HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20130722
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 22, 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) Arts and Nonprofit Grant Board Appointments
b) Council Appointments
c) Resolution #74, 2013 - Contract ARC Cell Antenna
d) Resolution #72, 2013 - Contract for 2013 Trail Overlays
e) Resolution #73, 2013 - Fleet Replacement of Kodiak Snow Blower
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #30, 2013, 430 W. Main Street Historic Lot Split and Transferable
Development Rights
b) Ordinance #31, 2013, 125 W. Main Street Historic Lot Split
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #26, 2013 - 534 E Cooper (Boogies) Subdivision
b) Ordinance #28, 2013 - 360 Lake Ave. - Erdman Lot Split Subdivision
Amendment
c) Ordinance #29, 2013 - Increase in Maximum Fines for Ordinance Violations
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting August 12, 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 Skadron and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
RE: Arts and NonProfit Grants Review Committee Appointment
DATE: July 17, 2013
The Arts and Nonprofot grant review committee is a recommending board established by Council in
1998 to review and interview applications for city arts and nonprofit grants and to recommend to
Council the amount of grants for the next budget year.
The committee meets in August and September and attends the Council’s budget meeting. We have
two applicants and suggest approving both appointments to the Grant Review Committee. Michael
Kosnitzky is a part time resident, a tax attorney who has experience in the nonprofit area. Teraissa
McGovern lives and works in Aspen and fits the Council Goal of getting the under 40 demographic
involved in local government.
The first grant meeting for 2013 is in early August so the committee would like new members appointed
by then.
By approving the consent calendar, Council is approving the appointment of Kosnitzky and McGovern to
the grants review committee.
Applications attached
P1
VI.a
P3
VI.a
CITY OF ASPEN
APPOINTMENT APPLICATION
NAME Teraissa A. McGovern
STREET ADDRESS 66 Cloud Nine Rd, Aspen CO 81611
MAILING ADDRESS PO Box 8785, Aspen CO 81612
HOME PHONE WORK PHONE 970-544-0130
CELL PHONE 970-309-0663 E-MAIL teraissa.mcgovern@gmail.com
BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE:
+ Election Commission ______
+** Planning & Zoning Commission
+ Board of Adjustment
Board of Examiners & Appeal
+** Historic Preservation Commission
Wheeler Board of Directors
Commercial Core & Lodging
+ Roaring Fork Transit Agency
+ Housing Authority
+ Liquor License Authority
Child Care Advisory Committee
+ Open Space Advisory Board
Aspen /Pitkin Animal Shelter Board
Arts & Non-Profits Grants Review x
** HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OR P & Z APPLICANTS, PLEASE ATTACH A
BRIEF STATEMENT ADDRESSING YOUR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ON:
1.) Aspen Area Community Plan - on which aspects you may agree or disagree
2.) Growth in Aspen and the Aspen Area
3.) Affordable Housing
+ CITY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS 1 YEAR
IF SELF EMPLOYED, IDENTIFY NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: November 2012- Present: Brewster McLeod
Architects; Prior: Employeed in Durango, CO
STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: December 2012-July 2013: 715 E
Hopkins Ave; Prior: Out of the area.
INVESTMENTS AND/OR LANDHOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: None
I desire the appointment for the following reasons:1. Non-profits provide so many
opportunities for community members, I would like to be able to participate in keeping
them going. 2. I want to learn more about all the non-profits in the area and think this
grant review committee is a great opportunity for that. 3. I believe advisory boards need a
voice from the younger demographic and I would like to be this voice.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
apptapp.doc
P5
VI.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
DATE: July 15, 2013
RE: Council Appointments
Based on Council’s discussion last week, below are the Council appointments for 2013-2014. By
adopting the consent calendar, Council will be making these appointments
Boards Council Representative
Mayor Pro Tem Adam Frisch
CAST Steve Skadron
RFTA Steve Skadron
RFTA alternate Dwayne Romero
DRGW Covenant Enforcement Ann Mullins
NWC Council of Government Randy Ready
Aspen Chamber Resort Association Steve Skadron
Arts Council Ann Mullins
Ruedi Water & Power Authority Ann Mullins
CORE Board Adam Frisch
Sister Cities Art Daily
Burlingame Housing Inc Barry Crook
CML Policy Advisory Board
Nordic Council Adam Frisch/Art Daily
Pitkin County HHS Board Ann Mullins
P7
VI.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
THRU: JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS &
RECREATION
DON PERGANDE, BUDGET DIRECTOR
DATE OF MEMO: JULY 10, 2013
MEETING DATE: JULY 22, 2013
RE: INSTALLATION OF CELLULAR ANTENNA AT
ARC
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting approval of the attached contract (attachment
“A”) with Triple C communications in the amount of $37,390.50 for the purpose of installing a
cellular antenna at the ARC.
BACKGROUND: Patrons at the ARC have been complaining about the poor cellular service
within the facility. Emergency contact has been difficult at best, and our maintenance staff use
cell phones to communicate with the controls serving the mechanical systems. For these reasons
the ARC Advisory Committee has supported staff in looking for ways to improve the service.
Due to the large amount of concrete and steel within the building the cell service has been
hampered and staff has looked for ways to improve it.
Currently the ARC hosts a radio antenna on the building; the cell antenna will replace the current
unit. The new antenna is slightly smaller in scale than the current antenna serving the radios.
P9
VI.c
DISCUSSION: Not only will the antenna provide better cellular service for patrons but it will
enhance emergency communications as well. We have had injuries on the ice and staff as well
as patrons has tried using their cell phones to contact emergency services and have been unable
to do so.
Our maintenance staff also currently uses cell phones for communications to speak with each
other as well as the control systems for the ice rink and pools. This has not worked well due to
the service at the ARC. The introduction of this cell antenna will allow our maintenance staff to
communicate with each other and the mechanical systems to keep systems running smoothly.
Additionally, contacting emergency services will improve and this is huge for staff and user
groups being able to react quickly to emergency needs.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff is funding this improvement through savings in the
2012 Recreation Department Asset Management Plan which have been carried forward to the
2013 budget. Ongoing costs should be very little and what costs might arise staff will cover with
operational maintenance funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The controls which have been and are anticipated to be
added to various facilities can be accessed by cell phone. This allows staff to deal with issues at
times without having to get in a vehicle and drive to the location in need.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending the approval of the attached contract
with Triple C communications for the purpose of installing a cellular antenna at the ARC. This
will improve customer service for patrons; improve contact of emergency services and
communications for our maintenance staff to better address issues with mechanical systems more
immediately.
ALTERNATIVES: The alternative is to remain with the poor service and operate as we have in
the past.
