HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20130826
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
August 26, 2013
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Recognition of Emergency Responders - CPR Save
b) Outstanding Employee Bonus Award
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) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #80, 2013 - Pump Station Reliability & Planning Report and Water
System Model Population Report
b) Resolution #81 & #82, 2013 - 2013/2014 Renewable Energy Mitigation Program
(Remp) Funding Discussion Including 2013 Green Key Grants And 2013/2014
Programs
c) Resolution #84, Series of 2013 - Contract Sweeper/Scrubber Equipment
Replacement
d) Minutes - August 12, 2013
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #35, 2013 - Code Amendments to Title 8 - Building Regulations
b) Ordinance #34, 2013 - 700 Ute Ave - Aspen Alps Subdivision/PUD
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #28, Series of 2013 - Amendment to the Erdman Partnership Lot Split
(aka 360 Lake Ave.) CONTINUE TO 10/4
b) Ordinance #30, 2013, 430 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split and
Transferable Development Rights
c) Ordinance #31, 2013, 125 W. Main Street Historic Landmark Lot Split
d) Ordinance #32, 2013 - 201 N Mill Street, Subdivision Amendment
IX. Action Items
X. Main Street Pedestrian Safety Bollard Illumination Demonstration
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting September 09, 2013
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Stick to top priorities
• Involve others in community problem solving
• Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Richard Pryor, Police Chief
THRU: Outstanding Employee Bonus Committee
RE: Outstanding Employee Bonus Award – Brian Stevens
MEETING DATE: August 26th, 2013
Police Officer Brian Stevens has been recognized by the Outstanding Employee Bonus Award
Committee for a single act of exceptional performance in a potentially emergent situation.
While off duty and with his family hiking in the Lost Man area, Brian came across a very upset
visitor, who was greatly concerned for the welfare of her spouse, as her spouse appeared to have
become lost while hiking. The visitor and her spouse were unfamiliar with the area and unused to
hiking in the mountains.
Brian immediately understood the degree to which the visitor was distressed and provided
transportation back to Aspen to see if her spouse had somehow returned to their apartment. This
was unsuccessful and the visitor became even more upset. As she wrote in a letter of thanks to
the police department:
He (Brian) intuitively picked up on my worries and did not hesitate one moment to help
me. With confidence and professionalism, he reassured me and organized a plan, (tried
his hardest to keep me calm) while sacrificing his family time to take care of me and
tend to my moments of crisis!”
Brian then called the Sheriff’s Office to notify them of the overdue hiker. Rather than leave the
visitor at her apartment to wait, and because she did not wish to be alone, Brian and his family
took her to their home where she remained until about midnight. Shortly afterwards, at about 1
am, her spouse was found safe in the Frying Pan valley, having taken a wrong turn.
The visitor went on to write of Brian:
“He is an extraordinarily giving police officer and human being! You are so fortunate to
have him represent your police department.”
Brian exhibited the ultimate in “off-duty” customer service in this situation. He demonstrated the
values of both our police department and community in caring for a person in their moment of
distress. Brian showed the human approach so valued by the police department and City of
Aspen.
P1
III.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Rick Magnuson
THRU: Richard Pryor, Police Chief
Outstanding Employee Bonus Committee
RE: Outstanding Employee Bonus Award – Dan Davis
MEETING DATE: August 26th, 2013
Aspen Police Sergeant Dan Davis has been recognized by the Outstanding Employee Bonus
Award Committee for a single act of exceptional performance in an emergency situation.
What might be considered a routine call came to the police department regarding a Miami,
Florida truck driver who had been missing for 2 days. His wife last heard from him after he had
made two deliveries in Aspen. The driver’s wife told the APD that at some point, the driver had
suffered a medical issue and visited a hospital, but it was unknown where. No hospital between
Aspen and Denver had any record of the driver receiving medical attention.
There were no indications the driver remained in the Aspen jurisdiction, however Sgt Davis felt
the case needed close attention. Sgt Davis mobilized resources across the state to search for the
truck and requested cell phone records to try determine his last known location. As a result of
Davis’ persistence the truck was eventually located by law enforcement on the Front Range. The
driver was found unconscious and unresponsive in the truck, where he had been alone and
unattended for 2 days. The driver was rescued and taken to hospital in Denver.
Sgt. Dan Davis went far beyond providing “empathetic and respectful service.” Dan understood
the potential gravity of the situation, and did not let jurisdictional boundaries impede him in
obtaining resources to aid the driver.
Dan’s attitude and approach to this incident likely saved a life. His leadership approach sets the
example for all police officers and exemplifies the mission of the police department in a
commitment to enhance the safety of all people that touch our community.
P3
III.b
RESOLUTION #
(Series of 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND MERRICK & COMPANY 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
Water System Model Population & Report and Pump Station Reliability, Planning,
& Design Report, between the City of Aspen and Merrick & Company, 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
Water System Model Population & Report and Pump Station Reliability, Planning,
& Design Report, between the City of Aspen and Merrick & Company, 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 26th day of August 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, August 26, 2013.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P5
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Will Dolan, Utilities Project Coordinator
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: July 31, 2013
MEETING DATE: August 12, 2013
RE: Wildfire Mitigation – Water System Availability Project
Funding
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council’s authorization to spend City funds on
planning and design work for two water system availability projects. Together, these projects are
one distinct component of the coordinated and multi-year wildfire mitigation program discussed
during the July 23rd work session.
BACKGROUND: During the July 23rd work session, staff came before Council seeking
funding authorization for 4 complimentary wildfire mitigation programs (see Figure 1, attached).
Authorization was granted for Year 1 funding of this project (up to $40k), but due to the
combined size of these contracts (over $25k), and the fact that they will be completed by the
same vendor (Merrick & Co.), staff needs official approval during a normal Council Meeting.
This memo pertains only to year 1 funding (planning and design work) for the “Water System
Availability” task, consisting of the two distinct parts discussed below.
DISCUSSION: The Water System Availability task aims to harden the water delivery systems
in pump zones on Red Mtn. and in the Eastwood/Knollwood neighborhoods. More generally, it
aims to increase the availability of water in the pump zones during a wildfire event. The two
component parts are as follows:
a. Aspen’s highest risk wildfire zones are located in pump zones—meaning they
require electricity for water delivery. Installing backup generation capabilities—
permanent and portable—at most of our pump stations would ensure that water
continues to flow to the hydrants and taps even in the event of a power outage.
This memo seeks authorization to complete the planning and design phases of this
project, at a cost not to exceed $22,750 without subsequent justification and
approval.
b. This task also involves populating and running a water systems model to
determine the distribution network’s variable water capacity based on various
emergency scenarios. This systems model will allow us to better manage our
water resources during wildfire events. This memo seeks authorization to
complete the aforementioned modeling at a cost not to exceed $10,000.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff is seeking authorization to spend a total of $32,750
for the planning and design phases of this Water System Availability task (originally estimated at
$42,000). Monies will come from the Water Fund, and recouped via increased pump surcharges
P6
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
over time. The implementation phase of this project will require additional funding next year
(see current estimate for Year 2 funding in Figure 1, attached).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council grant full authorization for the funds
requested.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose to only authorize one of the two component parts of
this task, despite the fact that they are complimentary.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1., Breakdown of Requested Funding (Original Proposal)
Funding
Source Task 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
General Fund Evacuation Routes $185,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ $185,000
General Fund Community Outreach &
Fuel Removal $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000
Water
(Pump Charges)Easement Fuel Breaks $15,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ $15,000
Water
(Pump Charges)Water System Availability $42,000 $188,000 ???$230,000
TOTAL:$292,000 $238,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $680,000
Funding Current
Source Task Request
General Fund Evacuation Routes $25,000
General Fund Community Outreach &
Fuel Removal $50,000
Water
(Pump Charges)Easement Fuel Breaks $15,000
Water
(Pump Charges)Water System Availability $42,000
TOTAL:$132,000
Year
Prelimary Cost Proposal Outlook
Currently Requested
P7
VI.a
P8
VI.a
P9
VI.a
P10
VI.a
P11
VI.a
P12
VI.a
P13
VI.a
P14
VI.a
P15
VI.a
P16
VI.a
P17
VI.a
P18
VI.a
P19
VI.a
P20
VI.a
P21
VI.a
P22
VI.a
P23
VI.a
P24
VI.a
P25
VI.a
P26
VI.a
P27
VI.a
P28
VI.a
P29
VI.a
P30
VI.a
P31
VI.a
P32
VI.a
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: CORE - Community Office for Resource Efficiency
Mona Newton, Executive Director
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: August 16, 2013
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2013
RE: 2013/2014 Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (Remp) Funding
Discussion Including 2013 Green Key Grants And 2013/2014
Programs
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council approval of the attached resolution as
forwarded by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) Board of Directors
recommending the expenditure of funds generated through the Renewable Energy Mitigation
Program (REMP) for identified 2013/2014 projects and programs. Discussion of the grants and
programs was held on August 5, 2013.
