council presented an outstanding employee bonus award to Brad Fite,
facilities manager, of the Aspen Recreation Center for his creative and money saving solutions.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Phyllis Bronson thanked Mayor Ireland and said he is leaving Aspen in good hands. This
was a great journey followed by a good campaign.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Torre said Eco-Fest was held this weekend and the city could do a better job
marketing and partnering with the event. Councilman Torre said in approving special events,
these should not cut out businesses but be open to the sidewalks to include established
businesses.
2. Councilman Torre noted Bobby Mason’s Alive concert was held at the Wheeler attended
by many long time locals and the Wheeler staff did a great job.
3. Councilman Johnson said off season is over, food & wine is next weekend, and the city
should be ready to put on the show!
4. Councilman Frisch said he is a season pass holder in We-cycle; people can go to their
website and sign up. The organizers worked hard and to make sure there is not overlap with the
bike shops.
5. Councilman Skadron asked Council direct staff to consider a Charter amendment to
address the long-term vacancy on Council.
6. Councilman Skadron introduced his mother, brother and family from Minnesota to
witness his swearing in as Mayor.
7. Mayor Ireland suggested several Charter amendments for a Charter commission or
Council to look at; four year term for mayor, a vacancy should be filled only until the next
general or regular city election, whichever comes first, automatic cost-of-living pay raises for
Council and Mayor.
8. Millie Hamner, state representative, said when the legislation is not in session, elected
officials go around their district visiting local governments to see what they may want to see in
P102
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 2013
3
the state legislature and to hear what was done in the past. Representative Hamner handed out a
summary of the bills she has sponsored.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Johnson moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Torre.
The consent calendar is:
Resolution #61, 2013 - Gould Contract - AABC 200 Road Utility Completion Project
Resolution #63, 2013 - Colorado Water Trust Agreement
Resolution #62, 2013 - Galena Plaza
Minutes - May 28, 2013
Councilman Skadron asked if there is a relationship between the utility work at the AABC 200
road and that being done by RFTA for the underpass. David Hornbacher, utilities department,
said there is no relationship and they are not near each other. Councilman Skadron asked if the
requested $45,000 is enough for the outreach and planning expenses in the Galena Plaza
contract. John Laatsch, asset department, said it is.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2013 –Code Amendments: Common Areas; Small
Expansions; Outdoor Vending
Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council changes were made to
the ordinance at first reading restricting common areas to the sale of locally produced products
and allowing up to 500 square feet expansion of net leasable space with a limit of 250 square feet
of floor area.
Councilman Skadron asked if existing food businesses have had input and been informed.
Bendon said staff did not do a lot of outreach; they discussed this with commercial brokers.
There is not that much private property that can be used for outdoor food vending. The increase
is for areas outside the commercial core.
Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2013, as amended on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion
carried.
P103
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 2013
4
ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Campaign Contributions
Jim True, city attorney, pointed out state statutes allow that campaign committees need not report
donations under $20. This ordinance amends the city regulations to be stricter and that a
candidate’s committee would have to report any donation no matter the amount. Councilman
Torre noted the last time this was discussed, he requested an amendment to allow for up to $200
in non-identified donations of $20 or less. Councilman Torre said in his experience there are
people in the community who would like to get involved and contribute to a campaign without
being on a list in the newspaper. Councilman Frisch said he is not supportive of this amendment.
Mayor Ireland said the simpler solution is that one gives money, it is reported; however, he will
support the ordinance as amended in order to move forward. Councilman Skadron said this
motion is an appropriate public protection against abuse.
Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 2013, on second reading; seconded by
Councilman Skadron.
Councilman Torre moved to amend Ordinance #9, Series of 2013, to include that a candidate can
receive contributions under $20 up to a total amount of $250, above which all further
contributions shall disclose names and addresses of contributors for all amounts; seconded by
Councilman Johnson.
Councilman Torre stated it is valuable to allow people to participate in election. Mayor Ireland
said he will vote for this because representative democracy sometimes requires compromise.
Roll call vote; Frisch, no; Torre, yes; Skadron, no; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion
carried.
Roll call vote; Skadron, no; Johnson, yes; Frisch, no; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion
carried.
Gail Schwartz, state senator, presented a proclamation from the Colorado State Senate honoring
Mick Ireland for his years of service to the community.
Councilman Frisch read a proclamation honoring outgoing Councilmember Derek Johnson.
Councilman Skadron read a proclamation honoring outgoing Mayor, Mick Ireland. Mayor
Ireland read a proclamation honoring outgoing Councilmember Torre.
Mayor Ireland showed a slide show of his role in politics in Pitkin County and Aspen for the last
20 years, listing the accomplishments of the city and county with the theme “the people did it
themselves”.
Councilman Skadron presented a letter resigning as a member of the Aspen City Council
effective prior to his taking the oath of office as Mayor.
Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 6:20 PM; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call
vote; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes.
P104
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 2013
5
SWEARING IN MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Deputy Municipal Judge Ted Gardenswartz gave the oath of office to Margaret Ann Mullins and
Arthur Daily as Council for the City of Aspen and to Steven Skadron as Mayor of the City of
Aspen.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Dwight Shellman told Council he has been the city’s election consultant for the past two
months and assured Council the municipal elections were the most transparent and verifiable in
the state. The city clerk’s staff and election judges worked hard to insure that.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Frisch welcomed Councilmembers Mullins and Daily to City Council.
2. Councilwoman Mullins said it is a privilege and responsibility to be on Council and she
hopes to help the city keep the best of what it has. Councilwoman Mullins thanked everyone
who helped her get elected.
3. Councilman Daily said he is honored to be elected to City Council. Aspen has always
been a wonderful adventure. Councilman Daily said his philosophy is to keep on doing hard
work and have fun and do it together.
4. Mayor Skadron welcomed the new Council and noted the work is hard and results in a
town that has a quality of life that is the envy of other resort towns.
RESOLUTION #60, SERIES OF 2013 – Contract Arapaho Roofing Marolt Roofs
Councilman Frisch moved to approve Resolution #60, Series of 2013 – Contract Arapaho
Roofing Marolt Roofs; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2013 – S. Aspen Street Townhomes, PUD Amendment
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, said this is a proposal to amend the
approvals for the project, which is 3 parcels of land on the southwest edge of town. The project
was originally approved in 2003 with 31 multi-family dwelling units; 17 affordable housing and
14 free market units. In the past 10 years there have been different projects approved for the site,
including lodge development. This application is to amend the entitled project to 24 units on site
of 10 affordable and 14 free market units and the balance of the affordable units either credits or
physical units developed east of the roundabout.
P105
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 2013
6
Councilman Frisch asked staff to discuss going off the historic grid pattern and affordable
housing moving off site at the public hearing. Councilman Frisch said he would still like to see
lodging on this site. Mayor Skadron said the applicant has a right to a public hearing; however,
he will examine this critically before that public hearing and is not signing off on the project by
approving this on first reading. Chris Bendon, community development department, agreed first
reading is a procedural matter and sets the public hearing date so the public knows when that
date is.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #23, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman
Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 23
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT – OTHER AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE
REVIEWS FOR THE SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3 SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY
OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #23, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2013 - 604 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split and
Transferable Development Rights
Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council the ordinance would approve a
lot split and establish transferable development rights. This is a 9,000 square foot lot on Main
street. Landmarked properties may create smaller lots than other properties and this proposal
would subdivide the property into a 3,000 and a 6,000 square foot lot. This is a mixed use zone
district with a maximum development of 9,000 square feet of floor area. The applicant would
like to establish TDRs, sell them and remove them from the property. Selling TDRs off a
historic property takes the pressure off and moves it to a less sensitive location. The applicant
proposes to sell 7 TDRs off the 3,000 square foot lot and on the 6,000 square foot parcel there
will be a Victorian home and carriage house. HPC has recommended approval as the proposal
preserves the small scale on Main street.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #24, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman
Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #24
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PROPERTYLOCATED AT
P106
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 2013
7
604 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 24, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
PROCEDURE COUNCIL VACANCY
Mayor Skadron announced the packets for the vacant Council seat, including questions posed by
Council, will be available by noon Tuesday June 11th. The deadline for submittal for the vacant
Council seat will be June 17th at 4 pm. Mayor Skadron said he hopes there will be at least one
public forum so that this process will be as close to the election process as possible. Council
reviewed the proposed questions and made some changes. Council will schedule interviews with
the candidates July 1 and 2, hopefully making the appointment July 2nd. The deadline for filling
the vacancy is July 8th.
Mayor Skadron noted he supported Ordinance #9 as written and was against the amendment.
He would have voted for the Ordinance as originally drafted.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 7:35 PM; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathryn Koch
City Clerk
P107
VI.d
Page 1 of 4
534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) –Subdivision Review – Council Memo
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) –Subdivision Review
First Reading, Ordinance No._26__, Series of 2013
Second Reading is scheduled for July 22, 2013
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2013
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Boogie’s Building of Aspen, LLC
c/o Leonard Weinglass
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC
LOCATION:
534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies Buildings)
CURRENT ZONING:
CC (Commercial Core)
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests subdivision
review for the remodel and expansion of
the Boogies Building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the
request.