P10
VI.c
PROPOSED MOTION: I, , motion to approve the agreement with
Triple C communications in the amount of $37,390.50 for the purpose of improving
communications from within the ARC.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
“A” Contract with Triple C Communications
“B” Photo of Antenna
P11
VI.c
RESOLUTION #74
(Series of 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND TRIPLE C COMMUNICATIONS INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
cellular equipment installation, between the City of Aspen and Triple C
Communications Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for cellular equipment installation, between the City of Aspen and Triple C
Communications Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf
of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 22nd day of July 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 July 22, 2013.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P13
VI.c
P15
VI.c
P16
VI.c
P17
VI.c
P18
VI.c
P19
VI.c
P20
VI.c
P21
VI.c
P22
VI.c
P23
VI.c
P24
VI.c
P25
VI.c
P26
VI.c
P27
VI.c
P28
VI.c
P29
VI.c
P31
VI.c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Austin Weiss, Trails Manager
THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director
DATE OF MEMO: July 15, 2013
MEETING DATE: July 22, 2013
RE: Trail Overlays Contract
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Parks Department is requesting approval of a contract with
Elam Construction for $52,522.50 for pedestrian trail overlays and repairs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In November of 2012, the 2013 Parks Department Budget
was approved which included $50,000 for trail overlays and a carry forward from the 2012
budget of $30,000.
DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Parks Department maintains over 20 miles of pedestrian and
bike trails throughout the City. Almost 1/2 of these trails are made of asphalt which require
periodic overlays to maintain a smooth and safe surface. Asphalt deteriorates over time due to
numerous factors including: freeze/thaw, snow removal, overall use, tree roots up lifting,
construction impacts and age. This deterioration shows up in the form of cracks, bumps, and
general rough surfaces that can pose a safety threat to trail users and can affect the overall trail
experience. It is critical that this maintenance occur each year to prevent serious safety issues
from developing. This is an ongoing capital maintenance need for trails and is budgeted
annually.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The overlay contract with Elam Construction is for
$52,522.50. The Parks Department 2013 budget has $80,000.00 for trail overlays.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Keeping the pedestrian trails in good shape encourages
alternative transportation and thus contributes to a reduction of air and noise pollution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Parks Staff recommends approval of the funding for the asphalt
contract.
P33
VI.d
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES: Council could decide not to approve the contract in which case the trails
could remain as they are today. The main concern regarding non-approval of this contract is the
potential safety hazards that could appear on areas of the trails that are deteriorating.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #72, Series of 2013
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Contract with Elam Construction
P34
VI.d
RESOLUTION #72
(Series of 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ELAM CONSTRUCTION INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Asphalt Overlays for Park Trails, between the City of Aspen and Elam
Construction Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
“A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for Asphalt Overlays for Park Trails, between the City of Aspen and Elam
Construction Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and
does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the
City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 22nd day of July, 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, July 22, 2013.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P35
VI.d
P37
VI.d
P38
VI.d
P39
VI.d
P40
VI.d
P41
VI.d
P42
VI.d
P43
VI.d
P44
VI.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager
DATE: July 22, 2013
RE: Snow Blower Replacement Contract Approval 2013-081
_____________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends approval of contract 2013-081for the
replacement of one loader-mountable Kodiak snow blower.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The 2013 Asset Management Plan contains the funds for
this fleet replacement purchase. City Council approved the 2013 Asset Management Plan as part
of the 2013 Budget.
BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of sole source through Kodiak America to ensure
parts interchangeability and similarity of equipment operation regardless of which blower is in
use. The Street Department currently has two Kodiak snow blowers and the older one is due for
replacement this year. The new blower will be put on a 10-year replacement cycle and will be
reassessed for replacement at that trade in time.
DISCUSSION: The current snow blowers that the Street Department uses are Kodiak model
SC4844’s. These machines are specially-built for the purpose of loading dump trucks for our
extensive snow removal system. These blowers are on a 10-year replacement cycle and the time
has come to replace our oldest machine since it is experiencing reliability issues and increasing
maintenance needs. The snow blower is an attachment that couples to the front of a Volvo loader.
The controls are electronic and are mounted in the cab of the loader, with a quick release on the
wiring system between the loader and the snow blower. This system lets the operator uncouple
the blower and the wiring loom from the control panel and re-couple this system to the other
Kodiak blower in about five minutes. In the event that a blower breaks down, the operator will
be able to change from one blower to the next and the down time will be reduced to minutes
instead of hours.
It is necessary to remain with the same type of snow blower so it will recouple to the existing
controller in our loader. We have two Kodiak snow blowers, one is 5 years old and the other is
10 years old. We will be replacing the older snow blower and keeping the 5 year old snow blower
as a backup machine. These snow blowers are the backbone of our snow removal process to
enable us to remove (not just plow to the side) all of the snow on Main Street and in the core area
after a snow event. The lack of reliable equipment can lead to major equipment repair costs,
P45
VI.e
Page 2 of 2
increased cost for the leased dump trucks, overtime wages, and delays in getting the highway and
core area clear of snow.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Street Department has $170,000 in the 2013 budget
for this replacement. The price for the new Kodiak snow blower is $213,000. Kodiak will be
providing $44,000 for the old machine, bringing the total contract price to $169,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The new snow blower will have a John Deere 400 HP Tier
III diesel engine that complies with 2013 off road emissions. The new machine is built out of
lighter but stronger Hard-ox steel to reduce weight, yet remain strong. The chute will be larger,
enabling the snow to move through the chute more freely, reducing engine strain so that it can
run at a lower RPM. This will allow us to use less fuel, lower the exhaust emissions and make
the equipment noticeably quieter when in operation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends council approval of contract 2013-081 for
the replacement of the Kodiak snow blower for the City of Aspen Streets Department.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #73, 2013 on the consent calendar of
Monday, July 22, 2013.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P46
VI.e
RESOLUTION #73
(Series of 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND KODIAK AMERICA 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
LMSC Snow Blower, between the City of Aspen and Kodiak America, 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 LMSC Snow Blower, between the City of Aspen and Kodiak America, 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 22nd day of July 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, July 22, 2013.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P47
VI.e
P49
VI.e
P50
VI.e
P51
VI.e
P52
VI.e
P53
VI.e
P54
VI.e
P55
VI.e
P56
VI.e
P57
VI.e
P58
VI.e
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 430 W. Main Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split and Transferable Development
Rights, First Reading of Ordinance # 30, Series of 2013
DATE: July 22, 2013
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The subject property is located within the Main Street Historic District and
contains a late 19th century Victorian era home that currently functions as an office. It was built
for M.O. Berg in 1892. Mr. Berg was the proprietor of The Mint saloon in downtown Aspen.
In 2005, a previous owner received approval for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, but never filed a
plat to finalize the subdivision, so the approval expired. The new owner proposes to resurrect the
lot split. A 4,000 square foot parcel will be created on the corner. The right to develop a single
family home on this parcel will be converted into 8 TDRs, to be landed elsewhere in town. 144
square feet of buildable area will be left on the lot. A very large tree will be preserved without
impacts from the construction that would have been possible without the TDRs. The 1904 map
below illustrates that the new vacant lot (Lot K and a portion of Lot L) was not developed in the
Victorian era. It has always been an open yard.