The CORE Board of Directors includes: George Newman (Pitkin County), Cindy Houben
(Pitkin County), Steve Casey (Holy Cross Energy), Steve Skadron (Aspen), Dave Hornbacher
(Aspen), Chris Jacobson (Snowmass Village), Stacey Patch Bernot (Carbondale), Karin Teague
(Basalt) and Bill Stirling (Energy 2000 Committee).
BACKGROUND: In January 2000 the Pitkin County Commissioners and the Aspen City
Council adopted the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) as a component of the
Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code. The program gives property owners the choice of
mitigating excessive energy use through the installation of on-site renewable energy systems, or
by paying an optional impact fee. CORE administers funds collected through REMP, providing
programs and incentives designed to address the impacts of excessive energy consumption.
Among a variety of other CORE initiatives, REMP revenues are used to fund the annual Green
Key Grant Program. Green Key Grants support government, non-profit, commercial and
residential projects located within the Roaring Fork Valley, which deliver tangible results in
energy efficiency and renewable energy generation.
According to the REMP ordinance, the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) is
responsible for developing proposals for spending funds collected through REMP. Those
proposals must be reviewed and approved by the CORE Board. Final approval of proposed
REMP expenditures is required to be by Resolution of the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners and the Aspen City Council.
P33
VI.b
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION: The projects and programs recommended for funding contribute to preserving a
vibrant, healthy, and sustainable community by improving energy efficiency or generatin g
energy using renewable resources, thereby resulting in significant reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, total annual energy savings upon completion of the recommended
2013/2014 Green Key Grant projects are estimated to exceed 1,157,435 kWh, eliminating or
avoiding approximately 691,000 lbs. of CO2e emissions per year.
REMP funding procedures require approval by both the Aspen City Council and a similar
resolution by Pitkin County Commissioners. The attached Resolution details the projects and
programs recommended for REMP funding by the CORE Board of Directors for a combined
total of $1,037,285 in 2013/2014 expenditures. The recommended 2013/2014 Green Key Grant
expenditures total approximately $472,000. In addition, the CORE Board recommends approval
of $400,000 in REMP funds to accomplish the following programming: Community Grants
($50,000), Design Assistance Grants ($50,000), Low-to-Moderate Income Grant Program
($100,000) the Big Buildings Efficiency Challenge ($200,000) and $165,285 to support the
program delivery costs for Green Key Grants, Community Grants and Design Assistance Grants.
2013 Green Key Grants
The Green Key Grant requests were first reviewed and evaluated by the Citizens Grant Review
Committee, using a set of criteria adopted by the CORE Board of Directors. The Committee’s
recommendations were then forwarded to the CORE Board of Directors who discussed and
concurred with most of the recommendations and revised some. Please refer to the attached
DRAFT Resolution for detailed descriptions of the 2013 Green Key Grant projects
recommended for funding from the REMP Fund. Furthermore, the 2013 Green Key Grant
applications can be viewed in full at the following link: http://aspencore.org/2013-green-key-
grant-submittals/ (Access Password: GreenKey).
2013/2014 REMP Programs
CORE has been surveying the landscape of programs available to increase adopti on of energy
efficiency and renewable energy across all sectors. CORE and our partners serve the residential
market and small commercial market with rebates and technical assistance through a variety of
programs. For 2013/2014, CORE’s Appliance and Solar Rebate Programs are proposed to be
funded and administered under the Energy Smart Program, which is presented for consideration
under a separate discussion item on this work session agenda.
In addition to continuing to offer Community Grants and Design Assistance Grants, one new
program would expand Energy Smart to serve low-to-moderate income homeowners while
another would address the challenges and opportunities in improving energy efficiency in larger
commercial and residential buildings, both public and private. CORE has staff with the technical
capability to deliver these programs, and the capacity to add the two new programs.
Community Grants (existing program)
Community Grants aim to support a broad spectrum of environmental and energy projects
with tangible results for the Roaring Fork Valley. The aims of Community Grants are to
reduce energy consumption, reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, offset greenhouse
gases, promote the use of renewable energy, educate the community on energy issues, and
develop more sustainable energy technologies. Community Grants range from $1,000 –
$10,000 and are awarded at the discretion of CORE’s Executive Director.
P34
VI.b
Page 3 of 4
Design Assistance Grants (existing program)
The Design Assistance Grant is made available to aid commercial and institutional
development projects in implementing integrative efficient design. This grant serves the
purpose of promoting new technology and innovation during the design phase of new
building construction. These grants are also awarded on the approval of CORE’s Executive
Director. Energy Design Assistance grants range from $1,000 - $15,000.
Low-to-Moderate Income Grant Program (proposed new program)
We have received input from the Pitkin County Health and Human Services Department that
while rebates incent many to implement energy efficiency, there are also many homeowners
who can’t afford do any efficiency work on their homes. To serve those households, we
propose to create a grant program that will be offered to households whose incomes are
above 200% of poverty, and lower than the median income. The grant will provide up to
$2,500 in energy efficiency work to a homeowner. Our request for this program is a total of
$100,000.
CORE staff will develop the program and be responsible for implementing it; it will mimic
the state weatherization program offered to families 200% of poverty or lower. Staff will
coordinate assessments that will be performed by the trained analysts, work will be
performed by trained contractors and overseen and inspected by CORE staff. CORE would
pay contractors directly for the work performed on each home. The homeowner would
receive education from CORE staff about home energy management, as education combined
with measures will achieve the greatest savings. Energy consumption and savings would be
tracked by CORE and reported to the homeowner and the CORE Board annually. As this is a
new program, we will report back to the CORE Board after six months of implementation
about the success and challenges of this program.
Big Buildings Efficiency Challenge (proposed new program)
Typically, the commercial sector represents approximately 50% of the energy consumption
in buildings. While CORE offers incentives to the commercial sector, we see an opportunity
to leverage the impact of our resources by offering rebates to owners of larger buildings,
which include public and private buildings and multifamily complexes. This program would
enable CORE to work directly with building owners and operators to help them move ahead
with efficiency projects. Our request for this program is $200,000. President Obama
announced the Better Buildings Challenge focusing on helping American commercial and
industrial buildings become 20% more energy efficient by 2020 and we will strive to attain
the goal with this program. He has also announced the intention to expand the program to
multifamily housing, which is what CORE is proposing to do as part of the big buildings
program.
For each of the new programs we are recommending, specific guidelines and eligibility standards
are yet to be determined. CORE staff will work closely with our partners to establish program
parameters that will allow us to reach targets with the greatest need and the greatest opportunity
for improvement.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Funds collected through REMP will be used to fund the
projects and programs, which will have no financial impact on the City’s General Fund.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: CORE will return to Council on August 26 with an updated
memo and resolution based on today’s discussion for approval.