P&Z RECOMMENDATION:
P&Z unanimously recommended
approval of the request.
Photo: Boogies location and picture of Building
viewed from Cooper Ave.
P109
VII.a
Page 2 of 4
534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) –Subdivision Review – Council Memo
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting the following land use
approvals to remodel and expand the existing building:
• Subdivision approval (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) for the creation of multiple
residential units in a mixed-use building. (City Council is the final review authority after
considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission)
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to remodel and expand an existing two story building and add a recessed
third floor at 534 E Cooper Ave. The lot is 6,269 square feet and is located approximately at the
north-west corner of Cooper Ave and Hunter St. The original application for this redevelopment
was made in March of 2012, and is subject to the Land Use Code in place at that time, which
permitted new free-market residential units and an overall allowed height of 38 feet to 42 feet.
Existing Conditions and History:
The Boogies building is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district at 534 E Cooper Ave.
It was built in 1987 using reconstruction credits from the demolition of the “Shaft Restaurant.”
At the time, the building was reconstructed so it did not contain any additional commercial
square footage than had previously been on the site. A new two-bedroom affordable housing
unit was voluntarily added as part of the reconstruction. The unit was not required to satisfy any
mitigation requirements. The building included approximately 10,865 square feet of commercial
space in the basement, first and second floors, and one (1) voluntary affordable housing unit on
the second floor.
In 1995, the owner requested approval to expand the second floor restaurant by 249 square feet
through the conversion of one of the affordable housing unit’s bedrooms into commercial space.
This change in use request was granted, and a cash-in-lieu payment was made to mitigate the
expanded restaurant. The affordable housing unit was still considered a voluntary unit, and an
updated deed restriction for the reconfigured one-bedroom unit was recorded.
At some point following the 1995 approval, the restaurant began enclosing a portion of the
second floor outdoor deck with a tent. In 2003, the City informed the owner that the enclosure
required a temporary use approval, which was granted. The enclosure has essentially remained
up since the approval, even though the approval was only for one season. This application
proposes to bring the area into compliance by expanding the restaurant and removing the
“temporary” enclosed space.
Proposed Development:
The applicant proposes expanding the existing commercial space by 292 square feet of net
leasable area, adding a new free-market residential unit of 2,307 square feet of net livable area to
a new third floor, and expanding the affordable housing unit to 705 square feet of net livable area
in order to use it as the required affordable housing mitigation for the project expansion. The
unit was not originally provided as mitigation, so the applicant requests using as mitigation for
this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the commercial and
free-market residential growth management requests on April 16, 2013. They also accepted the
existing deed restricted unit as mitigation for the increased space.
P110
VII.a
Page 3 of 4
534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) –Subdivision Review – Council Memo
The applicant proposes using a TDR to expand the free-market unit beyond 2,000 sq ft. net
livable allowed by zoning. The expanded net leasable space generates 0.292 parking spaces,
which the applicant will mitigate for through a cash-in-lieu payment. This is allowed by right in
the land use code. No parking is required for the residential units.
The project received Conceptual HPC and Conceptual Commercial Design Approval from the
Historic Preservation Commission on July 11, 2012, which limited the building to thirty-eight
(38) feet in height, and approved on-site Public Amenity space of 8% and 2% off-site,
recommending a cash-in-lieu payment be used to satisfy that portion of the requirement. The
Conceptual Reviews were called up by City Council, which affirmed HPC’s decision.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
A subdivision review is required for this mixed-use building because multiple dwelling units are
proposed. The applicant proposes to develop a new free market residential unit, additional
commercial net leasable space and proposes to mitigate by expanding an existing deed restricted
unit and updating its deed restriction. The subdivision is similar to the other subdivisions seen
throughout the downtown area.
In reviewing the Subdivision portion of the application, staff believes the proposal meets all
applicable review requirements. The project is currently served by utilities, and the expansion
can be accommodated through an upgrade to the existing utility box. In addition, the applicant
will meet all applicable engineering requirements, including all drainage requirements. The
existing trash/recycling area can accommodate the expansion.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Building
Department, Parks Department, and APCHA have all reviewed the proposed application and
their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. A copy of
the Referral Agency comments is attached as Exhibit C.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted seven to zero (7-0) in favor of the request. A copy
of the minutes from their April 16th meeting is attached as Exhibit D.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the project, with the following conditions:
1. The project is subject to all conditions included in HPC Resolution 16, Series of 2012.
2. The Final HPC and Commercial Design Reviews shall address where any rooftop
mechanical equipment is located.
3. All areas labeled “roof” and “exterior roof garden” may not be used as deck space.
4. The provision of any required Public Amenity space through a cash-in-lieu payment, as
originally recommended by HPC, is approved.
5. Removal of the existing second floor deck enclosure shall be a condition of receiving a
building permit.
P111
VII.a
Page 4 of 4
534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) –Subdivision Review – Council Memo
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #26, Series 2013, approving a
Subdivision Review for the project located at 534 E Cooper Ave, on First Reading.”
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B – DRC Comments
Exhibit C – Public Comment
Exhibit D – April 16, 2013 P&Z minutes
Exhibit E – Revised FAR and Net Livable/Leasable drawings, dated April 8, 2013
Exhibit F – Application
P112
VII.a
Ordinance No __, Series 2013
Page 1 of 6
Ordinance No. 26,
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
SUBDIVISION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE (1) FREE-MARKET
RESIDENTIAL UNIT, ONE (1) AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, AND 292 SQ
FT OF NEW COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 534
E COOPER AVE (BOOGIES BUILDING) CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-182-24-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Boogie’s Building of Aspen, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC
requesting approval of Free-Market Residential, Affordable Housing, and Commercial
Growth Management Allotments, and Subdivision, to remodel and expand the existing
building to include one (1) free-market residential unit, one (1) affordable housing unit,
and 292 sq ft of new commercial space; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission Free-Market Residential, Affordable Housing, and Commercial Growth
Management Allotments; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to the City Council for Subdivision approval; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Commercial Core (CC); and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the
application; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 16, 2014, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 10, Series of 2013, by a seven to zero (7
– 0) vote, approving one (1) Free-Market Residential Growth Management Allotments, one
(1) Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotment, and 292 sq ft Commercial Growth
Management Allotments, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve aSubdivision;
and,
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2013 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. __,
Series 2013, on First Reading by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with conditions a
subdivision of the Property; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on July 22, 2013, the Aspen City Council
approved Ordinance No. __, Series 2013, by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with
conditions a subdivision of the Property; and,
P113
VII.a
Ordinance No __, Series 2013
Page 2 of 6
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,
WHEREAS, the 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, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council approves a Subdivision review allowing for the development of
one (1) free-market residential unit, one (1) affordable housing unit, and 292 sq ft of
commercial net leasable space at 534 E Cooper Ave, commonly known as the Boogies
Building.
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement and subdivision plat that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of Final
HPC and Final Commercial Design approval.
Once construction is nearly complete but prior to an issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy, the developer shall file a condominium plat and associated documents for
review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director as
outlined in Land Use Code Section 26.480.090, Condominiumization.
Section 3: Dimensions & Zoning Requirements
All dimensions shall meet the requirements of the Land Use Code in effect on March 30,
2012 (date of initial application). The free-market residential unit is approved at 2,307
square feet of net livable area, through the landing of a Historic Transferable
Development Right (TDR).
The approved floor plans are attached as Exhibit A. Minor changes from these are
permitted at building permit. Areas labeled as “roof” or “rooftop garden” are not
permitted for use as a deck. The chimney shown in the approved plans is not approved.
P114
VII.a
Ordinance No __, Series 2013
Page 3 of 6
The project is subject to all conditions included in HPC Resolution 16, Series of 2012.
The 2% required off-site Public Amenity space may be satisfied through actual
improvements approved by the Parks, Engineering, and Community Development
Departments, or through a cash-in-lieu payment of $9,403.50, as originally recommended
by HPC in Resolution 16, Series of 2012. The Final HPC and Commercial Design
Reviews shall address where any rooftop mechanical equipment is located.
Section 4: Temporary Enclosure Removal
Removal of the existing second floor deck enclosure shall be a condition of building
permit issuance. A building permit shall not be issued until the enclosure is removed, as
verified by the Zoning Officer.
Section 5: Parking
The applicant shall pay a cash-in-lieu fee for the 0.292 parking spaces generated by the
development.
Section 6: Engineering
The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department.
The Applicant shall be subject to the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. A
compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This
includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee-
in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas all new
areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Any detention requirements covered under
the FIL option must discharge directly to the City’s stormwater infrastructure.
As of March 13, 2013, the sidewalk was in acceptable condition and did not require
replacement. The curb and gutter was damaged and should be replaced. Should the
sidewalk, curb or gutter be damaged as a result of construction activities, it will be the
property owner’s responsibility to repair the damage as described in Title 21.
Due to the proximity of the neighboring property, the City will require an excavation
stabilization plan prior for any excavation. The plan should be submitted with the
building permit submittal.
The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic.
Section 7: Affordable Housing
The one (1) on-site, one-bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to
Category 3. The Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the unit shall be issued prior to or at
the same time as the proposed free-market unit. The affordable housing units shall be
compliant with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines.