430 W. Main today 430 W. Main in 1904
P59
VII.a
2
A 5,000 square foot parcel will be created and will contain the Victorian structure. The applicant
has received a 500 square foot floor area bonus from HPC, which will be used to cover a portion
of the 2,350 square foot Victorian. The unused development rights on this lot will be 518 square
feet, 500 of which is to be converted into 2 TDRs and sold. The floor area bonus was
specifically approved as a reward for the preservation of the site without additional development.
The ordinance contains language that revokes the bonus should the TDR concept be abandoned.
HPC has recommended that Council approve the proposal. As part of their review, HPC also
granted a sideyard setback variance to allow the Victorian house to be 3’ from the new lot line
rather than the standard requirement of 5.’
Council is the decision-making authority on both the lot split and the establishment of TDRs.
APPLICANT: Karbank 430 LLC, Neil Karbank, represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-42-004.
ADDRESS: 430 W. Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the
application shall meet Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4) and Chapter 26.470. Growth
Management where applicable.
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
All of the following conditions must be met:
a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County
Commissioners or the City Council or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel
which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City
on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Staff Finding: The property is in the original townsite.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying Zone District. Any lot for which development is proposed
will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes two lots, both of which conform to the MU zone district.
P60
VII.a
3
c. The lot under consideration or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption
pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: No subdivision exemption or lot split exemption has been executed.
d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter and conforms to the
requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and
Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to
this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be provided to the Community Development
Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the
County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within
one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the
plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a
showing of good cause.
Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be provided to the Community
Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
f. In the case where an existing building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the
building need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split.
Staff Finding: No building sits on the proposed new lot line. No buildings will be demolished.
g. Maximum potential residential build-out for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall
not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home.
Staff Finding: The Transferable Development Rights for the site will be based on a single
family use on each of the two lots.
.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
All of the following conditions must be met:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and
be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, C-1 or MU Zone District.
Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 9,000 square feet and is located in the MU Zone District.
b. The total FAR for each lot shall be established by dividing the allowable floor area for
a duplex or two detached residences on the fathering parcel according to the Zone
District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on
the subdivision exemption plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed
P61
VII.a
4
uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the Zone District for
allowable FAR on each lot.
Staff Finding: The property is zoned mixed-use and therefore has a maximum floor area of up
to 9,000 square feet. TDRs can only be established based on the residential development
potential of the site, which is a lower square footage, in this case half of the mixed-use potential.
The 4,000 square foot lot is eligible for 2,144 square feet of residential floor area, or 8 TDRs.
The 5,000 square foot lot is eligible for 2,868 square feet of floor area (including a floor area
bonus), or 2 TDRs after the existing Victorian house is covered.
In spite of the floor area calculation being based on residential potential, the Victorian can
continue to be used as permitted in the zone district, including functioning as office space.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone
District. The variances provided in Chapter 26.415 as benefits for historic preservation
are only permitted on the parcels that contain a historic structure. Only one (1) FAR
bonus of up to 500 square feet may be granted to each historic landmark lot split
subdivision exemption.
Staff Finding: The development will meet the dimensional requirements of the zone district
except for a setback variance that was approved within the authority of the HPC.
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development
right.
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to
adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
A. The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family or
duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties
on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
Staff Finding: Single family and duplex uses are permitted in the zone district where 430 W.
Main Street is located.
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 application demonstrates that there is unused FAR available on the property.
C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase
the specific nonconformity.
P62
VII.a
5
Staff Finding: No non-conformities will be created by the project. All dimensional
requirements of the zone district are met or have properly received variances from HPC.
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: The analysis only includes development that is by right or has been awarded by
HPC approval.
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: No such development order exists.
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.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the
maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be
the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two
hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies 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 my
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 deed restriction will follow the form approved by the City Attorney.
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: A closing will be scheduled at the conclusion of the review.
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
P63
VII.a
6
Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area. (Ord.
54-2003, §§ 4, 5)
Staff Finding: The applicant has provided floor area analysis.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council approve this Historic Landmark
Lot Split and the creation of TDRs, with conditions outlined in the Ordinance.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #30, Series of 2013, on First Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits:
Ordinance #30, Series of 2013
A. Application
B. Draft HPC Resolution
C. HPC minutes
P64
VII.a
430 W. Main
Ordinance #__, Series of 2013
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE #30
(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 PROPERTY LOCATED AT
430 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 37, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID #:2735-124-42-004
WHEREAS, the property owner, Karbank 430 LLC, represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services, has requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split and Transferable Development Rights for
the property located at 430 W. Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, for City Council approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall
meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions,
Lot Split and 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split; 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, at their regular meeting on June 26, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards, and
unanimously recommended City Council approval by a vote of 6 to 0. The Historic Preservation
Commission also granted a 500 square foot floor area bonus, an action within their authority,
according to Section 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code, on the basis that development rights on
Lot 1 would be converted to TDR's and sold; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards for Historic Landmark
Lot Split and 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:
P65
VII.a
430 W. Main
Ordinance #__, Series of 2013
Page 2 of 4
Section 1: Historic Landmark Lot Split and Transferable Development Rights
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby grant a Historic Landmark
Lot Split Subdivision Exemption and up to 10 Transferable Development Rights for 430 W.
Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the
following conditions:
1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final
approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption
agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration
of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum,
the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of
application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to
the dimensional requirements of the zone district, except the variances approved
by the HPC; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that:
Lot 1, a 4,000 square foot lot, is allowed a maximum floor area of 2,144 square
feet. 2,000 square feet of floor area has been approved as 8 Transferable
Development Rights, which may from time to time, and as warranted by the TDR
market, be converted into certificates and sold.
Lot 2, a 5,000 square foot lot, is allowed a maximum floor area of 2,868 square feet,
including a 500 square foot bonus granted by the Historic Preservation Commission,
on the basis that the development rights on Lot 1 would be converted to TDR's
and sold. 500 square feet of floor area has been approved as 2 Transferable
Development Rights, which may from time to time, and as warranted by the TDR
market, be converted into certificates and sold. Certificates for the two TDR’s
that may be issued in connection with the 500 square foot floor area bonus
awarded for Lot 2, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F.1 h,
shall not be issued unless and until certificates for all eight TDR’s for Lot 1 have
been issued and the corresponding deed restrictions recorded for each of those
eight TDR certificates.
P66
VII.a
430 W. Main
Ordinance #__, Series of 2013
Page 3 of 4
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
following described property: 430 W. Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado.
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.