P35
VI.b
Page 4 of 4
ALTERNATIVES: If Council chooses not to approve the resolution the REMP funds would
stay in the account and would be available for future renewable energy projects.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution No. 81 - 2013 - Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP)
Attachment B: Resolution No. 82 – 2013 – Green Key Grant Funds
P36
VI.b
RESOLUTION NO. 81
Series of 2013
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS GENERATED THROUGH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY
MITIGATION PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1999, City Council approved Ordinance No. 55
Adopting the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code allows that funds collected
through the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) be spent in accordance with a
joint resolution passed by the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on July 11, 2013, the Board of Directors of the
Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) approved the REMP spending proposals
described as follows and in the following amounts:
I. Green Key Grants:
2013 Green Key Grant Projects:
1. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies $9,818
2. Aspen Skiing Company $10,000
3. City of Aspen - ARC $50,000
4. City of Aspen - Burlingame $150,000
5. City of Aspen – Cozy Point Ranch $62,891
6. Colorado Rocky Mountain School $10,357
7. First Methodist Church - Insulation $19,500
8. First Methodist Church – Solar PV $18,000
9. GarCo Public Library District – Carbondale Solar PV $25,000
10. Mountain Rescue Aspen $75,000
11. Roaring Fork Conservancy $15,000
12. Sopris Elementary/Mtn. Valley Dev. Services $7,211
13. We-Cycle $19,330
Total: $472,107
P37
VI.b
WHEREAS the Community Office for Resource Efficiency has requested funding
from the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) for the following programs, and
have been approved by the Board of Directors Community Office for Resource Efficiency:
Programs supported by CORE Board of Directors for funding from REMP in the
following amounts:
1. Community Grants - $50,000: These grants support smaller projects (ranging from
$1,000-$10,000) throughout the year for community-based resource and energy
saving projects in lieu of the annual Green Key Grants, which typically fund larger
projects.
2. Design Assistance Grants - $50,000: These funds support innovation and
integrative energy efficient design for new construction projects.
3. Low-to-Moderate Income Grant Program - $100,000: These funds will be used to
improve the energy efficiency of homes owned by families whose incomes exceed the
qualifications for the state’s weatherization program, but are below 400% of poverty
level. Qualifying homeowners will be eligible for a grant up to $2,500 for energy
assessments, insulation, and high-efficiency refrigerators, hot water heaters, furnaces
and/or boilers.
4. Big Buildings Efficiency Challenge – $200,000: Public- and private-sector
buildings and multi-family complexes will be targeted with this program to provide
technical assistance and rebates to upgrade the efficiency of these buildings. CORE
will also work with the building industry to provide incentives to conduct deep
retrofits of buildings during remodeling.
WHEREAS the Community Office for Resource Efficiency has requested $165,285 in
funding from the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) for administrative and
program delivery to support the program delivery costs for Green Key Grants, Community
Grants and Design Assistance Grants; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen finds that the funding requests are
appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO that:
1. The following REMP funding is approved:
a. the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) is authorized to
spend $472,107 for the Green Key projects listed above;
b. the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) is authorized to
spend $400,000 for the specific programs listed above; and
P38
VI.b
c. the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) is authorized to
spend $165,285 for program delivery.
2. This funding approval is effective upon a similar funding approval by the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the
_____ day of _________, 2013.
__________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
__________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P39
VI.b
RESOLUTION NO. 82
Series of 2013
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING RE-ALLOCATION OF UNSPENT GREEN KEY GRANT FUNDS TO
THE ENERGY SMART PROGRAM AND REBATES FROM SEPTERMBER 1, 2013
TO DECEMBER 31, 2015.
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1999, City Council approved Ordinance No. 55
Adopting the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code allows that the funds be
spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin
County Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Board of Trustees for the
Community Office for Resource Efficiency approved this spending proposal, and
WHEREAS, proposals that met the screening criteria of housing, cost-
effectiveness, public visibility and education, environmental benefits, energy efficiency,
leverage, unique opportunity, new technologies and green design and were awarded
funding, but will not spend the funding as allocated,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
That $959,000.12 of unspent Green Key Grant Funds shall be re-allocated from the
previously awarded grants to continue the Energy Smart Program to be offered to
residents and businesses in CORE’s service area from September 1, 2013-2015.
P41
VI.b
The re-allocated funds will be used to provide rebate monies to the commercial
and residential sectors, for energy efficiency measures and renewable energy systems.
These funds will also be used to support the program delivery services provided by the
Energy Smart staff to ensure that the rebates are utilized. The funds will support
advertising, education and program outreach, rebate administration, energy and carbon
savings analysis, technical assistance and coaching to homeowners and business owners.
That the City Council of Aspen hereby approves this Resolution and does hereby
authorize the Mayor of City Manager to execute this resolution on behalf of Aspen.
This resolution is conditioned upon the approval of a similar resolution by the
Pitkin County Commissioners.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the _____ day of _________, 2013.
__________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
__________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P42
VI.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager
DATE: August 8th 2013
RE: Contract Approval for Sweeper/Scrubber for Parking Department
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends approval of the contract with Intermountain
Sweeper Company in the amount of $49,145 to replace the current Tennant sweeper scrubber for
the City of Aspen Parking Department.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This Sweeper /Scrubber was to be replaced in 2012, Staff
opted to push this purchase back to 2013. This replacement was approved in the 2012 Asset
replacement plan which was approved by Council as part of the 2012 Budget.
DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Parking Department currently has one 2001 Tennant Model
8410 sweeper/scrubber for use in the parking garage that is due for replacement, along with a
1991 Tennant model 255 II sweeper that was occasionally used as a backup machine. Staff
recommends using both of these older sweepers as trade ins for a new machine to fulfill the
sweeping and scrubbing needs in the parking garage. Staff went out to bid and Intermountain
was the lowest responsive bidder with the Power Boss model TSS-90. This machine will have
the ability to sweep a 62 inch path and a scrubbing path of 48 inches. The hopper and solution
tanks are larger than the older machine which will allow staff to spend more time sweeping and
scrubbing and less time dumping. It will be equipped with a vacuum system along with dust
filters to keep the dust and debris in the hopper while sweeping, and it can sweep and scrub all in
one path. This machine will be put on a 10-year replacement cycle and will be evaluated for
replacement at that time.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The budget amount for this purchase is $50,000. The bid
amount from Intermountain Sweeper Company is $49,145 after trade-in.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Power Boss Sweeper/Scrubber will have a 4 cylinder
gas engine with catalyst mufflers for low emissions. It is also equipped with the Aqua-Stop
system which releases the water for scrubbing through a pump system, providing greater control
of water usage versus a gravity system which can reduce the amount of water used by up to 50%.
P43
VI.c
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the contract approval with Intermountain
Sweeper Company for the purchase of a Power Boss model TSS-90 sweeper/scrubber for the
amount of $49,145.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P44
VI.c
RESOLUTION #84
(Series of 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND INTERMOUNTAIN SWEEPER COMPANY 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
Power Boss TSS-90HC Scrubber/Sweeper for the Parking Garage, between the
City of Aspen and Intermountain Sweeper Company, 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 Power Boss TSS-90HC Scrubber/Sweeper for the Parking Garage, between the
City of Aspen and Intermountain Sweeper Company, 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 26th day of August 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, August 26, 2013.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P45
VI.c
P47
VI.c
P48
VI.c
P49
VI.c
P50
VI.c
P51
VI.c
Exhibit A Supply Procurement Agreement
P52
VI.c
P53
VI.c
Exhibit B Supply Procurement Agreement
Warranty
P54
VI.c
P55
VI.c
P56
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
1
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3
Request to Use Wagner Park and Fee Waiver - Aspen Skiing Company - The Meeting.... 4
Board Appointments ............................................................................................................ 4
Resolution #76, 2013 - Appointing Burlingame Housing Inc. Board Members ................. 4
Resolution #75, 2013 - Ruedi Reservoir Water Acquisition ............................................... 4
Resolution #78, 2013 - Contract Sopris Engineering - Burlingame Phase IIA(i) Condo
Mapping Services ........................................................................................................................ 4
Delta Airlines Contribution.................................................................................................. 4
Resolution #79, 2013 - Burlingame Phase II Construction Contract Change Orders ......... 4
Resolution #77, 2013 - Data Center contract with PCL Construction Services ................. 4
Minutes - July 22, 2013 ....................................................................................................... 4
ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2013 – 201 N. Mill Street Subdivision Amendment.................. 4
ORDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2013 – 300 W. Main Subdivision Amendment ......................... 5
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2013 – 507 Gillespie – Establishment of TDRs......................... 6
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2013 – 420 E. Hyman Subdivision Review ............................... 6
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2013 – S. Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD.................................. 8
P57
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
2
Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins,
Daily and Romero present.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Peter Fornell asked where the proposal for affordable cash-in-lieu is. Steve Barwick, city
manager, said he doesn’t have a time line but will find out. Councilman Frisch said this will be
one of the top ten goals discussed at the Council retreat.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Romero said the Aspen Ducky Derby was well received and looks like it
was a good funding raising event.