P115
VII.a
Ordinance No __, Series 2013
Page 4 of 6
Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with C.R.S. 38-12-301(1)(a) and
(b), this Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and deed restriction to limit rent
on the property subject hereto and to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner
waives any right it may have to claim that this Deed Restriction violates C.R.S. 38-12-301.
More detailed information regarding the management and maintenance of the unit shall be
provided to APCHA with the proposed deed restriction prior to CO.
The owner shall have the right to rent the unit to tenants qualified under the APPCHA
Guidelines. If the owner cannot provide a qualified tenant, the unit shall be rented through
APCHA’s normal advertising process. At no time shall the tenancy of the unit during a
lease period be tied to continued employment by the owner. Tenant leases, however, may
be terminated for cause or at the end of the lease period upon termination of employment.
The tenant in the rental unit shall be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly
basis.
If the owner elects to sell the unit, or they are required to be sold due to noncompliance,
owner shall condominiumize the unit and form a condominium association for the
management and maintenance thereof. The affordable housing association shall be
separate from the free-market residential unit’s and commercial unit’s association(s).
In the event the rental unit is required to become ownership unit due to noncompliance,
APCHA or the City may elect to purchase them for rental to qualified tenants in accordance
with APCHA Guidelines.
Section 8: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503),
approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 9: Utilities
Due to a low roof (non-conforming with standards) above the existing transformer and
non-conformance to Electrical codes, the existing transformer cannot be upsized in place.
Most likely the transformers at Aspen Core/ Little Annies will not be able to be used by
this developer as capacity is being reserved for those developments. Due to these
constraints, a new transformer location may be the best option. The applicant shall work
with the Utilities Department prior to submittal of building permit to determine a location
for a new transformer that acceptable to the Utilities Department.
Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved
Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio
drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Because a restaurant currently
exists and is anticipated to remain, Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required
P116
VII.a
Ordinance No __, Series 2013
Page 5 of 6
for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified
prior to building permit.
Section 11: Parks
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are
not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department.
If a tree(s) is requested for removal, the applicant will be required to receive an approved
tree removal permit per City Code 13.20, this includes impacts under the drip line of the
tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of the demo
and/or building permits. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of
the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates.
A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or
groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan
indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set.
No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of
equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on
site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any
construction activities are to commence.
Section 12:
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 13:
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 14:
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.
P117
VII.a
Ordinance No __, Series 2013
Page 6 of 6
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the ___ day of _________, 2013.
_______________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of __________, 2013.
_______________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ _______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney
P118
VII.a
Exhibit A – Staff Findings, Subdivision
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A – Staff Findings, Subdivision
26.480.050. Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture,
landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory
master plan.
Staff Findings: There are no applicable adopted Master Plans for this property. This is a
mixed-use building that includes residential and commercial uses, which conforms with
and is compatible with the uses in the immediate block and the zone district in general. In
addition, the approved Conceptual Commercial Design is consistent with the heights, bulk,
open space, and architecture in the area. The applicant is providing on-site open space
(public amenity space) and is required to pay an additional cash-in-lieu fee for space that
is being removed to accommodate accessibility improvements, which was approved as part
of their Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
Staff Findings: The development meets all of the dimensional and use requirements of the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district and the area. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Findings: The development does not adversely affect future development in the area.
It complies with zoning and is consistent with the other subdivisions in the area. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the
Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,
rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or
other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents
in the proposed subdivision.
P119
VII.a
Exhibit A – Staff Findings, Subdivision
Page 2 of 3
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision is located on a parcel suitable for the
subdivision. There are no known hazards and no steep topography. In addition, the
proposed subdivision is in a single mixed-use building so the spatial pattern is efficient.
Existing services will be used, and any costs associated with upgrades to service, including
to utility service will be borne by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an applicable
adopted regulatory plan, Title 28, the municipal code, the existing, neighboring
development areas and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of 26.580. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and conditions have been added to the
Resolution to ensure all Engineering requirements are met. Staff finds this criterion is met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. A subdivision
which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of 26.470. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth
at Chapter 26.620.
Staff Findings: The applicant will comply with all required school land dedication
requirements. A cash-in-lieu payment will be made as part of the building permit. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management
P120
VII.a
Exhibit A – Staff Findings, Subdivision
Page 3 of 3
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of the Growth
Management Quota System, Chapter 26.470. If the growth management requests are
granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this criterion will be met. .
P121
VII.a
Exhibit B – Boogies DRC Comments
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit B - Boogies DRC Comments
Building
• This addition may cause the building to be reclassified from VB to V A. This will require
the addition of fire rated structure and assemblies.
• The addition at the commercial level will trigger the toilet rooms to meet ICC/ANSI for
accessibility.
• The plans do not show but the elevation does show a door to the street from the ADU and
Free market unit. This door is required to the street façade and will not be permitted to
swing into the ROW.
Utilities
• The applicant should do load calculations now and meet with the department to review in
order to better prepare for the building permit
• Due to a low roof (non-conforming with standards) above the existing transformer and
Non-conformance to Electrical codes the existing transformer cannot be upsized in place.
Most likely the transformers at Aspen Core/ Little Annies will not be able to be used by
this developer as capacity is being reserved for those developments. Due to these
constraints, a new transformer location may be the best option.
Fire
• All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503),
approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Environmental Health
• No Comments. Trash/Recycling area meets requirements.
Parking
• No Comments
Zoning
• The calculation for existing floor area is not accurate. sheet E-102 the stair at South East
corner should not be included.
• Storage in Basement: sheet A-101 Proposed floor area calculations, and sheet A-106 Net
leasable: indicate for whom the storage is proposed, for example commercial or
residential.
• Proposed “exterior roof garden” not calculated as deck exemption. No access to the area
is permitted.
• Roof mechanical sheet A-105; no information provided.
• Page 17 gives details on proposed square footage but not proposed floor area. Is the deck
exemption for the free market unit really 470 pursuant sheet A-103? The deck exemption
is based on allowable floor area per use, not including the bonus of the TDR.
• Proposed elevations have the chimney which was not approved by HPC. See exhibit 2,
HPC Resolution No. 16 (Series of 2012).
P123
VII.a
Exhibit B – Boogies DRC Comments
Page 2 of 4
• Elevations (sheet A-112) and floor plan (sheet A109) indicate a door at the North
elevation of the third floor free market unit. The roof at the third level has not been
counted toward ‘deck exemption’. And the brick parapet shields the use. Is it intended for
mechanical?
Parks
• Landscaping and Sidewalk Landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way
will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be
no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved by the City Parks Department
and the Engineering Department.
• Tree Permit: If a tree(s) is requested for removal, the applicant will be required to
receive an approved tree removal permit per City Code 13.20, this includes impacts under
the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to
approval of the demo and/or building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City
Forester at 920-5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site per City
Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree
removal permit based on the landscape estimates.
• Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each
individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A
formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg
permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage
of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on
site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120)
before any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20
Engineering
• These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
• Drainage:
o General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management
Plan Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will
meet these requirements. A full review will be completed when there is enough
information to review.
o A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application.
This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site
chooses fee-in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing
impervious areas all new areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Any
detention requirements covered under the FIL option must discharge directly to
the City’s stormwater infrastructure.
• Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage
Principals:
1. Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
2. Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
3. Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
4. Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
5. Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
P124
VII.a
Exhibit B – Boogies DRC Comments
Page 3 of 4
6. Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community,
and the environment.
7. Use a treatment train approach.
8. Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
• Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
o General note: All sidewalk, curb and gutter must meet the Engineering
Standards as outlined in Title 21.
o As of March 13, 2013, the sidewalk was in acceptable condition and did not
require replacement. The curb and gutter was damaged and should be replaced.
Should the sidewalk, curb or gutter be damaged as a result of construction
activities, it will be the property owner’s responsibility to repair the damage as
described in Title 21.
• Construction Management – Engineering is concerned about the Construction
Impacts of this site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Note that the current code does not allow for
any encroachments during the on-seasons (November 1 – April 15 and June 1 – Labor
Day).
• Excavation Stabilization – Due to the proximity of the neighboring property, the City
will require an excavation stabilization plan prior for any excavation. The plan should
be submitted with the building permit submittal.
• Fee in Lieu –This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in
Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the
Municipal Code.
APCHA
• The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held April 3, 2013
and finds the proposal consistent with the provisions of the current code regarding the use
of the existing one-bedroom unit for mitigation of the proposed commercial and
residential expansion. If using the on-site unit for mitigation is approved, the
development would be allotted one point to the overall GMQS score.
Sanitation
• Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
• ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections
(roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
• On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
• Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing
establishment. Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit.
Even though the commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at
this time if food processing establishments are anticipated for this project. ACSD
will not approve service to food processing establishments retrofitted for this use by
small under counter TRAPS at a later date.
• Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
P125
VII.a
Exhibit B – Boogies DRC Comments
Page 4 of 4
o Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
o Elevator shaft drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
• Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements.
• Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
• One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may 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.
• All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office
can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to
the district.
• Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected
over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements
needed.
• Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
• Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3
feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
• We can comment on this application in greater detail once detailed plans have been
submitted to the District.