P67
VII.a
430 W. Main
Ordinance #__, Series of 2013
Page 4 of 4
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of August, 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 22nd day of July, 2013.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2013.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P68
VII.a
P69
VII.a
P70
VII.a
P71
VII.a
P72
VII.a
P73
VII.a
P74
VII.a
P75
VII.a
P76
VII.a
P77
VII.a
P78
VII.a
P79
VII.a
P80
VII.a
P81
VII.a
P82
VII.a
P83
VII.a
P84
VII.a
P85
VII.a
P86
VII.a
P87
VII.a
P88
VII.a
P89
VII.a
P90
VII.a
P91
VII.a
P92
VII.a
P93
VII.a
P94
VII.a
P95
VII.a
P96
VII.a
P97
VII.a
P98
VII.a
P99
VII.a
P100
VII.a
P101
VII.a
P102
VII.a
P103
VII.a
P104
VII.a
P105
VII.a
P106
VII.a
P107
VII.a
P1
0
8
VI
I
.
a
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SETBACK
VARIANCE AND A FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 430 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 37, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #22, SERIES OF 2013
Parcel ID #: 2735-124-42-004
WHEREAS, the applicant, Karbank 430 LLC, represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services, has requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Setback Variance and Floor Area
Bonus for the property located at 430 W. Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall
meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.480.030; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a setback variance, the application shall
meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C.1.a; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor area bonus, the application shall
meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.F; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated June 26, 2013, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved
with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 26, 2013, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards, and
approved the application by a vote of 6 to 0.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC supports Council approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split and grants a setback
variance and floor area bonus with the following conditions:
1. HPC recommends that Council approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split, dividing
the property into a 4,000 square foot lot and a 5,000 square foot lot. The applicant
has represented that, if approved by City Council, the unused development rights
will, from time-to-time and as warranted by the TDR market, be converted to
TDRs, and sold.
2. HPC grants a 2’ west sideyard setback reduction for the lot containing the
Victorian building.
P109
VII.a
2
3. HPC grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus, to be applied to the calculation of
floor area relative to the existing building. No expansion is approved.
4. Remove the railing at the front porch of the Victorian, if allowed by Building Code.
5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance
of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested
property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record
all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render 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, 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 following described
property: 430 West Main Street.
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.
P110
VII.a
3
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day of
June, 2013.
Approved as to Form:
____________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to Content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
_________________________________________
Jay Maytin, Acting Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P111
VII.a
P113
VII.a
P114
VII.a
P115
VII.a
P116
VII.a
1
125 W. Main Street in 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 125 W. Main Street- Historic Landmark Lot Split, First Reading of Ordinance
# 31 Series of 2013
DATE: July 22, 2013
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: The subject property is
located within the Main Street Historic
District and contains a Victorian era
home built in 1892 for W.W. Cooley,
an influential lawyer in Aspen in the
1890s.
The applicant has owned the property
for over 30 years. Council is asked to
approve a historic landmark lot split to
divide this 6,000 square foot lot in half,
creating a vacant lot out of the open
yard on the east side of the house.
Because of the location of the existing
house, the proposed lot line jogs to
maintain a minimum distance of 3’
from the Victorian to address building codes. The sideyard setback requirement is 5.’ HPC
approved a 2’ sideyard setback reduction in order to allow a reasonable area for a compatibly
sized new building to be developed in the future on the east lot.
HPC has recommended that Council approve the subdivision. Minutes from the HPC meeting will
be provided to Council at Second Reading.
APPLICANT: Ralli Dimitrius Trust, represented by Cynthia Milling.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-55-007.
ADDRESS: 125 W. Main Street, Lots C and D, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: MU, Mixed Use.
P117
VII.b
2
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the
application shall meet Section 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4) and Chapter 26.470. Growth
Management where applicable.
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
All of the following conditions must be met:
a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County
Commissioners or the City Council or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel
which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City
on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
Staff Finding: The property is in the original townsite.
b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying Zone District. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes two lots, both of which conform to the MU zone district.
c. The lot under consideration or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption
pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: No subdivision exemption or lot split exemption has been previously granted.
d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter and conforms to the
requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and
Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to
this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be provided to the Community Development
Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the
County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within
one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the
plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a
showing of good cause.
Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be provided to the Community
Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use action.
f. In the case where an existing building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the
building need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split.
P118
VII.b
3
Staff Finding: No building sits on the proposed new lot line. No buildings will be demolished.
g. Maximum potential residential build-out for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall
not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family
home.
Staff Finding: No new development is proposed at this time.
.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
All of the following conditions must be met:
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and
be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF, C-1 or MU Zone District.
Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 6,000 square feet and is located in the MU Zone District.
b. The total FAR for each lot shall be established by dividing the allowable floor area
for a duplex or two detached residences on the fathering parcel according to the Zone
District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on
the subdivision exemption plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed
uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the Zone District for
allowable FAR on each lot.
Staff Finding: The property is zoned mixed-use and therefore the maximum floor area will be
based on the use of the property, according to the zoning in place at the time of development.
c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone
District. The variances provided in Chapter 26.415 as benefits for historic preservation
are only permitted on the parcels that contain a historic structure. Only one (1) FAR
bonus of up to 500 square feet may be granted to each historic landmark lot split
subdivision exemption.
Staff Finding: The development will meet the dimensional requirements of the zone district
except for a setback variance that was approved within the authority of the HPC.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council approve this Historic Landmark
Lot Split, with conditions outlined in the Ordinance.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #31, Series of 2013, on First Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits:
Ordinance #31, Series of 2013
A. Application
B. Draft HPC Resolution
P119
VII.b
125 W. Main
Ordinance #__, Series of 2013
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #31
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING A HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 125 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS C AND D, BLOCK 59, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID #:2735-124-55-007
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ralli Dimitrius Trust, represented by Cynthia Milling, has requested
a Historic Landmark Lot Split for the property located at 125 W. Main Street, Lots C and D,
Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, for City Council approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall
meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions,
Lot Split and 26.480.030(A)(4), Subdivision Exemptions, Historic Landmark Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 10, 2013, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards, and
unanimously recommended City Council approval, with conditions, by a vote of 4 to 0; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards for Historic Landmark
Lot Split 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: Historic Landmark Lot Split
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant a
Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 125 W. Main Street, Lots C and D, Block
59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final
approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption
agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration
P121
VII.b
125 W. Main
Ordinance #__, Series of 2013
Page 2 of 3
of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum,
the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these
lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals
pursuant to the provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of
application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to
the dimensional requirements of the MU zone district, except the variances
approved by the HPC; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that:
The maximum floor area allowed on Lot 1, a 3,000 square foot lot and Lot 2, a
3,000 square foot lot shall be according to the zoning in place at the time of
development.
2. According to the HPC approval, the applicant shall eliminate an ice damming condition on
the west side of the historic house by October 31st, 2013. The applicant shall also remove a
non-historic porch roof which encroaches into the setback along the east side of the house,
prior to execution of the subdivision plat.
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
P122
VII.b
125 W. Main
Ordinance #__, Series of 2013
Page 3 of 3
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
following described property: 125 W. Main Street, Lots C and D, Block 59, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
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 26th day of August, 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 22nd day of July, 2013.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2013.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P123
VII.b
P1
2
5
VI
I
.
b
P1
2
6
VI
I
.
b
P1
2
7
VI
I
.
b
P128VII.b
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125 W. MAIN STREET,
LOTS C AND D, BLOCK 59, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #23, SERIES OF 2013
Parcel ID #: 2735-124-55-007
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ralli Dimitrius Trust, represented by Cynthia Milling, has
requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split and Setback Variance for the property located at
125 W. Main Street, Lots C and D, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, in order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall
meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.480.030; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a setback variance, the application shall
meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C.1.a; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 10, 2013, performed an analysis
of the application based on the standards, and recommended the application be approved
with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on July 10, 2013, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found the application to meet the standards,
recommended Council approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split, and approved the
setback variance by a vote of 4 to 0.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC supports Council approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split and grants a setback
variance with the following conditions:
1. HPC recommends that Council approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split, dividing
the property into two 3,000 square foot lots, as proposed.