2. Councilman Romero noted Saturday night was a Heritage dinner in Snowmass
celebrating 40 years as a community.
3. Councilman Romero told Council he attended a Hospice of the Valley fund raising
dinner; this is an important cause in the community.
4. Councilwoman Mullins said August 3rd there was a volunteer wetland planting day at the
John Denver sanctuary and 50 volunteers planted over wetland 1000 plants and 250 trees and
shrubs. This was sponsored by Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers, the city and the Roaring Fork
Conservancy and is part of the storm water drainage plan.
5. Councilwoman Mullins said the Aspen Historical Society held an Ice Cream social,
which was a nice event; the Science Center has an event in Paepcke Park with an impressive
group of exhibitors and Art Aspen with many modern art works was at the Ice Garden.
6. Councilman Frisch agreed the Science Center held a great event. Mayor Skadron said
everyone should see Les Miz put on by Theatre Aspen; it is a great performance.
7. Mayor Skadron congratulated Rotary for the successful Ducky Derby.
8. Mayor Skadron commended the participants in the recent athletic event, the Power of
Four, and the bike and the Aspen Triathlon.
9. Councilwoman Mullins reported on the Ruedi Water and Power Authority meeting; they
discussed the aquatic nuisance species program, which is going well; there is some evidence that
the low winter flows are adversely affecting the fish. The Roaring Fork Conservancy proposed a
study in order to establish baselines. There was a report on the grant to CWCB for the
conservation plan.
10. Councilwoman Mullins said she attended the Health and Human Services POD; at the
end of the meeting, each community non-profit reported on what is happening with their agency.
P58
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
3
11. Councilman Romero said the Pro Challenge bike race was discussed at the ACRA board
meeting, going over the details, parking, traffic management and logistics.
12. Mayor Skadron said exciting at RFTA is the completion and inauguration of the new bus
rapid transit system; the buses will be quieter and cleaner and will run on compressed natural
gas. The project is funded by a federal grant and by RFTA. The project will be delivered on
time and on budget.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Romero said he would like to discuss Wagner Park and Resolution #79, Burlingame
change orders.
Request to use Wagner Park and Fee Waiver. Buck Erickson, Aspen Ski company, told Council
in the past this event has been held at Wheeler Opera House and Filmfest has always had first
dibs on the Wheeler. Erickson said this year the Wheeler will be closed. The Ski Company
picked their dates, which happens to be the same as filmfest event. Erickson said the Ski
company has been discussing this with Filmfest and will promote both events. Councilman
Romero said it does not seem like there would be a lot of overlap in audiences and cross
marketing could be constructive. Councilman Frisch said he supports this event and the fee
waiver. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the requested $500 will cover staff’s efforts. Stephen
Ellsperman, park department, said staff is supportive of this proposal because it is a community
event and the impact to the park is minimal and it is a onetime event. Councilman Daily said the
detail of mutual support between the two organizations will be important. Kip Hubbard,
Filmfest, told Council their films will take place at both the Isis and Paepcke and is scheduled for
September 25 to 29.
Resolution #79, 2013 – Burlingame II change orders. Councilman Romero said he took this off
the consent agenda because he wanted to point out the excellence of the management for this
item. It is well run, the memorandum and the supporting document are clear and well
documented. Councilman Romero stated he appreciates how this work was organized.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman
Romero. The consent calendar is:
P59
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
4
• Request to Use Wagner Park and Fee Waiver - Aspen Skiing Company - The Meeting
• Board Appointments
Historic Preservation Commission John Whipple – Regular
Jim DeFrancia – Alternate
Liquor License Authority Jeff Wertz – Regular
Amos Underwood – Alternate
Election Commission Bob Leatherman; David Hyman
Commercial Core & Lodging Fred Ayarza
Kids First Advisory Committee Carolyn Fields
• Resolution #76, 2013 - Appointing Burlingame Housing Inc. Board Members
• Resolution #75, 2013 - Ruedi Reservoir Water Acquisition
• Resolution #78, 2013 - Contract Sopris Engineering - Burlingame Phase IIA(i) Condo Mapping
Services
• Delta Airlines Contribution
• Resolution #79, 2013 - Burlingame Phase II Construction Contract Change Orders
• Resolution #77, 2013 - Data Center contract with PCL Construction Services
• Minutes - July 22, 2013
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2013 – 201 N. Mill Street Subdivision Amendment
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, said this is a request to amend an existing
approval from 2008 which granted redevelopment, an increase in commercial office space, 5 free
market and 5 affordable housing units, the approvals are valid until 2015. The request is to
permit a reconfiguration by reducing the commercial office space, lower the number of free
market and of affordable housing units to 4 each. The off street parking will be reconfigured.
Councilman Romero said Joe Krabacher owns a small portion of this project and Krabacher
represents Councilman Romero in some matters.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the affordable housing categories and whether there was any
negotiating with the categories. Ms. Phelan said the code requirement is for category 4 or lower;
the original ordinance proposed a mix in the categories. Councilwoman Mullins said she would
like to see graphics of building heights and how it compares to adjacent properties. Ms. Phelan
said staff favors the design. Mayor Skadron said for second reading he would like some
explanation about why this project has come back to Council twice.
P60
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
5
Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #32, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 32
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS
SUBDIVISION-OTHER AMENDMENT, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW-
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL-
OTHER AMENDMENT FOR 201 NORTH MILL STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING CONDOMINIUM, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #32, Series of 2013 on first reading; seconded
by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins,
yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
(Councilman Romero left the Council meeting).
ORDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2013 – 300 W. Main Subdivision Amendment
Justin Barker, community development department, told Council this is a request to remove a
condition of approval from a 1988 ordinance. This property contains a historic cabin and a
residential addition. In 1988 there was the cabin and the owners were converting the cabin to a
restaurant and adding a residential addition by historic designation and conditional use. Council
had concerns over employee mitigation for the restaurant use and they placed a condition on the
historic designation, restricting occupancy as an accessory to the restaurant use. The restaurant
has not been in operation for over 20 years and the request is to remove the condition from the
historic designation.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #33, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman
Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 33
(Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 21 (SERIES OF 1988) TO REMOVE A CONDITION OF
SAID ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 W. MAIN STREET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R AND S, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
P61
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
6
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2013 – 507 Gillespie – Establishment of TDRs
Justin Barker, community development department, reminded Council this request is to establish
two transferrable development rights which would reduce the allowable floor area by 500 square
feet. Barker said the purpose of TDRs is to encourage historic preservation by relieving
development pressure. This lot was created from a lot split and is a 4,572 square foot vacant lot
with a floor area of 2,840 square feet. Severing two TDRs would leave a floor area of 2,340
square feet. Barker pointed out staff finds this to meet the review criteria.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed
the public hearing.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2013, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes;
Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2013 – 420 E. Hyman Subdivision Review
Councilwoman Mullins recused herself having reviewed this on HPC.
Sara Adams, community development department, said this building has retail uses and the
proposal is to demolish that building and replace it with a three-story mixed used building with
commercial uses in the basement, first and second floors, 3 affordable housing units on the
second and third floors, and one free market unit on the second and third floor. This project is
being reviewed under the previous land use code which allowed for free market residential and
building heights of 38’ to 42’; this is proposed at 38’.
Ms. Adams reminded Council HPC granted conceptual review, which was called up by Council
regarding mass and scale and sent back to HPC. The approval was upheld by HPC. P&Z
granted growth management approval and recommended in favor of subdivision. HPC will have
final commercial design review after the project is approved by Council. Ms. Adams pointed out
subdivision criteria (a) addresses compatibility with neighborhood context, which HPC looks at
and the details happen after subdivision review during final HPC review. Ms. Adams told
Council the applicant is prepared to show design direction for final design as there have been
concerns voiced about design and staff included a condition in the ordinance stating Council has
the ability to call up HPC’s final design decision. Staff is recommending approval of this
ordinance as meeting the criteria in the land use code.