P126
VII.a
P127
VII.a
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes April 16, 2013
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on 534 East Cooper (Boogie's) Growth
Management Review. LJ asked for legal notice. Debbie Quinn said that it was
provided are approved as provided.
Jessica Garrow said this is a public hearing for an application submitted by
Boogie's Building of Aspen LLC for an expansion and remodel of the Boogie's
Building which is at 534 East Cooper. The applicant is represented by Sunny
Vann and Kim Weil of Poss Associates. The applicant is requesting 4 land use
reviews to remodel this building; it is located within the Commercial Core and it
previously received conceptual UPC and commercial design reviews. It was
approved by UPC and went through the call-up process with City Council. Jessica
said that City Council affirmed the decision through that call-up process. Jessica
said the 4 reviews before you are 3 Growth Management reviews; 1 for the
expansion of net leasable space, 2 is for a new free-market residential unit, 3 is
affordable housing; P&Z is the final authority on all 3. The 4th review is a
subdivision review and P&Z is the recommending body to Council.
Jessica said the existing building is 2 stories and includes 10,379 square feet of net
leasable space and 1 affordable housing unit that has 654 square feet of net livable
space. Jessica noted a key part of this application is this unit was never acquired as
affordable housing mitigation but rather a voluntary unit that the owner of the
property wanted to provide so the existing deed restriction allows this unit to go
away; so part of their proposal is to modernize the deed restriction and use that as
mitigation for the proposal today. The proposal would expand the net leasable
space by 292 square feet for a total of 10,671 square feet of net leasable space in
the building. The expansion is on an existing
2nd floor deck; the applicant proposes
to enlarge the affordable housing unit to 705 square feet of net livable area and
update that mitigation and use it for this project. Jessica said that the applicant to
proposing to add a
3rd
story with a free-market residential unit just over 2300
square feet of net livable space. This was applied for in March of last year so it
vested under a different code; that code allows 3 story buildings and new free-
market residential units.
Jessica said in terms of Growth Management the land use requires that affordable
housing mitigation be provided for the largest requirement when it is provided on
site; based on the expansion of the commercial space that generates .54 FTEs and
the free-market unit would generate 1.73 FTEs based on the mitigation rates that
are in the land use code. Jessica said that the planning staff and APCUA
recommend that the affordable housing unit be accepted as mitigation for this
project; it ensures that the existing unit remains within the rental pool in perpetuity.
3
P129
VII.a
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes April 16, 2013
If P&Z decides not to accept this unit as mitigation the applicant proposes to use
affordable housing certificates.
Jessica said in terms of Subdivision it is required because there are multiple
residential units being proposed on the site and the mix in the vicinity as well as
the commercial core. Staff is recommending approval of Subdivision and the
Growth Management Reviews.
Jasmine asked about the employee generation on site and how many will it house.
Jessica replied 1.75 and the requirement is 1.73 so the size of the unit is slightly
larger than what is required.
Ryan asked if the affordable unit on site wasn't already on site would it be required
to be deed restricted. Jessica replied it was just provided at the option of the owner
as part of a redevelopment years ago.
LJ asked what category was the employee unit and if they can't rent it will
APCHA rent it. Jessica replied it was a category 3 and yes APCHA will rent it if
they can't find a renter.
Stan asked why on page 4 there were all the dimensional recommendations and we
didn't have purview over it. Jessica said that until we get a subdivision review so
this is a note that says the plans have been approved but we are not granting
anything additional. Debbie said that she liked having them in because we recently
had to make the final design was different from conceptual in certain respects and
had been presented at least to Council if not P&Z in the amended form and nobody
caught it and there wasn't any language such as this that says it was consistent.
Debbie said there is always that possibility that someone will say oh but Council
already looked at this and Debbie would rather have language like this. Stan said
that should go back to HPC and it will go back to HPC for final and make sure it
was in the resolution.
Bert asked if the occupancy issue with the MotherLode has been resolved. Jessica
replied that yes the resolution is written so the CO and the deed restriction for the
affordable housing unit have to be in place before you can get a CO for the free-
market component.
LJ said reading page 7 under Section 2 Dimensions; the free-market residential
unit is approved at 2,307 square feet. LJ asked how much is a Historic TDR; he
said that he thought that it was 250. Jessica replied when they are landed they are
4
P130
VII.a
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes April 16, 2013
500 square feet so the and the size cap under this code is 2,000 but you don't get to
sever a TDR so that it is partial. LJ asked about the chimney. Jessica stated the
chimney was not approved from HPC conceptual design.
Sunny Vann said the commercial expansion was to mainly remove the tented
structure that covers portions of the outdoor deck so that is being cleaned up and
will be part of the building.
No public comments.
Jim supported the project and thought it was a good improvement to the character
of the downtown. Jasmine stated this application clearly follows the requirements
of the code.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 10 series 2013
approving Growth Management Reviews and recommend Council approve a
Subdivision Development of one Free-Market Residential Unit, one Affordable
Housing Unit and 292 square feet of new Commercial Space for 534 East Cooper;
Ryan Walterscheid seconded. Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes;
Bert Myrin, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, yes.
APPROVED 7-0.
Public Hearing:
204 South Galena (former GAP) Growth Management & Subdivision
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 204 South Galena, the former Gap, and
Growth Management Review. LJ asked if there was proof of legal notice. Debbie
Quinn reviewed both notices.
Justin Barker introduced himself as a planner for the City of Aspen. Justin said
this is a 9,030 foot lot and is located in the Commercial Core District with a
Historic District overlay; the project received final commercial design review from
HPC in December and went back to HPC in February for an amendment to the
final review. The request before you today the applicant is seeking Growth
Management Allotments for 1700 square feet of new net leasable commercial for
the second level and 4500 square feet for future net leasable commercial space.
Justin said for the requirement for this area for every 1000 square feet of net
leasable space for the ground level would be 4.1 employees; for the basement and
the second floor spaces is reduced by 25% would be 3.05 employees for every
1000 square feet. Out of those FTEs they are required to mitigate for 60% of those
to 3.14 for the second level and 8.3 for the basement so the total is 11.44 FTEs.
5
P131
VII.a
P133
VII.a
P134
VII.a
P135
VII.a
P136
VII.a
P137
VII.a
P138
VII.a
P139
VII.a
P140
VII.a
P141
VII.a
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
RE: 507 W. Gillespie Street - Establishment of Two (2) Transferable
Development Rights, First Reading of Ordinance # 25__, Series
of 2013, Second Reading is scheduled for July 8, 2013
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2013
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 5,086
square foot vacant lot. 507 W. Gillespie Street
is a historic designated site that was originally a
part of 515 W. Gillespie (the property to the
west) and was created as part of a historic lot
split in 2001. The house on 515 W. Gillespie
was originally on 507 W. Gillespie and was
relocated as part of the lot split. The property
was originally created at 4,572 square feet, with
an allowable FAR of 2,840 square feet. In
March 2011, a lot line adjustment added square
footage from the properties to the east,
increasing the total lot area to 5,086 square feet.
The established allowable FAR from the lot
split was not changed by this lot size increase.
The applicant requests City Council approval to establish two (2) historic Transferable
Development Rights certificates for this property, reducing the allowable floor area for 507 W.
Gillespie by 500 square feet. Council is the decision-making authority on the establishment of
TDRs.
APPLICANTS: John Rowland & Sarah Broughton.
PARCEL ID: 2735-121-11-007.
ADDRESS: 507 W. Gillespie Street, Lot B, Gillespie Historic Partners, LLC Lot Line
Adjustment Plat, recorded March 29, 2011 in Plat Book 96 at Page 60.
ZONING: R-6, Medium-density Residential.
P143
VII.b
Page 2 of 3
PRIOR APPROVALS:
o Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Approvals
In 2001, HPC approved partial demolition, relocation of the existing house and
a 500 square foot FAR bonus for 515 W. Gillespie.
In 2007, HPC granted Final Major Development approval.1
On June 12, 2013, HPC granted Amendment to Final Major Development
approval, reducing the approved FAR to 2,339 square feet.
o City Council Approvals
In 2001, City Council approved a historic landmark designation, floor area
bonus and historic landmark lot split for the property.2 507 West Gillespie (Lot
B) was established with an FAR of 2,840 square feet, prior to applicable lot area
reductions.
In 2010, City Council approved an extension of vested rights from HPC
Resolution No. 35, Series of 2007 through September 9, 2013.3
STAFF EVALUATION:
The purpose of a TDR is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmarks within the
City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate
development right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a different and non-
historic property within the City of Aspen. Each TDR comprises 250 square feet of Floor
Area. The TDR program enables standard market forces, and the demand for floor area
and increased unit sizes in specific zone districts, to accomplish a community goal of
preserving Aspen’s heritage as reflected in its built environment. Funds that are gained
from the sale of TDRs may be invested back into the landmark.
The applicant requests approval from City Council to sever an additional 500 square feet
of unbuilt Floor Area from the property in the form of two (2) TDR certificates. No
previous TDRs have been established for this property. After the approved development
order is acted upon, the resultant unbuilt FAR after the severance of two TDRs will be
2,340 square feet.