2. HPC grants a 2’ east sideyard setback reduction for the lot containing the
Victorian era building. Remove the non-historic roof on the east porch of the
Victorian, allowing the steps to remain in place.
3. The property owner shall eliminate an ice damming condition that has been
identified on the west side of the building. A plan for repair shall be approved by
staff and monitor. The repair shall be completed by October 31, 2013.
4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific
development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance
of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested
P129
VII.b
2
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, 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 following described
property: 125 West Main Street.
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.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of
July, 2013.
Approved as to Form:
____________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
P130
VII.b
3
Approved as to Content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
_________________________________________
Jay Maytin, Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P131
VII.b
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
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: July 22, 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.
P133
VIII.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. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the temporary
enclosure be removed prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
Because this has been an on-going enforcement issue, City Council may wish to establish a
different timeline.
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 it as mitigation for
this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the commercial and
P134
VIII.a
Page 3 of 4
534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) –Subdivision Review – Council Memo
free-market residential growth management requests on April 16, 2013. They also accepted the
existing deed restricted unit as mitigation for the increased space.
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. Minutes
from the Council discussion are attached as Exhibit G.
The proposed dimensions are included in Table 1, below.
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Dimensions
Existing Proposed
Height 27’ to top of parapet;
37’ to top of atrium 38'
Floor Area (sq ft) 8,101 sq. ft. 12,661 sq. ft.
Net Leasable (sq ft) 10,379 sq. ft. 10,671 sq. ft.
Affordable Housing Net Livable
(sq ft) 654 sq. ft. 705 sq. ft.
Free-Market Residential Net
Livable (sq ft) N/A 2,307 sq. ft.
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.
P135
VIII.a
Page 4 of 4
534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) –Subdivision Review – Council Memo
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 completed prior to
recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #26, Series 2013, approving a
Subdivision Review for the project located at 534 E Cooper Ave.”
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 June 24, 2013 (also attached
as Exhibit A to the Ordinance)
Exhibit F – Application (previously provided to City Council)
Exhibit G – Minutes from Council Call-Up consideration, August 13, 2012
P136
VIII.a
Ordinance No 26, 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 a
Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2013 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 26,
Series 2013, on First Reading by a four to zero (4-0) 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. 26, Series 2013, by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with
conditions a subdivision of the Property; and,
P137
VIII.a
Ordinance No 26, 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 Improvement Agreement (SIA) 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, dated June 24, 2013, 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.
P138
VIII.a
Ordinance No 26, 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.
Final HPC and Commercial Design Review is required. 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 completed prior to and be a
condition of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) recordation. A building
permit may not be applied for 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
added commercial space in 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 and is being used as mitigation for the development. The Certificate of
P139
VIII.a
Ordinance No 26, Series 2013
Page 4 of 6
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.
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
P140
VIII.a
Ordinance No 26, Series 2013
Page 5 of 6
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
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.
P141
VIII.a
Ordinance No 26, 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 8th day of July, 2013.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of __________, 2013.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ _______________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk James R. True, City Attorney
P142
VIII.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.
P143
VIII.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
P144
VIII.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. .
P145
VIII.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).
P147
VIII.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.
P148
VIII.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.
P149
VIII.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.
P150
VIII.a
P151
VIII.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
P153
VIII.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
P154
VIII.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
P155
VIII.a
P157
VIII.a
P158
VIII.a
P159
VIII.a
P160
VIII.a
P161
VIII.a
P163
VIII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: 360 Lake Ave., Amendment to the Erdman Partnership Lot Split Subdivision–
Second Reading of Ordinance #28, Series 2013.
DATE: July 22, 2013
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Bell 26, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, Inc.
LOCATION:
360 Lake Ave.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-6 Medium Density Zone District
Lot 1 – single family home and ADU
Lot 2 – vacant parcel
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:
The Erdman Partnership Lot Split was
approved in 1990 via Ordinance 66
which specified the maximum
allowable floor area for each lot. The
specified floor area is significantly
higher than allowed under current
zoning. The applicant requests an
amendment to Ordinance 66 to allow
the landing of one transferrable
development right (TDR) per
residence, which is allowed for all non-
landmark properties in the R-6 zone
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that property be
subject to one Land Use Code rather than combine the 1990
Code and the current Code to allow the landing of a TDR on top
of the maximum floor area specified in the 1990 approval. Staff
recommends that Council take one of the following actions:
1) Deny the requested amendment. The property will remain
subject to the dimensional requirements specified in the
1990 approval and is not permitted to land a TDR.
2) Amend the Ordinance to remove the 1990 dimensional
requirements. This means that the property becomes
subject to the Code that is in place when the applicant
submits a building permit. The landing of a TDR is
permitted under the current Code; however the current
allowable floor area is less than the 1990 approval.
Figure 1: Map of subject property, outlined in blue. The hatching shows
the Hallam Lake Bluff area.
P165
VIII.b
360 Lake Ave. – Subdivision Amendment
Staff Memo
Page 2 of 3
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval to redevelop the site:
• Subdivision Amendment for a change to an approved subdivision development order per
Land Use Code Section 26.480.080.B. City Council is the final review authority who
may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal based on whether the
amendment is consistent with the approved subdivision development order.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The Planning and Zoning Commission recently granted Hallam
Lake Bluff review approval to remodel the existing home and bring the property into closer
conformance with the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. The approval includes
rebuilding a portion of the bluff that was removed when the home was constructed.
PROJECT SUMMARY: The Erdman Partnership Lot Split, located in the R-6 Zone District on
Lake Avenue, was approved by City Council in 1990. The approval included a specified
maximum floor area for each of the newly created lots which was simply a calculation of the
allowable floor area for the properties in the R-6 zone district at the time. There do not
appear to have been any special floor area considerations granted in 1990.
By specifying a maximum floor area, the properties are locked into that dimensional
requirement regardless of how the zone district and the Land Use Code changes over time.
A comparison of the 1990 allowable floor area to the current calculations for an R-6 zone
district lot shows that the 1990 maximum floor area for Lot 1 is greater than the current
allowances.1 A comparison for Lot 2 shows that the 1990 maximum floor area is about 31
square feet less than the current floor area allowance.2
Table 1: Floor area comparison
Gross Lot size allowable FAR according to
Ord. 66 of 1990
allowable FAR according to
current R-6 zone district
Lot 1 23,956.4 4,468.0 3,785.5
Lot 2 8,899.1 3,349.0 3,380.0
The applicant requests an amendment to the 1990 approval to allow the landing of a
transferrable development right (TDR), worth 250 square feet of floor area, to increase the
floor area on each lot. The R-6 zone district permits the landing of TDRs, one per residence,
on non-landmark properties.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The review criteria for approving an amendment to a Subdivision development order require
City Council to find that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat.