Charles Cunniffe, representing the applicant, said the streetscape shows this building is not
bigger than the surrounding buildings and the applicants believe it is compatible. Cunniffe said
the design is not meant to be imitative of the past; this building was built in the 1960’s and is not
P62
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
7
a historic building and is in need of repair. Cunniffe noted glass is only a small percentage of the
entire building; the mall façade, by being more transparent, gives more substance to the adjacent
buildings and background architecture. The third story is stepped back the same as the building
next to it and is not as high. The buildings across the mall are tall and some are four-story.
Councilman Daily stated he appreciates the new design technology this building represents and
is glad HPC will have final design review. This building sits to the west of historically
designated buildings and all buildings going west are not historically designated. Mayor
Skadron asked what assurances there are that this building will not stick out and be out of place.
Cunniffe said this building matches the heights, articulations, widths of bays and shapes of the
buildings around it.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. Councilman Frisch stated he is supportive of going
with the outlined process. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Mayor Skadron stated the applicant is requesting subdivision approval under the previous land
use code which approval is contingent upon general compliance with the review standards which
speaks to consistency or character of the existing land uses in the area as well as adversely
affecting future development. This application results in a mixed use building including a
penthouse and commercial uses; there is a residential component on the property. Mayor
Skadron noted recent evidence of residences in the commercial core and complaints about
businesses in the commercial core that have existed prior to these residences demonstrates a lack
of compatibility with residential in the commercial core. This building is in the commercial
core, which is an important part of Aspen’s commercial economy – restaurants, bars and
entertainment – are part of that commercial success. Mayor Skadron noted allowable uses in the
commercial core include restaurants and nightclubs. Mayor Skadron stated a penthouse in a
mixed use building is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and this application
fails to satisfy criterion # 2 – the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the area and #3 – the proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas and he will vote against the project.
Councilman Daily stated he shares the concerns about the impact free market condominiums are
having on vitality in the downtown core. Councilman Daily stated this has become a larger
problem in the last few months. Councilman Daily said Council needs to take that into
consideration before a final vote on this project. Councilman Daily asked if the applicant has
suggestions that might address this concern. Cunniffe told Council the applicant intends to live
in this space. This could be addressed in a sales agreement. Cunniffe said it is healthy for a
community to have people living in town and a few people have complained and it is affecting
the entire community. Cunniffe stated living in town comes with certain expectations and that
should be why people chose to live in town. Councilman Daily suggested the applicant bring to
Council a concrete proposal to address this issue.
Councilman Frisch said a concern with this is the owner of the building keeping the ground
floors vacant and could there be a covenant to prevent that. Cunniffe suggested a covenant that
all existing uses within the building are currently permitted and that the owner will do nothing to
prohibit or limit those uses. Jim True, city attorney, said covenants can be problematic. True
said this needs to be better thought out if the project is going forward. True pointed out there are
only 3 Councilmembers present and it takes 3 positive votes to adopt an ordinance. Cunniffe
pointed out this is a replacement building with the same uses; it is not a new development.
P63
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
8
Cunniffe said there are 3 residences there now; however, they are not deed restricted. The
proposal is for 3 deed restricted units, which will be a community benefit over to what exists
there now.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #27, Series of 2013, to September 9; seconded
by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Daily said he would like these covenants embodied as part of the approving
ordinance, not just private covenants. True agreed.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2013 – S. Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, reminded Council this request is to amend
the existing approved townhome development plan from 31 multi-family - 14 free market and 17
affordable housing units, to rearrange the site plan, to reduce the number of affordable housing
units on site and to change some architecture. At the last hearing, Council asked the applicant to
look at a portion of the project being short term rental. The applicant proposes a fourth level of
affordable housing on parcel 1, which is proposed for affordable housing. The fourth level
would have 4 one-bedroom units for a total of 14 affordable units on site, housing 25.5
employees. The existing approval has 17 units housing 46 employees. Ms. Phelan told Council
parcel 1 has a private deed restriction limiting the height of development and there is no timeline
of when the restriction would be lifted. Ms. Phelan stated staff does not support this iteration;
throughout the process, staff has requested more density and a design that better relates to the
town grid. This site is close to downtown, to transit, more housing on site will contribute to a
more active site. Ms. Phelan said the existing entitlement is a better solution than removing
density from the site.
David Parker, representing the applicant, told Council after the last meeting where Council asked
the applicant to look at more density on site, they spent the last month working on that. Parker
said the existing entitlement was approved in 2003, and at the request of the city applicants spent
7 years trying to get a hotel approved for this site. Parker showed some of the designs including
height of up to 70’. The current owners purchased the site in 2010 with the goal of developing a
hotel. The applicants tried again to design a hotel on this site with free market to pay for the
hotel. Parker said the hotel needs to be big with enough free market and the project just became
too large and still not enough density. Any hotel operator has stated the need to have enough
rooms to make enough money in the peak seasons to carry the off seasons.
Parker said the applicants then came back to the city with a revised townhome approval which
had been reviewed and approved by APCHA and by P&Z. The Council requested the applicants
look at a hotel one more time. Parker said after working on that proposal and meeting with
staff, the hotel was 60’ at the bottom of the site and 76’ at the top of the site. Parker said the
applicant did not feel comfortable with a project of this size and density, returned to Council,
offered some property to the city for a lodge, and then went and looked at the townhome project
again. Parker reiterated the banks have said a certain amount of residential square footage is
needed to pay for a lodge and it has to be quality residential square footage. Lending institutes
P64
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
9
are saying the Aspen market cannot absorb the amount of real estate in the time proposed with
the prices to make the project work; and the costs are out of line with a typical hotel due to the
steepness of the site and Aspen costs as one would have to dig 60’ holes at this site; and historic
hotels occupancies do not support the hotel proposed. Parker said all that convinced the
applicants to agree this is not the best hotel site in town. Parker reminded Council this applicant
made 3 attempts to make a hotel work on this site.
Parker showed the approved townhouse proposal with a solid wall of units. This design was
approved before the Lift One project, which has moved 40’ into the right-of-way changing the
dynamics of the neighborhood. Parker said the applicants are convinced the design can be
improved; the proposal does not increase the number of units or increase the FAR. This design
respects the approval of Lift One and the parking on the streets; the design pulls buildings away
from the neighbors, lower some heights and adds some open space. Parker noted they worked
with the design objectives and guidelines by articulating the buildings, stepping the buildings in
height, respecting natural contours and scenic vistas with visual connections in between
buildings. Parker said these guidelines do not exist in the approved plan. The revised plan has
articulated buildings, it protects open views and tries to address the concerns of the fire
department.
Parker noted the approved plan flattens the site and pushes a retaining wall to Juan street and to
the uphill side of the street. The proposed plan moves the retaining to the middle of the site.
Parker showed slides of the approved plan at Juan street to come up with street level
streetscapes. Parker showed a slide with improved views from the bottom of the site. Parker
noted the guidelines state views through a site are a priority and the approved plan has no views
through the site; there is a wall of buildings. The revised plan breaks up the buildings. Parker
brought up the AACP which notes the city should encourage infill projects that integrate more
housing into the existing urban area. Parker said they are adding residences not all in one place.
AACP encourages maintaining community character and quality of life, protecting scenic views
of the mountains.
Parker said this amended plan is re-evaluating impacts from the approved plan with the goal of
maintaining community character and managing the impacts of the approved plan. Parker told
Council all the approved housing will be in town, will be east of the S-curves and within walking
distance of downtown. Parker said the applicant feel shoehorning the units on site compromises
the goals by sacrificing the community character and the quality of life for existing residents and
future residents. Parker stated the proposal does not compromise consistency with the AACP;
moving some of the density to another site emphasizes the quality and livability of affordable
housing.