The review criteria found in Exhibit A analyze the existing built development on the
property against the maximum allowable floor area to determine the amount of unbuilt
development that can be turned into TDRs. Development that already received approval
is also analyzed as part of the review process for establishing TDRs.4 The property must
be a local landmark, i.e. listed on Aspen’s Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, to
establish TDRs.
1 HPC Resolution 35, Series of 2007.
2 City Council Ordinance 20, Series of 2001.
3 City Council Resolution 88, Series of 2010.
4 See Exhibit A, criterion d.
P144
VII.b
Page 3 of 3
Floor Area Analysis for 507 W. Gillespie Avenue:
Total allowable floor area for a 5,086 square
foot lot single family residence in R-6 zone
district
[2,400 + (2,086/100*28)] = 2,984 square
feet allowable floor area
Total allowable floor area per Ordinance 20,
Series of 2001
2,840 square feet allowable floor area for
507 W. Gillespie Avenue
Available unbuilt floor area 2,840 square feet unbuilt floor area
(vacant lot)
Approved floor area per HPC Approval
June 2013 2,399 square feet floor area approved
Approve the establishment of 2 TDR
certificates at 250 square feet each
[2,840 – (250*2)] = 2,340 square feet
remaining unbuilt floor area after severance
of TDRs
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project meets
the applicable review criteria to Establish Transferable Development Rights and recommends
approval of the two (2) TDR certificates.
PROPOSED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affirmative): “I move to approve
Ordinance No. _25__, Series of 2013, on First Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Application
P145
VII.b
507 W. Gillespie
Ordinance #_25_, Series of 2013
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #_25_
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING TWO (2) TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 507 W. GILLESPIE STREET, LOT B, GILLESPIE
HISTORIC PARTNERS, LLC LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, RECORDED MARCH
29, 2011 IN PLAT BOOK 96 AT PAGE 60.
PARCEL ID #:2735-121-11-007
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John
Rowland and Sarah Broughton, requesting the establishment of two (2) Historic Transferable
Development Right Certificates for the property located at 507 West Gillespie Street, Lot B,
Gillespie Historic Partners, LLC Lot Line Adjustment Plat, recorded March 29, 2011 in Plat
Book 96 at Page 60; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Medium-density Residential (R-6) and is currently a
vacant lot; and
WHEREAS, for City Council approval of Transferable Development Rights, the application
shall meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 26.535.070; and
WHEREAS, Justin Barker, Planner, in his staff report to City Council, performed an analysis of
the application, found that the review standards for Transferable Development Rights are met,
and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Transferable Development Rights
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant two (2)
Transferable Development Rights for 507 West Gillespie Street, with the following conditions:
P147
VII.b
507 W. Gillespie
Ordinance #_25_, Series of 2013
Page 2 of 3
Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall establish a
date on which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be
validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the
property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder.
1. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and
deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the property owner and
the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available
development right of the Sending Site (507 West Gillespie Street, Lot B, Gillespie
Historic Partners, LLC Lot Line Adjustment Plat, recorded March 29, 2011 in Plat
Book 96 at Page 60) by an additional 500 square feet together with the appropriate
fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder’s
Office.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Vested Rights
The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the
development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall
render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the
creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development and
Commercial Design Reviews by the HPC, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the
general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
P148
VII.b
507 W. Gillespie
Ordinance #_25_, Series of 2013
Page 3 of 3
following described property: 507 W. Gillespie Street, Lot B, Gillespie Historic Partners, LLC
Lot Line Adjustment Plat, recorded March 29, 2011 in Plat Book 96 at Page 60.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of July, 2013, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of June, 2013.
_______________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2013.
_______________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Jim True, City Attorney
P149
VII.b
Exhibit A
507 W. Gillespie
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
Section 26.535.070 Review Criteria for Establishment of Historic Transferable
Development Right.
A Historic TDR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City
Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark or property identified on the AspenModern
Map, on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted
use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a
conditional use shall not be eligible.
Staff Finding: The proposed 5,086 square foot sending site is located within the
Medium-density Residential (R-6) zone district, which allows residential single-family
use. The sending site is a designated Historic Landmark, listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and is a vacant lot. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for
either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two-hundred and fifty
(250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR
Certificates requested.
Staff Finding: The subject property has a total allowable FAR of 2,840 square feet
per Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2001. The lot is vacant, leaving all 2,840 square feet
of floor area unbuilt on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not
increase the specific nonconformity.
Staff Finding: The establishment of two TDRs will not create or increase a non-
conformity. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built
development, any approved development order, the allowable development right
prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the
potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar
potential development incentives.
Staff Finding: This is a two part analysis: 1) actual built development, i.e. the
existing condition of the property and 2) approved development.
P151
VII.b
Exhibit A
507 W. Gillespie
Page 2 of 3
Analysis of actual built development:
There is currently no development that exists on the lot. Per Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 2001, the lot currently has an allowable floor area of 2,840 remaining to
develop.
Analysis of approved development:
The development proposal that was approved in 2007 received an extension of vested
rights per City Council Resolution No. 88, Series of 2010 lasting through September
9, 2013. The floor area of this approval was 2,760 square feet. The development
proposal received an Amendment to Final Major Development approval from HPC
on June 12, 2013. The new approved floor area is 2,339 square feet. Severing two
(2) TDRs from the site will leave 2,340 square feet of allowable floor area. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally
connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered
null and void.
Staff Finding: The development order for the approval from 2007 has been amended
to reduce the floor area to 2,339. This would be within the limitations of the property
after establishment of two TDR Certificates. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
f) The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the
property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for
a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established. The deed
restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex
residence, as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain
eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by
the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed
restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Finding: The applicant clearly states an understanding of this standard (f) in the
application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic
TDR certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall
execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the
subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction
with the County Clerk and Recorder's office.
Staff Finding: The application demonstrates a clear understanding of the
requirements of section (g). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P152
VII.b
Exhibit A
507 W. Gillespie
Page 3 of 3
h) It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building
plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of
built floor area.
Staff Finding: There is currently no built floor area on the property as it is a vacant
lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
i) The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of
transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the
City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such
transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor,
the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to
timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development
right certificate void.
Staff Finding: The application demonstrates a clear understanding of the
requirements of section (i). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P153
VII.b
P155
VII.b
P156
VII.b
P157
VII.b
P158
VII.b
P159
VII.b
P160
VII.b
P161
VII.b
P162
VII.b
P163
VII.b
P164
VII.b
P165
VII.b
P166
VII.b
P167
VII.b
P168
VII.b
P169
VII.b
P170
VII.b
P171
VII.b
P172
VII.b
P173
VII.b
P174
VII.b
P175
VII.b
P176
VII.b
P177
VII.b
P178
VII.b
P179
VII.b
P180
VII.b
P181
VII.b
P182
VII.b
P183
VII.b
P184
VII.b
P185
VII.b
P186
VII.b
P187
VII.b
P188
VII.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD – Amendment to existing approvals, 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 23 (Series of 2013), Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: June 24, 2013
OVERVIEW: At first reading of Ordinance No. 23, the public hearing date was set for June 24th
with the understanding that the hearing is to be continued to July 8th so that a five member
council can hear the application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the hearing on Ordinance No. 23 be continued
to July 8th.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the hearing on Ordinance No. 23, S. Aspen Street
Subdivision/PUD to July 8th.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P189
VIII.a
6.24.2013 – PUD and SPA Policy Direction
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: PUD and SPA Code Amendments
Resolution 66, Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2013
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for code amendments related to the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Specially Planned Area (SPA) Chapters of the Land Use
Code. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the section to provide greater
predictability in the review process, and ensure the review criteria reflect current engineering,
architecture, and infrastructure standards.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends
the PUD and SPA code sections. This memo and resolution summarize the policy direction
received to date related to the PUD and SPA Chapters of the Land Use Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Chapters 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:
Staff received direction from City Council in March to process a code amendment related to the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Specially Planned Area (SPA) portions of the land use
code. These chapters allow variations to the allowed uses (SPA) and dimensions (PUD) on a
project specific basis. They are similar processes, requiring an individual project to demonstrate
that a variation from uses or dimensions in the underlying zone district provides a benefit to the
community and results in a desirable development pattern. These sections have not been updated
in many years and an update to ensure the chapters reflect up to date standards is desirable.
P191
VIII.b
6.24.2013 – PUD and SPA Policy Direction
Page 2 of 5
CURRENT REGULATIONS: The current PUD regulations allow a property of 27,000 square feet
or more to apply for and be reviewed as a PUD. This lot size requirement may be waived if “the
development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the community”
and if the provisions of the PUD process “will best serve the interests of the community.”
The current SPA regulations allow any property looking to vary the underlying allowed uses if
“because of its unique historic, natural, physical or locational characteristics, it would be of great
public benefit to the City for that land to be allowed design flexibility…” No lot size
requirement exists.
For both PUD and SPA, a four-step review process is currently in place: Conceptual Review by
P&Z and then City Council, and Final Review by P&Z and then City Council. P&Z is a
recommending body to City Council. The process can be consolidated to a two-step review
process (just Final Reviews) if the issues involved are minor or the full review would be
redundant.