1 The current Code requires reductions for steep slopes and for the vacated right of way on Lot 1 which was not
taken out of lot area when calculating floor area in 1990.
2 The 1990 approval removed the access easement on Lot 2 when calculating floor area, which is not taken out of
the lot calculation under the current Code.
P166
VIII.b
360 Lake Ave. – Subdivision Amendment
Staff Memo
Page 3 of 3
It is the general philosophy of the Community Development Department to have a subdivision
subject to one Land Use Code and to not allow an applicant to cherry pick from different Codes
to essentially create a new set of regulations specific to one property. Allowing the ability to
land a TDR in addition to the floor area specified in the 1990 approval combines two sets of
regulations.
Staff is not supportive of the request to increase the maximum floor area that was approved in
1990 by allowing a TDR to land.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Erdman Partnership Lot Split be subject to one Land Use Code rather
than combine the 1990 Code and the current Code to allow the landing of a TDR on top of the
maximum floor area specified in 1990. Staff recommends that Council take one of the following
actions:
1) Deny the requested amendment. The property will remain subject to the dimensional
requirements specified in the 1990 approval and is not permitted to land a TDR.
2) Amend Ordinance 66 of 1990 to remove the specified dimensional requirements. This
means that the property becomes subject to the Code that is in place when the applicant
submits a building permit. The landing of a TDR is permitted under the current Code;
however the current allowable floor area is less than the 1990 approval.
The draft ordinance approves the applicant’s request for the ability to land a TDR on top of the
1990 floor area.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to deny Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2013 on Second Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #28, Series of 2013
Exhibit A – City Council Ordinance #66, Series of 1990.
Exhibit B – Application.
P167
VIII.b
Ordinance #28, Series of 2013
Erdman Partnership Lot Split, Subdivision Other Amendment
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 28
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
WITH CONDITIONS, AN AMENDMENT TO THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP
LOT SPLIT, RELATED TO 360 LAKE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-121-32-001 and
2735-121-32-002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Bell 26 LLC, represented by Steev Wilson of Forum Phi, Inc., requesting approval
of an amendment to the subdivision development order for the Erdman Partnership Lot
Split; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the requested amendment is to amend condition
number 5 of City Council Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 to permit the subdivision to be
eligible to land a transferrable development right pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code
Section 26.535, Transferrable Development Rights; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen City Council approved Ordinance 66, Series of 1990 on
October 22, 1990 approving the Erdman Partnership Lot Split; and,
WHEREAS, the final plat of the Erdman Partnership Lot Split was recorded in
Book 25, Page 42 of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
WHEREAS, a Subdivision Amendment shall be approved by the City Council
as outlined in Section 26.480.080 B., Other Amendment, of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed subdivision amendment; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2013, the City
Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent
recommendations from the Community Development Director; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all the 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 OF ASPEN CITY
COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
P169
VIII.b
Ordinance #28, Series of 2013
Erdman Partnership Lot Split, Subdivision Other Amendment
Page 2 of 3
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves an amendment to the subdivision development
order related to the Erdman Partnership Lot Split as follows:
The Erdman Partnership Lot Split is eligible to extinguish a transferrable
development right (TDR) to allow an additional 250 square feet of floor area
pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, of the Land Use
Code. Each residence on the parcel, excluding accessory dwelling units and
carriage houses, shall be eligible for one floor area increase in exchange for the
extinguishment of one historic TDR.
Section 2:
The Applicant shall record an updated plat within 180 days of approval of this ordinance.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
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 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 6:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of July, 2013 at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
P170
VIII.b
Ordinance #28, Series of 2013
Erdman Partnership Lot Split, Subdivision Other Amendment
Page 3 of 3
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of July, 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P171
VIII.b
P173
VIII.b
P174
VIII.b
P175
VIII.b
P176
VIII.b
360 Lake Avenue
Allow the modification of Ord 66 to allow for receipt of Historic TDR's
The applicant is seeking the ability to receive TDR's on the lots created in the Erdman Partnership
Lot Split (Bk. 25, Pg. 42) approved in 1990 via City Council Ordinance 66, Series of 1990.
The Ordinance specifies a maximum floor area for each lot:
Lot 1: 4,468 square feet
Lot 2: 3,449 square feet
The specification of these allowable floor areas limits was a condition to the approval of
Ordinances 66 which was required by the Planning Office at the time of it's hearing and approval.
This limitation did not specifically link the method of calculation to the 1990 code, nor 'the code
applicable at the time', as we so often see and wrestle with in other subdivisions causing us to
have to dig up old code books and attempt to guess at the interpretations and practices of that
code and that time. Rather, this ordinance specifically limits the square footage without
references to any specific code. I understand that the position staff has taken is, since the FAR
numbers represented in Ord. 66 obviously are derived from the 1990 code since they match those
calculations precisely; then it is using and linked to the 1990 code. By this reasoning, granting the
use of TDR's on this site would be allowing for “cherry picking” between land use codes, a
practice not supported by staff, so in turn staff does not support our proposal. Looking back at
Ordinance 66, we are not linked to the 1990 code despite the commonality of the FAR limits with
the calculation method at the time. Additionally, we have been and are required to use the current
code for the method of calculation, definition of elements, and size and type of exemptions. A
residence using the calculations, definitions, and exemptions as allowed in the 1990 code would
likely not require a TDR to accomplish the same structure. The Ordinance prescribes an FAR but
not a specific code, this is something we often run into with projects in the City of Aspen.
Because we are not using the 1990 Code language to calculate FAR which would be more
advantageous, and we are using the current code to restrict the Calculation of FAR then TDR's as
part of that code should be allowed. Since we do not seem to be mixing land use codes, then we
would seem not to be setting the stage for a legal president for further “cherry picking” of codes,
which staff understandably would like to prevent.
The underlying zoning for this project is R-6 which would typically allow for a TDR to be
extinguished on each of these lots as a receiver site. See below excerpt from R-6
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished,
pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an
additional two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on
the parcel, excluding accessory dwelling units and carriage houses, shall be eligible
for one (1) floor area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one (1) historic
TDR. No more than one (1) floor area increase shall be allowed per residence......
Looking at the referenced 26.535, Transferable Development Rights
26.535.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the preservation of historic landmarks, those
properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and
those properties identified on the Aspen Modern Map, within the City by permitting those
property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor
P177
VIII.b
area to be developed on a different property within the City. The program enables standard
market forces and the demand for residential floor area, to accomplish a community goal of
preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment.
The addition to home at 360 Lake supports the TDR program and in turn the preservation of small
scale historic structures by providing a place for these TDR's to land. This is exactly the scenario
described in the purpose of the TDR section of the code, giving TDR's the much needed value
they require to provide the appropriate intensive to maintain small scale historic integrity.
Looking at a typical Receiver Site in the code cited below you can see that typically being within
the zone district is enough to qualify a site for receivership.