Parker said the required affordable housing for the approved project was 13.5 employees on site
and the approved plan had 46 employees on site. Parker reiterated there are better sites in town
to put affordable housing. Parker told Council the applicants did look at ways to get more
density on the site and looked at affordable housing on the Barbee parcel. Parker said the
restriction on that parcel runs as long as Mary Barbee owns her parcel. Parker told Council the
applicants are willing to put money in escrow to add another floor of affordable housing on that
site. Parker said the architects have found a way to put another floor on that parcel and still
honor the deed restriction which will add 4 units, 7 FTEs. Parker said even without the
additional 4 units, the proposed plan exceeds the required amount of affordable housing by 35%
P65
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
10
and the applicants are not asking for a reduction in affordable housing, just the ability to locate it
elsewhere in town.
Councilman Daily asked if there is an independent evaluation of the site that would help
understand all the options. Bendon said there was a lot of physical planning explored as part of
COWOP I including vacating the street and having a ski lift in the center of the property.
Bendon said the property sets itself up for lots of opportunities; the project has struggled with
economics, trying to achieve what the investors expect and what is proposed. Parker told
Council he has met with the owner of Lift One across the street to see if something could be
designed together. Parker noted this site in not in the commercial core, it is in shadow after 2
p.m. so there are constraints that are not just economic. Councilman Daily said to him this
appears a under utilization of one of the last remaining sites in Aspen; it is a constrained site with
issues. There is a townhome approval for the site; Councilman Daily said he does not favor
moving density off site. The affordable housing will add to the vitality of the site on a year
round basis. Ms. Phelan said this is a large 2 acre site and there is room to come up with
alternative designs that may not have been presented. Bendon said some of the objections about
the approved plan can be addressed within the existing approval and it is worth having that
conversation.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
Denis Murray, Trainor’s Landing, said in his opinion, this approved project is better than others
proposed for this site. Murray said most of the impacts of this project are on Aspen street.
Murray said he prefers the approved project as more vital and the townhomes will probably be
occupied. Murray said he objects to the parking lot being on Garmisch and in the neighborhood
of Trainor’s landing. Derek Johnson, Juan street homeowners, told Council his family has lived
in Juan street for 13 years and agreed it is time something is done at the S. Aspen street site.
Johnson said this is a great location for hotels, for which it has been looked at repeatedly, and
lodging will probably not happen. Johnson the approved townhouse plan would eliminate the
side yard for the Juan street homeowners; it also adds dumpsters, electrical boxes right next to
their property that creates reduced livability. Johnson noted Council has worked over the years
to give affordable housing projects livability with open space, parking, storage, hose bibs and the
approved townhouse plan will eliminate those things for the Juan street homeowners. Johnson
urged Council to consider quality of life for the current residents. Johnson pointed out whatever
gets approved will result in moving a lot of dirt and the residents will need to know facts around
that.
Ron Lycee, Lift One, said all 31 residents agree they have been through a lot with this site the
first proposal was an 80’ foot wall at the property line. The property owners unanimously
recommend the amended plan as workable for their property.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Mullins said projects should have good utilization of space, concentrating the
built environment to the core of the city, not necessarily density for density sake. Councilwoman
Mullins said staff objects to the site plan stating it does not fit in with the prevalent urban form of
Aspen, the plan does not conform to the grid. Parker noted the community guidelines do not call
for conforming to the grid in this part of town but rather being organic. Ms. Phelan said the
P66
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
11
approved project is under the 2003 code and there is no cap on the unit size. Parker said density
on this site for the sake of density is a mistake. Councilwoman Mullins said efficient use of the
land should be kept in mind and the approved plan seems to make better use of the land.
Councilwoman Mullins said some units could be removed or moved to increase livability. The
proposed plan is not a great use of space; the open space is leftover, not enhancing the parks
system. Councilwoman Mullins said she has concerns about the circulation and egress to the
parking garage. Councilwoman Mullins said this project is out of character with the
neighborhood. Parker said with the Lift One project, this will not feel like a traditional Aspen
street but will feel more like a brownstone street. Parker said the re-design on the east side was
done to open up the street and to articulate the buildings. Parker said the 2003 design was done
before the project to the east was approved. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to see
some alternative site plans before she can support a plan.
Councilman Frisch said he does not have an issue with moving the affordable housing off site.
Councilman Frisch said parts of the 2003 plan are more disruptive to the neighborhood than the
proposed plan. Parker noted it would be less expensive to build the 2003 plan; however, the
applicants are not proud of that plan. Ms. Phelan pointed out staff is supportive of changes to the
architecture and to the site plan; however, this is an entitled project and Council needs to think
about which proposal provides the best benefit for the community. Staff’s position is the 2003
site plan could be massaged to come up with plan C to keep more density and more affordable
housing on site.
Councilman Daily said the proposed plan retains the same number of free market unit and cuts
the number of FTEs on site by almost 50%. Councilman Daily stated he agrees with staff’s
evaluation that what is built on site should come closer to what was approved.
Mayor Skadron said a critical mass of local working residents sustains community and
affordable housing should be about building community. The housing policy emphasizes
developing neighborhoods not just number of units. Mayor Skadron supports staff’s position and
that through some administrative changes, the quality of life impacts on Juan street housing can
be improved. Bendon said if there is interest by the applicant to make some design changes to
the 2003 plan that would be in Council’s interest.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Ordinance #23, Series of 2013, to September 9;
seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Daily moved to go into executive session at 7:55 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-
402(b) (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions concerning litigation; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to come out of executive session at 8:55 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Daily moved to adjourn at 8:55 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
P67
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2013
12
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
P68
VI.d
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Steven Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official
THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: August 16, 2013
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2013
RE: First Reading of Ordinance #35, Series of 2013
Building and Building Regulation Amendments: Title 8, Aspen
Municipal Code.
___________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests action from Council regarding an Ordinance to
amend references to Conditional Certificate of Occupancy (CCO) and to replace with the
2009 International Code language Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO). This
change is necessary to simplify the City’s TCO process and align the related provisions
with uniform building code regulations. Second reading and the public hearing is
scheduled for September 23, 2013.
SUMMARY: The International Building and Residential Codes require a Certificate of
Occupancy be issued before a building is used or occupied. The codes also allow, in very
limited circumstances, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy be issued when a portion of
the building is safe to occupy but before all of the work covered by the permit is
complete. Those provisions will not change. The specific purpose of the amendments is
to more clearly define the criteria to be considered by the contractor, building owner and
the City for a request for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Community
Development will administer the process through a written policy and a signed
agreement. Drafts of the policy and agreement are attached.
BACKGROUND: The building department address files are littered with expired CCOs.
The responsibility for the situation lies with both the City and the development
community. The building owner is tasked with completing the specific terms of the CCO
and the City is tasked with checking each CCO to confirm the items have been
P69
VII.a
2
completed. CCOs are never issued until the building is safe to occupy; the conditions are
typically landscaping and storm water related. Yet, when the items listed on the CCO are
not satisfied by the date referenced, the CCO becomes “null and void”. These expired
CCOs create an inventory of buildings that are being used but are not fully compliant
with all city requirements. There is a pressing need to address this issue for current and
future building projects. These amendments will reduce future staff time chasing around
expired CCOs. The proposed code amendments, policy and agreement have been
discussed, drafted, redrafted, written, and rewritten again with input from review
agencies, department heads, contractors and building owners since May. Additional
open-house style outreach is planned for September 9th and September 19th, prior to the
second reading. Staff believes the proposed amendments support our community culture
and take a step forward to simplify regulation with fewer amendments, streamlined
policies, written agreements and efficient building code administration.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #35, 2013 on first
reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move the adoption of Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2013,
on first reading.”
Attachment A: Draft CO and Temporary CO Policy
Attachment B: Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Agreement
Attachment C: Current amended and proposed unamended TCO language
P70
VII.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
October, 2013
CO and
Occupancy and use of a structure
issued by the Chief Building Official.
approvals from review agencies with jurisdiction prior to requesting a final inspection from the
Building Department. Only projects passing their final inspection
Occupancy from the Chief Building Official.
The City of Aspen, in its sole discretion, may
Certificate of Occupancy. Only projects meeting the following criteria in a clear un
manner shall be considered for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
• The project does not have any pending compliance or enforcement matters
change orders, or outstanding fees.
have authorized issuance of either a Certificate of Occupancy or a Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy.