An applicant can request an amendment to an approved PUD or SPA. For PUD and SPA, there
are Insubstantial Amendments, reviewed administratively, and Major Amendments, reviewed by
City Council. For PUDs, a third level amendment, Minor Amendments, are allowed which are
reviewed by P&Z. This “intermediate” level of amendment is not in place for SPAs.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff believes many of the review standards should be updated to reflect
modern concerns related to engineering issues, environmentally sensitive areas, utilities, etc. In
addition, staff believes examining the landscaping and architectural character requirements to
ensure they are meeting today’s needs could be beneficial.
One of the common criticisms from members of the community and applicants is the nature of
Conceptual and Final Reviews. Conceptual currently does not lock an applicant or the City into
anything, and effectively lengthens a review proves by one to two years, creating
unpredictability for everyone. Staff supports changing the review process to be clearer and more
predictable and has identified three (3) potential options for City Council to consider.
1. Amend the process so the Conceptual review is binding. The applicant would receive
an Ordinance from City Council at the end of Conceptual. All dimensions would be
established as part of the Ordinance. Final Review would be done by P&Z to ensure the
project meets the conditions and to finalize any outstanding issues, such as exact utility
locations or exact building materials. Alternatively, the Final Review could be completed
administratively if it is limited to ensuring compliance with all conditions of the Council
Conceptual approval. If an applicant wanted to amend any dimensional requirements
they would have to return to City Council for approval.
2. Amend the process so the Conceptual review is binding. The process would be the
same as outlined above, with the exception of varying dimensions. Under this option if
an applicant wanted to amend their height or floor area dimensions or their approved uses
they would have to return to City Council for approval. All other dimensional changes,
such as setbacks, could be approved by P&Z as part of the Final Review. This process is
P192
VIII.b
6.24.2013 – PUD and SPA Policy Direction
Page 3 of 5
similar to the current Conceptual and Final Commercial Design Review process. This is
staff’s recommended option.
3. Amend the process to be only two (2) steps. Under this option “conceptual” review
would be a P&Z review and would be a recommendation to City Council. The “final”
review would be a Council level review, as it is today. The difference is this become a 2
step process rather than a 4 step process.
In addition, staff supports three (3) amendment levels for both PUD and SPA – “insubstantial
amendments” reviewed administratively (same as today), “minor amendments” reviewed by the
P&Z (exists today for PUD, would be new for SPA), and “major amendments” reviewed by City
Council (same as today).
Finally, because PUD and SPA are similar reviews, staff believes there is benefit to combining
these into one land use chapter and review process. SPA currently allows changes to both
dimensions and uses, while PUD allows changes to dimensions. Under a combined Chapter,
there would be separate review criteria for changes to allowed dimensions and changes to
allowed uses.
Staff believes the ability to vary dimensions and uses through the SPA and PUD processes is
important to retain in any code change. The intent of both processes is to address site specific
opportunities and constraints, and enable flexible and innovating planning solutions that support
community goals. These are discretionary reviews, so City Council already has the ability to
approve, amend, or deny any dimensional or use variation requests.
P&Z COMMENTS: Staff met with the P&Z in March to review potential changes to the PUD and
SPA chapters. Overall, the P&Z supported the idea that Conceptual PUD and SPA reviews
should have more meaning. Under the current system, Conceptual Review does not technically
lock a developer into a specific development program or massing – it only enables them to apply
for Final Review. There was some frustration that under the current system projects can change
dramatically between Conceptual and Final, which creates uncertainty for everyone involved in
the review process. The Commission felt that making certain aspects of the Conceptual reviews
binding, such as massing, height, building placement, lot locations, parking, and general use mix,
would mean the community, staff, and review bodies would not be “surprised” at Final. The
Commission felt that creating clearer Conceptual review criteria would assist in focusing on
these issues, and would be an improvement to the current process.
There were mixed opinions regarding how the review process for Final PUD and SPA should be
amended. Some members supported staff’s idea that Conceptual Review be approved by City
Council Ordinance after considering a recommendation from P&Z, and then Final Review (to
work out final detail) be approved by P&Z. These members liked that this would lock a
developer, and the City, in to a specific building massing, use mix, etc at the Conceptual PUD
and SPA, then the Final review would only be focused on detail work, such as exactly where
utility lines are located, what final materials are used, etc.
P193
VIII.b
6.24.2013 – PUD and SPA Policy Direction
Page 4 of 5
Some Commissioners felt that certain projects are so complex or large that the full four-step
review process that is used today should remain in place. The Commission suggested that
certain thresholds could be set to determine if a PUD or SPA goes through the current four-step
review with P&Z and Council review at both Conceptual and Final. This could be based on the
size of the project, or the amount it is deviating from the underlying zoning.
There were some concerns from the Commission that there is too much negotiation in the PUD
and SPA processes, and that streamlining the processes could exacerbate that. For this reason,
they felt strongly that PUDs and SPAs should rely more on underlying zoning than they do
today. There was some disagreement on exactly how that would work, but the Commission
strongly supported exploring ways to limit dimensional variations in the PUD and SPA
processes. In addition, the Commission expressed concerns that PUDs are permitted on lots of
less than 27,000 square feet, and would like to see some examination of limiting the ability for
smaller lots to request a PUD.
The P&Z supported staff’s recommendation to create an “intermediate” SPA amendment review
with P&Z, which would mirror the current PUD process. The Commission agreed that all SPA
and PUD Amendments need clearer, more straightforward review criteria. One general criterion
the Commission supported as an addition to the general PUD and SPA review criteria was to
encourage site planning and the layout of roofs to encourage solar gain.
The Commission expressed concern that dramatically changing the PUD and SPA processes
could catch the community off-guard, and stressed the importance of communicating potential
code amendments to the community. The Commission also asked staff to examine if a change in
the PUD process would impact the referendum process for projects.
PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff met with a group of private planners and architects prior to the
meeting with P&Z to get their feedback on the PUD and SPA processes and potential code
amendments. The group felt that the current four step SPA and PUD processes are unpredictable
and that applicants are often surprised during Final reviews when issues they thought were
resolved at Conceptual are brought up again during Final. The group strongly supported the idea
that Conceptual PUD and SPA reviews should be binding. They supported the process changing
to a three step process – a binding Conceptual approval by Council after considering a
recommendation from P&Z, and final review for details at the P&Z level (staff’s recommended
option listed above). The Conceptual review would outline the allowed heights, massing, uses,
etc and lock an applicant into those elements. If the Conceptual Review is changed to be more
meaningful, the group stated the time period to apply for Final Review would need to be
increased beyond the year that is currently in the code. This would enable them to better work
out the final details. The group felt strongly that it is important the SPA and PUD process
continue to allow a development to vary from underlying uses and dimensions, as there are site
specific issues that generally result in the need to request a PUD or SPA. Finally, the group
stated the review criteria for PUD needs to be consolidated and updated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
P194
VIII.b
6.24.2013 – PUD and SPA Policy Direction
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. ___, Series of 2013, approving a Policy Resolution outlining
direction for code amendments related to the PUD and SPA Chapters in the Land Use Code.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
P195
VIII.b
Resolution No __, Series 2013
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION N0. 66,
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) CHAPTERS 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 PUD and SPA Chapters in 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 changes to the
PUD and SPA Chapters in 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, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on January 28, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. __, Series of 2013,
by a ____ to ____ (__ – __) vote, requesting code amendments to the PUD and SPA
Chapters 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 and Direction
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the PUD and SPA Chapters in
the Land Use Code to ensure a more predictable process. City Council provided the
following direction related to the code amendment:
• Update and consolidate review standards where possible to eliminate redundancies
and provide greater clarity.
• Establish three (3) levels of amendment process for PUD and SPA: Administrative,
P&Z only, City Council only.
P197
VIII.b
Resolution No __, Series 2013
Page 2 of 2
• Amend PUD and SPA to a three (3) step process where Conceptual Review is
binding through a City Council Ordinance:
o Step 1: P&Z review of Conceptual, recommendation to City Council.
o Step 2: City Council review of Conceptual, approval by Ordinance that
establishes all dimensional and use requirements.
o Step 3: P&Z review of Final, approval of final details (ex: exact utility line
placement, building materials, etc) by Resolution. Any changes to height or
floor area dimensions or uses variations established in the Council
Conceptual Ordinance would require City Council review and approval.
Any other dimensional changes could be approved as part of P&Z’s final
review.
• Combine PUD and SPA into one chapter.
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
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 __th day of ____ 2013.
_______________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P198
VIII.b
1.28.2013 – Employee Generation Policy Direction; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the code to create a clearer, more
predictable PUD and SPA process. In addition, the review criteria for both are redundant and
have not been updated in at least ten (10) years. Staff believes it is important to ensure the
review criteria are updated to reflect modern considerations related to environmentally sensitive
areas, engineering issues, as well as design and site planning. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
Earlier this year, City Council identified a number of work program priorities for Community
Development. Updating the PUD and SPA Chapters to the Land Use Code was one of those.