Receiving Sites shall include all properties in the City of Aspen permitted additional
development rights for extinguishment of a Historic TDR is Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. A
property may also be designated as a Receiving Site through adoption of a Final PUD
Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. The allowable development extinguishment
of a Historic TDR Certificate varies depending upon the zone district of the Receiving Site
and the use of the land. Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, describes the development
allowance for each Historic TDR Certificate extinguished.
The neighboring lots in this R-6 area would be typically be allowed to receive a TDR without
public hearing or notice. However concerning the Erdman Lots, Lot 1 specifically, due to its
relationship to the Hallam Lake Bluff and its existing condition of being far from conformance with
the Bluff Review Criteria, has had to undergo the Hallam Lake Bluff Review by P&Z. Typically the
use of a TDR is not reviewed nor publicly noticed, but by chance in this case the proposed
structure on Lot 1 adjacent to the bluff has been through the P&Z process which represented the
residence as it would be if the TDR were approved. P&Z unanimously approved this project with
no negative comment from the public. This is not to say that they reviewed the TDR specifically,
however, the mass and scale of the building including the TDR's contribution has been evaluated,
and has allowed the public for comment. I have attached P&Z presentation for your benefit.
I understand staff's reluctance to support this proposal as it is not specifically allowed for in the
code, which is why it has come in front of counsel in the first place. Baring any negative comment
during the hearing on July 22nd the applicant requests that this Counsel approve the ordinance
modifying ordinance 66 to allow for Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Erdman Lot Split to be TDR receiver
sites. As the design of the more contentious of the possible structures has been through public
review (Hallam Lake Bluff Review), it would seem that the mass and scale issues that the
additional FAR granted by the use of a TDR have been addressed and would have no negative
impact on the community.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Steev Wilson on behalf of the owners of 360 Lake Ave
P178
VIII.b
Erdman Partnership Lot Split Subdivision Amendment
Written Description
The Erdman Partnership Lot Split (Bk. 25, Pg. 42) was approved in 1990 via City Council Ordinance 66,
Series of 1990. The Ordinance specifies a maximum floor area for each lot: Lot 1: 4,468 square feet and Lot 2:
3,449 square feet. The underlying zoning for this project is R-6 which would typically allow for a TDR to be
extinguished on each structure of each of these lots as a receiver site. See below excerpt from R-6
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional two hundred and fifty
(250) square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding accessory dwelling units
and carriage houses, shall be eligible for one (1) floor area increase in exchange for the
extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. No more than one (1) floor area increase shall be allowed
per residence......
The ordinances controlling TDR's as listed in the code are: Ord. 54-2003, §§4, 5; Ord. No. 28-2010, §3. These
ordinances were not in affect in 1990 when the original lot split was conducted and thus could not be allowed for
in the original subdivision agreement. The intent of the amendment to the subdivision agreement is to allow for
Erdman Partnership Lot Split Lots 1&2 to be TDR receiver sites which would typically be allowed by the
underlying zoning of R-6. Lot 1, boarding the Hallam Lake, has an existing residence which does not conform
with the bluff review, and will contain the initial development which is generating the request for the amendment
to the subdivision. The remodel plans which have been approved by P&Z through the Hallam Lake Bluff Review
illustrated how the TDR will be used on that site. P&Z unanimously approved this project based on staff's
support and the sizable reduction of the existing structures non-conformities which impact the Hallam Lake Bluff.
We hope that you will allow this project to move forward as approved by P&Z, allowing us to amend the old
subdivision agreement to include the ability granted by the current underlying zoning to make these lots TDR
receiver sites as would be consistent with their neighbors.
P179
VIII.b
ATTACHMENT 2 –LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
APPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment
Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA
ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
Mountain View Plane
Subdivision Exemption (includes
condominiumization)
Final SPA (& SPA
Amendment)
Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Other:
Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $_________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
P180
VIII.b
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Number of bedrooms: Existing:__________Proposed:___________________
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):__________
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Access. bldg. height: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined F/R: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance Between
Buildings
Existing ________Required:__________Proposed:_____
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:___________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Variations requested: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
P181
VIII.b
P1
8
2
VI
I
I
.
b
P1
8
3
VI
I
I
.
b
P1
8
4
VI
I
I
.
b
P1
8
5
VI
I
I
.
b
P186VIII.b
P187VIII.b
P188VIII.b
P189VIII.b
P190VIII.b
P191VIII.b
P192VIII.b
P193VIII.b
P194VIII.b
P195VIII.b
P196VIII.b
P197VIII.b
P198VIII.b
P199VIII.b
P200VIII.b
P201VIII.b
P202VIII.b
ST
E
E
V
W
I
L
S
O
N
PA
R
T
N
E
R
,
A
I
A
,
L
E
E
D
A
P
PR
E
S
E
N
T
E
D
B
Y
:
MAY 21, 2013
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
P203VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P204VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P205VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P206VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P207VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P208VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P209VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P210VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P211VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P212VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P213VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P214VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P215VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P216VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P217VIII.b
HA
L
L
A
M
L
A
K
E
B
L
U
F
F
R
E
V
I
E
W
36
0
L
A
K
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MAY 21, 2013 P218VIII.b
1
MemorandumMemorandumMemorandumMemorandum
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: July 15, 2013
RE: Increase in maximum fines for ordinance violations
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COUNCIL REQUEST:
The attached ordinance is before the Council for public hearing. It was read and approved on first
reading July 8, 2013. Adoption of the ordinance will increase the maximum fine for City of Aspen
municipal ordinance violations from $1000 to $2650, with an annual cost of living increase, the
same change that was enacted in the 2013 legislative session for Colorado’s statutory
municipalities.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Aspen, as a home rule municipality, has the ability to set its own fines and penalties for
violation of municipal ordinance violations, pursuant to Article XX, sec. 6 of the Colorado
Constitution. The current municipal code imposes the same limits that have been in effect for
statutory municipalities since at least 1991, a maximum $1000.00 fine and/or up to one year in jail.
This year, the state legislature passed House Bill 1060, copy attached, which amends C.R.S. §13-
10-113, to increase the maximum fine to $2650.00, with an annual cost of living adjustment.
Because Aspen as a home rule city is not bound by the state limitations, this statute will not apply to
Aspen’s ordinance violations automatically. The proposed changes to our municipal code, shown in
red below, will incorporate this new limit. Judge Brooke Peterson has been consulted about the
change in state law and would like for Aspen to have the ability to impose the same maximum fine
for its ordinance violations as statutory municipalities now have. The Judge has only rarely
imposed the maximum fine that currently exists, but the requested change would give the City
Attorney’s Office the ability to request such a fine in an appropriate case and would authorize the
Judge to impose it, if and when an appropriate case might ever arise. The decision on its use is for
the Judge to make.
The first code section, 1.04.080, is the general penalty provision for violation of any City of Aspen
Ordinance. The second section, 24.04.020, is the penalty provision of the Model Traffic Code
P219
VIII.c
2
which the City has adopted. It currently recites the limits contained in the general penalty provision.
The suggested amendment will merely refer back to the general penalty provision.
Section 1.04.080 General penalty for violations of Code; continuing violations; default.