• The building and surrounding property
protection standards of the City including
International Fire Codes,
Runoff Management Plan
Ordinances in the approved p
infrastructure, completion of rough grading
entryways pedestrian ways
• The applicant is prohibited from comp
extenuating circumstances. For example, an applicant cannot implement final
landscape materials due to seasonal conditions.
• The OWNER has completed a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy agreement.
• The OWNER has posted all required completion bonds.
A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
complexities associated with construction, such as:
• Delays caused by normal
inspections, change order processing by both client, contractor and
similar predictable or unpredictable
• Missed deadlines.
• A client who relies on contractual dates that
EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920
Permit No. ________________
DRAFT
CO and Temporary CO Policy
of a structure within the City of Aspen requires a Certificate of Occupancy
issued by the Chief Building Official. Projects must obtain all final inspections and all final
approvals from review agencies with jurisdiction prior to requesting a final inspection from the
Building Department. Only projects passing their final inspections shall receive a Certificate of
Occupancy from the Chief Building Official.
The City of Aspen, in its sole discretion, may consider a request for and issue a Temporary
Only projects meeting the following criteria in a clear un
manner shall be considered for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
The project does not have any pending compliance or enforcement matters
change orders, or outstanding fees. All agencies with jurisdiction over the improvements
have authorized issuance of either a Certificate of Occupancy or a Temporary Certificate
and surrounding property is compliant with all life/safety and property
standards of the City including those within the International Building Codes,
, the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City of Aspen Urban
Runoff Management Plan, and as represented to be in compliance with all applicable
in the approved plan documents. This requires installation of all drainage
completion of rough grading, and completion of all-weather surfaces for all
pedestrian ways (need some help with language).
The applicant is prohibited from completing the project by unavoidable and
extenuating circumstances. For example, an applicant cannot implement final
due to seasonal conditions.
The OWNER has completed a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy agreement.
The OWNER has posted all required completion bonds.
emporary Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for ordinary circumstances or
with construction, such as:
Delays caused by normal logistics, weather, labor, holidays, financing, legal
change order processing by both client, contractor and the City of Aspen
similar predictable or unpredictable complexity.
relies on contractual dates that are not met.
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090
Permit No. ________________
Certificate of Occupancy
all final inspections and all final
approvals from review agencies with jurisdiction prior to requesting a final inspection from the
shall receive a Certificate of
issue a Temporary
Only projects meeting the following criteria in a clear unambiguous
The project does not have any pending compliance or enforcement matters, outstanding
All agencies with jurisdiction over the improvements
have authorized issuance of either a Certificate of Occupancy or a Temporary Certificate
and property
ational Building Codes,
the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City of Aspen Urban
to be in compliance with all applicable
of all drainage
weather surfaces for all
eting the project by unavoidable and significant
extenuating circumstances. For example, an applicant cannot implement final
The OWNER has completed a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy agreement.
circumstances or practical
, legal, permitting,
the City of Aspen, or
P71
VII.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
October, 2013
• A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued unless all life/safety and
property protection standards
approval by the Aspen Fire Protection District.
Temporary Certificates of Occupancy are only valid for
on the Certificate. TCOs shall
administer and enforce this policy
prohibit unauthorized use or occupancy of a property or structure to the extent permitted by law.
Contractor Acknowledgment:
I (contractor of record - print name) ______________________________
I understand that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is only available in certain
situations and that if my project does not qualify I will not
advise my client to occupy the property or
have been granted and a CO or TCO, as applicable, has been obtained.
this policy.
Contractor signature: ________________________
Date: ___________
And?
Owner Acknowledgment:
I (Owner - print name) ______________________________ understand this policy. I
understand that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is only available in certain very limited
situations and that if my project does not qualify I will
allow occupancy of the property or structure until all required inspections and approvals have
been granted and a CO or TCO, as applicable, has been obtained.
Owner signature: ______________________________
Date: ___________
EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920
Permit No. ________________
A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued unless all life/safety and
property protection standards of the City have been met, including final inspection and
by the Aspen Fire Protection District.
ates of Occupancy are only valid for a limited time period, as
not be extended. The City of Aspen reserves its right to
enforce this policy, to seek remedy through the Aspen Municipal Court
prohibit unauthorized use or occupancy of a property or structure to the extent permitted by law.
name) ______________________________ understand this
understand that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is only available in certain
situations and that if my project does not qualify I will not receive a TCO. I
property or structure until all required inspections and approvals
have been granted and a CO or TCO, as applicable, has been obtained. I will advise my client of
Contractor signature: ______________________________
___________
print name) ______________________________ understand this policy. I
understand that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is only available in certain very limited
situations and that if my project does not qualify I will not receive a TCO. I will not occupy or
allow occupancy of the property or structure until all required inspections and approvals have
been granted and a CO or TCO, as applicable, has been obtained.
Owner signature: ______________________________
Date: ___________
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090
Permit No. ________________
A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued unless all life/safety and
have been met, including final inspection and
a limited time period, as shall be stated
The City of Aspen reserves its right to
, to seek remedy through the Aspen Municipal Court and to
prohibit unauthorized use or occupancy of a property or structure to the extent permitted by law.
understand this policy.
understand that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is only available in certain very limited
I will not allow or
required inspections and approvals
I will advise my client of
print name) ______________________________ understand this policy. I
understand that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is only available in certain very limited
not receive a TCO. I will not occupy or
allow occupancy of the property or structure until all required inspections and approvals have
P72
VII.a
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
October, 2013
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
The International Building and Residential Codes
of Occupancy be issued before a building is used or occupied. The codes also allow, in
circumstances, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy be issued
property is safe to occupy but before all of the work covered by the permit is complete. The
Certificate of Occupancy is referenced in the Aspen Municipal Code Title 8 Sections 8.16.020 and
8.20.020. This agreement must be signed by the property owne
owner prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Subject Property: ___________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Expiration D
I, the property owner, understand and
□ This property is not in compliance with one or more City of Aspen development regulations and
has not received one of more required final inspec
occupancy of this property through the date stated above.
□ I have read and understand the
□ I have paid for the TCO as prescribed by City of Aspen Municipal Code
□ I have posted completion bonds as required by the City of Aspen.
□ Unless a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued, occupancy of this property after the dated
stated above constitutes a violation of t
8.20.02 (j). Violations will be
2.02.120 regarding enforcement of City regulations.
Owner signature: _________________________
Owner printed name: ____________________
or,
Attorney signature: _________________________
Attorney printed name: ____________________
EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920
Permit No. _______________
DRAFT
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
Agreement
Building and Residential Codes and the International Fire Code
building is used or occupied. The codes also allow, in
Certificate of Occupancy be issued when a portion of th
before all of the work covered by the permit is complete. The
Certificate of Occupancy is referenced in the Aspen Municipal Code Title 8 Sections 8.16.020 and
must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property
prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Occupancy Expiration Date: __________________________
understand and agree as follows:
is not in compliance with one or more City of Aspen development regulations and
has not received one of more required final inspections. The City of Aspen is authorizing
occupancy of this property through the date stated above.
I have read and understand the limitations of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
I have paid for the TCO as prescribed by City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 2.12.100.
I have posted completion bonds as required by the City of Aspen.
final Certificate of Occupancy is issued, occupancy of this property after the dated
stated above constitutes a violation of the City of Aspen Municipal Code Sect
8.20.02 (j). Violations will be enforced according to City of Aspen Municipal Code Section
enforcement of City regulations.
_________________________ date:___________
_________________________
_________________________ date:___________
_________________________
City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090
Permit No. _______________
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
and the International Fire Code require a Certificate
building is used or occupied. The codes also allow, in very limited
when a portion of the building or
before all of the work covered by the permit is complete. The Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy is referenced in the Aspen Municipal Code Title 8 Sections 8.16.020 and
r or Attorney representing the property
ate: __________________________
is not in compliance with one or more City of Aspen development regulations and
The City of Aspen is authorizing
limitations of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 2.12.100.
final Certificate of Occupancy is issued, occupancy of this property after the dated
Sections 8.16.020 (g)
according to City of Aspen Municipal Code Section
P73
VII.a
Attachment C
Current Municipal Code Language
(IRC) Sec. 8.16.020. Amendments.