Council expressed interest in creating a more predictable process for these reviews, as is called
for in the 2012 AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a predictable and fair review of land use
applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P199
VIII.b
Subdivision Policy Direction
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Subdivision Code Amendments
Resolution 67, Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2013
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for amendments to the Subdivision
regulations of the City. The objectives of the code amendment is to substantially overhaul the
subdivision regulations tailoring processes and requirements to be reflective of today’s development
conditions, to create a new chapter specifying requirements for recordation documents, and to
assemble engineering requirements into a new section of the municipal code.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends
the subdivision regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Subdivision regulations of the City. Pursuant
to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
The City’s Subdivision regulations have not been overhauled since 1988. The character of
development requests and the needs of the City have changed significantly since then and staff is
proposing a substantial overhaul of the subdivision regulations to reflect modern expectations.
Many projects are currently subject to a full subdivision review, even if they are not physically
dividing property. For instance, downtown buildings that divide a building into individual
ownership interests are subject to a review with P&Z and City Council, in the same way that a
large subdivision where land is physically divided does. With the recent advent (past ~5 years)
of Commercial Design review and the Council call-up procedures, subdivision reviews for
downtown projects, where no lot lines are changing, are significantly redundant.
P201
VIII.c
Subdivision Policy Direction
Page 2 of 3
Staff believes many of the subdivision review processes and review standards should be updated
to reflect modern concerns related to engineering issues, environmentally sensitive areas,
utilities, drainage, etc. Engineering requirements for new development are currently scattered
throughout the land use code and municipal code. This assemblage includes many out-of-date
requirements and conflicts between various sections. Staff of the Community Development and
Engineering Departments believe the engineering requirements for new development should be
grouped together in one section of the municipal code. This will likely be a new Title of the
municipal code and replace the current assortment.
One of the common criticisms from members of the community and applicants is that all forms
of “subdivision” are reviewed by City Council, including actions that do not appear to be a
subdivision. There is a significant difference between an actual subdivision of land, such as
Burlingame Ranch, and the addition of a residence within a mixed-use building. Currently both
of these actions are treated equally, subject to the same process and criteria. Staff believes this is
due to the term “subdivision” being defined too broadly – essentially capturing everything.
Tailoring the City’s process and requirements more closely to the character of the development
activity will simplify many reviews.
Staff believes a process and standards for vacating or amending public rights-of-way is needed.
The City does not have a codified process now and relies on a combination of State Statute and
administrative policy to consider these requests.
The City has multiple code sections defining requirements for plats, plans, and development
agreements – all with different requirements. Staff is proposing a new Chapter of the Land Use
Code defining all development documents associated with development, including standardizing
the City’s bonding requirements for public improvements. This will also be an opportunity to
better define the level of detail needed for each type of document to be recorded.
P&Z COMMENTS: The Commission had a number of comments related to subdivision, with a
particular focus on simplifying the process. The Commission supported the idea of creating
different tiers of subdivision reviews. For example, large subdivisions that actually divide land
into new lots, like Burlingame, would go through the current Subdivision process with reviews
by P&Z and Council, while a project that divides a single building into multiple ownership
interests, like a downtown mixed-use building, would through an administrative review such as
condominiumization.
The P&Z felt that downtown buildings are subject to an extensive design reviews and growth
management reviews, where the massing and use issues are addressed, and that the subdivision
review creates confusion for all involved because it re-addresses issues that have been previously
approved. The Commission expressed a desire that the City use the Commercial Design Review
process more effectively to address any issues or concerns related to massing, heights, building
placements, materials, landscaping, etc.
The Commission also expressed a desire to have clearer review criteria for all levels of
subdivision reviews. There were also some comments related to encouraging a landscape buffer
P202
VIII.c
Subdivision Policy Direction
Page 3 of 3
between the sidewalk and street, particularly for downtown projects. The Commission supported
creating clear standards for this throughout town.
PUBLIC OUTREACH / PRIVATE PLANNER COMMENTS: Staff met with a group of private
planners and architects prior to the meeting with P&Z. That group provided detailed comments
on potential code amendments to Subdivision. The group had similar comments regarding
Subdivision as the P&Z did. In fact, changing the subdivision process was their top priority for
this round of code amendments. The group strongly supported the creation of different tiers of
subdivision review. In particular, projects where a single building is divided into different
ownership interested and actual land is not being divided should only be required to go through
an administrative condominiumization process.
They felt the Commercial Design review process addresses the issues raised at Subdivision
reviews, and that using the Commercial Design process to evaluate mass and scale of buildings is
more appropriate and predictable. Finally, the group stated that one of the tiers of review should
allow property boundary changes and exchanges between properties when property owners agree
to it. Today, the only property boundary changes allowed are those to correct surveying errors.
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. 67, Series of 2013, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
subdivision code amendments.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
P203
VIII.c
Resolution No __, Series 2013
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION N0. 67,
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE LAND USE
CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the City’s
subdivision regulations; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with the Planning and Zoning Commission and
local architects and planners; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
subdivision regulations in 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, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on June 24, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. __, Series of 2013, by
a ____ to ____ (__ – __) vote, requesting code amendments to the subdivision regulations
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 and Direction
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the subdivision regulations in
the Land Use Code. City Council provided the following direction related to the code
amendment:
• Overhaul the subdivision regulations to reflect modern expectations for process
and approval criteria.
• Create different processes and criteria depending on the extent of development
activity. In particular, reduce the review process required for development that
does not alter lot lines.
P205
VIII.c
Resolution No __, Series 2013
Page 2 of 2
• Consolidate Engineering requirements found in the land use code and other
portions of the municipal code together in one new section of the municipal code.
• Codify a process and standards for vacating or amending public rights-of-way.
• Codify requirements for plats, plans, and development agreements as required by
various processes in the land use code, including standardizing the City’s public
improvement surety requirements. Define the level of detail needed for each type
of document to be recorded.
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
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 __th day of ____ 2013.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P206
VIII.c
Subdivision Policy Direction; Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the subdivision code to better reflect
modern expectations for approval criteria and processes. This item was recently identified as the
first priority by common customers (local architects and planners). The subdivision regulations
have not been amended since 1988, while other sections of the code have been updated to meet
current expectations and community values. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
Earlier this year, after adopting the AACP, City Council identified a number of work program
priorities for Community Development. Updating the subdivision requirements in the Land Use
Code was one of those. 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 the processes and criteria for various subdivision
actions reflect the community expectations and values. The current code applies the same criteria to
an actual subdivision (Burlingame Ranch) and a development which does not alter lot lines (the
addition of a residence in a downtown building). Modernizing the processes and criteria specific to
the types of development activity occurring today and that are expected to occur over the next 5-10
years is significantly in the public interest. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P207
VIII.c
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
RE: Aspen Historical Society – Temporary Use Requests
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2013
SUMMARY: Applicant requests City Council
approve a temporary use request to erect a tipi
on the property located at 620 W. Bleeker St.
and place a banner on the property located at
420 E. Hopkins Ave. City Council may
approve a temporary use up to 180 days and a
seasonal use up to 10 recurring years.
APPLICANT: Aspen Historical Society.
PARCEL IDS: 2735-124-31-801 &
2737-073-30-851.
ADDRESSES: 620 W. Bleeker Street, Block
23, including the platted alley, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, except Lots H
and I in said Block 23, and without warranty as
to said alley & 420 E. Hopkins Avenue, Block
87, Lots O, P, Q, and R, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado
ZONING: 620 W. Bleeker is Medium-density
Residential (R-6); 420 E. Hopkins is Public
(PUB).
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW
PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting
the following land use approvals from City
Council:
Temporary and Seasonal Uses: Temporary uses may be granted for a period not to exceed one
hundred eighty (180) days from the date upon which the City Council approves the temporary
620 W. Bleeker St. Locator Map
420 E. Hopkins Ave. Locator Map
P209
VIII.d
2
use, unless a shorter period is specified in the approval. For seasonal uses, the City Council shall
determine the maximum number of annual recurrences, which shall not exceed ten (10) years.
BACKGROUND: The Applicant is requesting two temporary use permits:
1. To erect a tipi on the Aspen Historical Society property located at 620 W. Bleeker St.
2. To place a banner on the Aspen Firehouse located at 420 E. Hopkins Ave.
The Aspen Historical Society would like to use the tipi as an educational tool to enhance their
current exhibit about the Ute residents of the valley. The applicant intends to keep the tipi up
from mid-June to mid-October for the next two (2) years. In 2015, the tipi will be moved to a
more permanent location at Ashcroft.
The tipi is 22’ in diameter and 26’ tall at the peak. The material will be plain canvass and is fire
retardant. The applicant proposes to place the tipi in the northwest corner of the property, near
the intersection of Hallam and 6th. The location on-site is chosen to provide the maximum non-
urban feel for the users with the least impact on the surrounding properties. The applicant has
stated that the tipi will not be used overnight.
The applicant is also requesting, for a separate exhibit, to place a banner on the Aspen Firehouse.
This exhibit has already started and will last through July 10. The Community Development
Department has granted an administrative approval for this banner until the time of Council
hearing. The banner is approximately 25 square feet in size and is currently located on the
balcony above the entrance to the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department Museum.
STAFF EVALUATION: Staff has reviewed the application and finds the request to be
reasonable for both temporary uses. Both temporary uses are intended to accompany educational
exhibits that are provided by the Aspen Historical Society.