(a) Whenever in this Code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is made or
declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such Code or
ordinance the doing of an act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be
unlawful, and no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any such provision
of this Code or any such ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) two thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($2,650.00) or
imprisonment for a period of up to one year, or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court. Each day of any violation of this Code or of any ordinance shall
constitute a separate offense, unless otherwise provided. The limitation on municipal
court fines set forth shall be adjusted for inflation on January 1, 2014 and on January 1 of
each year thereafter; inflation means the annual percentage change in the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer price index for Denver-
Boulder, all items, all urban consumers, or its successor index.
Section 24.04.020(d)(2)
(d) Penalties. The following penalties shall apply to this Section.
(2) Every person convicted of a violation of any adopted in the ordinance codified herein
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment
not exceeding one (1) year or by both such fine and imprisonment. offense in this Section shall
be subject to the penalties set forth in Section 1.04.080 of this Code.
ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2013.
CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: _________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P220
VIII.c
1
ORDINANCE NO.29
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 1.04.080 AND SECTION 24.04.020 (D) (2) OF
THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FINE FROM
$1,000.00 TO $2,650.00 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND TO
LIMIT AND ADJUST THE MUNICIPAL COURT FINES FOR INFLATION ON
JANUARY 1, 2014 AND ON JANUARY 1 OF EACH YEAR THEREAFTER
WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 6(h) of the Colorado Constitution grants to
home rule municipalities all other powers necessary, requisite or proper for all
government and administration of its local and municipal matters, including the power to
legislate upon, provide, regulate, conduct and control the imposition, enforcement and
collection of fines and penalties for the violation of any provision of its charter, or of any
ordinance adopted in pursuance of its charter; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that the imposition of fines
and penalties for the violation of its ordinances by rule municipalities is proper exercise
of home rule authority under Article XX, sec. 6, Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently has a limitation on fines that is
the same limit that the state legislature had previously imposed on statutory
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the general assembly did during the 2013 legislative session amend
Section 13-10-113, C.R.S., authorizing municipal courts of record in statutory
municipalities to impose a fine of up to two thousand six hundred fifty dollars
P221
VIII.c
2
($2,650.00) or imprisonment for a period of up to one year, or both, upon persons
convicted of a municipal ordinance or code offense; and
WHEREAS, the general assembly did during the 2013 legislative session further
amend section 13-10-113, C.R.S., stating that the limitation on municipal court fines shall
be adjusted for inflation on January 1, 2014, and on January 1 of each year thereafter;
“inflation” means the annual percentage change in the United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for Denver-Boulder, all items,
all urban consumers, or its successor index; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Municipal Court Judge has been advised of the change in
Colorado state law and recommends that the City of Aspen should increase its maximum
fines accordingly to ensure that City of Aspen fines are consistent with those of other
municipalities in the state; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Aspen Municipal Code to
authorize imposition of a fine for municipal ordinance violations of up to two thousand
six hundred fifty dollars ($2,650.00), or imprisonment for a period of up to one year, or
both, upon persons convicted of a municipal ordinance or code offense; and to allow that
limitation on Municipal Court fines to be adjusted for inflation on January 1, 2014 and on
January 1 of each year thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Municipal Code currently provides for the $1000.00
limitation on fines in two sections, 1.04.080, General Penalty, and 24.04.020 (d)(2),
Penalties, for violations of the Model Traffic Code.
P222
VIII.c
3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Section 1.04.080 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which
section imposes a general penalty for violations of the Municipal Code, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 1.04.080. General penalty for violations of Code; continuing
violations; default.
(a) Whenever in this Code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is
made or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such
Code or ordinance the doing of an act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to
be unlawful, and no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any such
provision of this Code or any such ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding
two thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($2,650.00) or imprisonment for a period of up to
one year, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Each day of
any violation of this Code or of any ordinance shall constitute a separate offense, unless
otherwise provided. The limitation on municipal court fines set forth shall be adjusted for
inflation on January 1, 2014 and on January 1 of each year thereafter; inflation means the
annual percentage change in the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, consumer price index for Denver-Boulder, all items, all urban consumers, or its
successor index.
P223
VIII.c
4
Section 2
Section 24.04.020 (d)(2) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
which section imposes a general penalty for violations of the Model Traffic Code section
of the Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Every person convicted of a violation of any offense in this Section shall be
subject to the penalties set forth in Section 1.04.080 of this Code.
Section 3
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 repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed
and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
P224
VIII.c
5
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of July, 2013, in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of July, 2013.
___________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of July, 2013.
___________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P225
VIII.c
HOUSE BILL 13-1060
BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) McLachlan, Duran, Fields, Hullinghorst,
Labuda, Mitsch Bush, Rosenthal, Schafer;
also SENATOR(S) Newell, Nicholson, Morse.
CONCERNING RAISING THE MAXIMUM FINE THAT MAY BE ASSESSED BY A
MUNICIPAL COURT.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-10-113, amend (1)
as follows:
13-10-113. Fines and penalties. (1) (a) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
PARAGRAPH (b) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1), any person convicted of violating
a municipal ordinance in a municipal court of record may be incarcerated
for a period not to exceed one year or fined an amount not to exceed one
thousand TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY dollars, or both.
(b) (I) THE LIMITATION ON MUNICIPAL COURT FINES SET FORTH IN
PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1) SHALL BE ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION
ON JANUARY 1, 2014, AND ON JANUARY 1 OF EACH YEAR THEREAFTER.
(II) AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH (b), "INFLATION" MEANS THE
NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative
officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill
or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative
history, or the Session Laws.
________
Capital letters indicate new material added to existing statutes; dashes through words indicate
deletions from existing statutes and such material not part of act.
P227
VIII.c
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR
DENVER-BOULDER, ALL ITEMS, ALL URBAN CONSUMERS, OR ITS SUCCESSOR
INDEX.
SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 31-16-101, amend (1)
as follows:
31-16-101. Ordinance powers - penalty. (1) (a) EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (b) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1), the governing body
of each municipality has power to provide for enforcement of ordinances
adopted by it by a fine of not more than one thousand TWO THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED FIFTY dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or
by both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) (I) THE LIMITATION ON MUNICIPAL COURT FINES SET FORTH IN
PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1) SHALL BE ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION
ON JANUARY 1, 2014, AND ON JANUARY 1 OF EACH YEAR THEREAFTER.
(II) AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH (b), "INFLATION" MEANS THE
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR
DENVER-BOULDER, ALL ITEMS, ALL URBAN CONSUMERS, OR ITS SUCCESSOR
INDEX.
SECTION 3. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 13-1060
P228
VIII.c
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
________________________________________________________
Mark FerrandinoJohn P. Morse
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSEPRESIDENT OF
OF REPRESENTATIVESTHE SENATE
____________________________ ____________________________
Marilyn EddinsCindi L. Markwell
CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSESECRETARY OF
OF REPRESENTATIVESTHE SENATE
APPROVED________________________________________
_________________________________________
John W. Hickenlooper
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 13-1060
P229
VIII.c