Tipi - The proposed tipi is taller at the peak than the allowable height for the zone district but
would be measured in the same manner as a sloped roof due to the shape, and would be in
compliance. The tipi will help promote community involvement and cultural awareness that
would be positive for the area, and would not negatively affect the surrounding roads or
properties.
View of tipi location from Hallam Street (behind fence) View of tipi location from 6th Street (behind fence)
P210
VIII.d
3
Staff finds the request to maintain the temporary use for the next two (2) summers to be an
acceptable amount of time. Council may decide how many years to grant a seasonal use up to ten
(10) recurrences. The applicant is required to obtain a tent permit from the Aspen Fire Marshal
once the tipi is built.
Banner - Temporary banners do not require a permit per
Section 26.510.140, regarding signage on public property.
This banner requires Council approval, as banners can only
be maintained for a period of fourteen (14) days. The banner
is otherwise in compliance with all regulations necessary for
approval. The banner has been up under administrative
approval since the start of the exhibit. Staff finds that
allowing the banner for an additional 16 days, until the end of
the exhibit, is a reasonable duration of time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that
the City Council APPROVE with conditions the Applicant’s
request to erect a tipi at 620 W. Bleeker St. as a seasonal use
for two (2) years, for a period not to exceed 150 days,
beginning from June 1 – November 1, and to maintain an
informational banner at 420 E. Hopkins Ave. as a temporary
use for 16 days, ending on July 10, 2013.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affirmative): “I move to approve
Resolution No. _68___, Series of 2013 approving temporary uses for a tipi at 620 W. Bleeker St.
and a banner at 420 E. Hopkins Ave.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Application
Location of banner on firehouse
P211
VIII.d
AHS - Temporary Use
Resolution #_68_, Series of 2013
Page 1 of 2
Resolution No. _68_
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING TEMPORARY USES
TO ERECT A TIPI AT 620 W. BLEEKER STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
BLOCK 23, INCLUDING THE PLATTED ALLEY, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, EXCEPT LOTS H AND I IN SAID BLOCK 23, AND WITHOUT
WARRANTY AS TO SAID ALLEY; AND MAINTAIN A BANNER AT 420 E. HOPKINS
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 87, LOTS O, P, Q, AND R, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
Parcel ID #s: 2735-124-31-801 AND 2737-073-30-851
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
Aspen Historical Society, requesting Temporary Use approvals to permit the erection of a tipi on
the property located at 620 W. Bleeker Street, and to maintain a banner on the property located at
420 E. Hopkins Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the application and
considered the Temporary Use proposals under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, and found the application to be consistent with the requirements of the Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the application and considered the Temporary
Use proposals 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 duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the temporary use proposals meet or exceed all
applicable development standards associated with the request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council grants approval of the Temporary Use requests as
proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves a Temporary Use request to permit the erection of a tipi on the
property located at 620 W. Bleeker Street, for a period not to exceed 150 days, from June 1 –
October 1, on an annual basis for the years 2013 and 2014. A tent permit must be obtained from
the Aspen Fire Marshal once the tipi has been completely built.
P213
VIII.d
AHS - Temporary Use
Resolution #_68_, Series of 2013
Page 2 of 2
Section 2:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves a Temporary Use request to maintain a banner on the property
located at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue, for a period not to exceed 16 days, beginning June 25, 2013.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the temporary use
proposals 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 4:
This resolution shall not effect 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 5:
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.
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this ____ day of ____, 2013.
___________________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James True, City Attorney
P214
VIII.d
Exhibit A
AHS - Temporary Use
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
26.450.030. Criteria applicable to all temporary uses.
When considering a development application for a temporary use or an insubstantial temporary
use, the Community Development Director or City Council shall consider, among other pertinent
factors, the following criteria as they or any of them, relate thereto:
A. The location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the proposed use.
Staff Finding - tipi: The tipi will be located on the northwest portion of the property toward the
intersection of 6th and Hallam. The tipi is 22’ in diameter and 26’ tall. The material is plain
canvas. The tipi will be used as a teaching tool to enhance an existing exhibit in the museum.
The property is fairly large and the visual impact will not be dramatic as much of the property is
screened by trees during the summer months. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Staff Finding - banner: The banner is located on the balcony above the entrance to the Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department Museum facing Hyman Avenue. The size is approximately 25 square
feet, well below the allowed 50 square feet. The design meets the requirements for content of
signs on public property. The purpose of the sign is to inform patrons of the exhibit that is
occurring in the museum. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and use of
structures and uses in the immediate vicinity.
Staff Finding - tipi: The property is generally surrounded by single-family homes on 6,000
square foot lots. Even with the addition of a tipi, there will still be less density on the property
than surrounding lots. Given the nature and purpose of the lot, the use of a tipi on site is
appropriate for the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Staff Finding - banner: The banner is located within a predominately commercial area with civic
uses nearby. Most of the buildings are 2-3 stories tall with some residential on the upper floors.
Special events are not uncommon around this area and identifying signage can be appropriate
for a reasonable amount of time. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. The impacts of the proposed temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic
patterns, municipal services, noise levels and neighborhood character.
Staff Finding - tipi: Vehicular traffic and municipal services will not be affected by the proposed
tipi. Pedestrian traffic will only increase internally on the lot as patrons travel between the
museum and the tipi. The noise level may minimally increase due to an increase in patrons
around the tipi, but would not have a dramatic impact. Neighborhood character will not be
negatively affected by what is considered a cultural element of the region. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
Staff Finding - banner: The banner itself will have no effect on the pedestrian or vehicular
traffic, municipal services or noise level. The banner helps promote an exhibit for the
community and the neighborhood character is not negatively affected by the banner. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
P215
VIII.d
Exhibit A
AHS - Temporary Use
Page 2 of 2
D. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has previously
been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the application.
Staff Finding - tipi: The applicant requests to maintain the tipi from mid-June through mid-
October for the next two years. There have been no previous approvals for this structure.
Staff Finding- banner: The applicant requests to use the banner through the end of the exhibit,
which is July 10. The Community Development Department has already provided an
administrative approval for the banner up until the time of the City Council hearing.
E. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed.
Staff Finding - tipi: The property is located within the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone
district. The purpose of this district is to provide areas for long-term residential purposes, short
term vacation rentals, and customary accessory uses. Arts, cultural and civic uses are
conditional uses but are customarily found in proximity to residential uses. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
Staff Finding - banner: The property is located within the Public (PUB) zone district. The
purpose of this district is to provide for the development of governmental, quasi-governmental
and nonprofit facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other nonprofit purposes. The Aspen
Historical Society is a nonprofit organization that is providing an educational exhibit on the
property. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which may have
occurred in the area and zone district in which the use is proposed.
Staff Finding - tipi: The West End has predominately always been a residential area and the
Aspen Historical Society has been on this property for several decades. Staff does not find that
the tipi will have a significant impact on the area or zone district for the two summers it is
intended. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Staff Finding - banner: The property is mostly surrounded by the Commercial Core which is
intended to promote a variety of uses and events to maintain a vibrant community. The banner is
a passive use that does not have a significant effect on the area, and is purely intended to
promote an educational exhibit to the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. How the proposed temporary use will enhance or diminish the general public health, safety
or welfare.
Staff Finding - tipi: The tipi will help to educate residents and visitors alike about the Ute
residents of the valley. There will be no diminishing effects on the general public health, safety
or welfare. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Staff Finding - banner: The banner will have no negative effect on the general public health,
safety or welfare. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P216
VIII.d
P217
VIII.d
P218
VIII.d
P219
VIII.d
P220
VIII.d
P221
VIII.d
P222
VIII.d
P223
VIII.d
P224
VIII.d
P225
VIII.d
P226
VIII.d
P227
VIII.d
P228
VIII.d
P229
VIII.d
P230
VIII.d
P231
VIII.d
P232
VIII.d
P233
VIII.d
P234
VIII.d
P235
VIII.d
P236
VIII.d
P237
VIII.d
P238
VIII.d
P239
VIII.d
P240
VIII.d
P241
VIII.d
P242
VIII.d
P243
VIII.d
P244
VIII.d
P245
VIII.d
P246
VIII.d
P247
VIII.d
P248
VIII.d
P249
VIII.d
P250
VIII.d
P251
VIII.d
P2
5
3
VI
I
I
.
d
P2
5
4
VI
I
I
.
d
P2
5
5
VI
I
I
.
d
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Date June 24, 2013 Call to order at:
I. Councilmembers present: Councilmembers not present:
'ElA— nn Mullins ❑ Ann Mullins
teve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
D--Adam Frisch
❑ Art Daily El Adam Frisch
❑ Art Daily
II. Motion to go into executive session by .1- ; seconded b y
Other persons present:
FOR:
AGAINST:
nn Mullins ❑Ann Mullins
_aSteve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
am Frisch
❑ Adam Frisch
❑Art Daily
❑ ❑Art Daily
III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF:
C.R.s. 24-6-402(4)
(a)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.
(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;
(e)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-cli communication:
0
The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions i is,e ec iu ses io we e limited
to the topic(s)described in Section III, above.
Adjourned at: 7-)