(g) Section 110.4 Conditional occupancy. The Building Official is authorized to issue
a conditional certificate of occupancy before the completion of the entire work
covered by the permit or conditions of approval, provided that portions of the
building shall be occupied safely. The conditional certificate of occupancy shall
clearly state the portions of the building that may be occupied, the conditions that
must be met and a time period during which the conditional certificate of occupancy
is valid. An additional fee prescribed by section 2.12.100 of this Code will be assessed
for this service. The conditional certificate of occupancy is renewable and may be
extended by a Chief Building Official at the discretion of the Building Official.
(un-amended IRC code text) R110.4 Temporary occupancy. The building official is authorized to issue a
temporary certificate of occupancy before the completion of the entire work covered by the permit,
provided that such portion or portions shall be occupied safely. The building official shall set a time
period during which the temporary certificate of occupancy is valid.
(IBC) Sec. 8.20.020. Amendments.
(j) Section 110.3 Conditional Occupancy. The Building Official is authorized to issue a
conditional certificate of occupancy before the completion of the entire work covered
by the permit or conditions of approval, provided that portions of the building shall
be occupied safely. The conditional certificate of occupancy shall clearly state the
portions of the building that may be occupied, the conditions that must be met and a
time period during which the conditional certificate of occupancy is valid. An
additional fee prescribed by section 2.12.100 of this Code will be assessed for this
service. The conditional certificate of occupancy is renewable and may be extended
by a Chief Building Official at the discretion of the Building Official.
(un-amended IBC code text) 111.3 Temporary occupancy. The building official is authorized to issue a
temporary certificate of occupancy before the completion of the entire work covered by the permit,
provided that such portion or portions shall be occupied safely. The building official shall set a time
period during which the temporary certificate of occupancy is valid.
P75
VII.a
1
ORDINANCE NO. _35_
(SERIES 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CERTAIN
SECTIONS OF THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND RESIDENTIAL CODES.
WHEREAS, the purpose of this code is to provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of
Aspen residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the administration of the provisions of the adopted codes is responsibility of the Chief
Building Official and a matter of importance to persons engaged in construction activities; and
WHEREAS, the Chief Building Official, also referred to herein as the “building official” is authorized by
the City Council to administer and enforce this code; and,
WHEREAS, the changes proposed herein eliminate the administrative allowance for issuing a
“Conditional Certificate of Occupancy” thereby reverting to the provisions of the International
Residential Code and the International Building Code for the administrative allowance for issuing a
“Temporary Certificate of Occupancy” ; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the development review agencies and development community
and the citizens to maintain a uniform enforcement policy; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens and visitors to our community to main a leadership
role in efficient building code administration.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
Chapter 8.16.020, subsection g of the Aspen Municipal Code, which subsection describes the
administrative issuance of a Conditional Certificate of Occupancy, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.16
INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
Sec. 8.16.020. Amendments.
[no changes to subsections a through e]
(g) reserved
[no changes thereafter]
P77
VII.a
2
Section 2.
Chapter 8.20.020, subsection j of the Aspen Municipal Code, which subsection describes the
administrative issuance of a Conditional Certificate of Occupancy, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.20
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
Sec. 8.20.020. Amendments
[no changes to subsections a through i]
(j) reserved
[no changes thereafter]
Section 3.
This ordinance shall become effective 30 days following passage.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under
such prior ordinances.
Section 5.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 23th of September, 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 28th day of August, 2013.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
P78
VII.a
3
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of ______, 2013.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
P79
VII.a
Page 1 of 7
Aspen Alps PUD – Council 1st Reading – 8.26.2013
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Justin Barker, Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 700 Ute Ave (Aspen Alps) – PUD, PUD Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision
First Reading, Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2013
Second Reading is scheduled for September 9, 2013
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2013
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
LOCATION:
700 Ute Ave, Aspen Alps
CURRENT ZONING:
Lodge (L) with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay on Parcels 4 and 7 and portions
of Parcels 3 and 6
PROPOSED ZONING:
Lodge (L) with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay on Parcels 1-8
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests the existing
improvements be memorialized by updating the
PUD, and clarifying legal descriptions through a
new Subdivision. In addition, utility easements
are proposed to be upgraded to ensure utilities
are located within easements. No new
development is proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request.
P&Z RECOMMENDATION:
P&Z recommended 3:2 to deny the request.
Photo: Alps location and picture of Alps 200
Building.
P81
VII.b
Page 2 of 7
Aspen Alps PUD – Council 1st Reading – 8.26.2013
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCILCOMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use
approvals:
• PUD approval to add the PUD designation to the entire Aspen Alps property memorializing all
existing improvements, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development.
(City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission.)
• PUD Amendment to update the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) to memorialize all
existing improvements, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445.100.B, Planned Unit
Development Other Amendment. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.)
• Subdivision approval to memorialize Parcels 1 – 8 as subdivided lots, pursuant to Chapter
26.480, Subdivision. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.)
• Rezoning approval to establish a single PUD Overlay for the entire project area, pursuant to
Chapter 26.310, Amendments to the Official Zone District Map. (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 memorialize all existing improvements on Parcels 1-8 of the Aspen Alps
Condominiums, and to update all utility easements to ensure utility lines are located within the
appropriate easement. No new development is proposed as part of this application.
Existing Conditions and History:
The Aspen Alps, located at 700 Ute Avenue is comprised of 73 multi-family residential units, three (3)
affordable housing units, and a parking garage. There are eight (8) different Alps parcels – two (2) are
vacant and six (6) include improvements. A summary of the parcels and existing buildings are listed in
Table 1, below:
Table 1: Parcel and Development Descriptions
parcel
#
Parcel Size (Gross
Area) building # / common name Current
# Units
1 .612 acres; 26,668 sf 100 Building 16
2 .761 acres; 33,163 sf 200 Building 16
3 .971 acres; 42,286 sf 300, 400, 500 Buildings 22
4 .312 acres; 13,612 sf 700 Building 10
5 .514 acres; 22,939 sf 800 Building 9
6 3.402 acres; 148,182 sf Vacant Land N/A
7 .122 acres; 35,314 sf Winter Building (Parking Garage, Affordable Housing) 3
8 .049 acres; 2,126 sf Vacant Land N/A
The Aspen Alps were developed incrementally beginning in 1962. In fact, the Alps was the first
condominium building in the State of Colorado. Building 100 was developed in 1962, Buildings 200 –
P82
VII.b
Page 3 of 7
Aspen Alps PUD – Council 1st Reading – 8.26.2013
700 between 1965-1969, Building 800 in 1973, and the Winter Building in 2002. Note there is no 600
Building.
Individual condominium maps and declarations were created as each phase of the Aspen Alps was
constructed and sold. The recorded condominium plats are the current basis for the existing legally
described parcels. Because a majority of the Alps was developed before modern subdivision
regulations, the applicant is requesting a Subdivision Review to more clearly establish the existing
parcel boundaries and legal descriptions.
There is one master Homeowners Association, as well as individual associations for the different
buildings. The master Association also provides services to the 777 Ute At-the-Aspen Alps
Condominiums, which is not part of this application.
The Alps units are considered Free-Market Residential Dwelling Units with the ability to be rented on a
short-term basis. The units have been occupied by owners, their guests, non-working residents, residents
working outside of Pitkin County, and vacationing tourists. The Alps is located in the Lodge (L) Zone
District.
In 2001 an application was approved by City Council rezoning the portion of the Alps that was zoned R-
15 PUD and Conservation to Lodge – other portions of the Alps were already in the Lodge zone district.
The Council minutes are attached as Exhibit G. The record is not entirely clear, but it appears the intent
of the application was to add a PUD Overlay to all parcels comprising the Aspen Alps. However, the
Ordinance was poorly written and only included some of the Alps parcels. The PUD Overlay officially
includes Parcel 4 (700 Building), Parcel 7 (Winter Building), portions of Parcel 3 (Buildings 300 and
400), and portions of Parcel 6 (Vacant Land). Buildings 100, 200, 500, and portions of vacant land do
not currently include the PUD Overlay. In 2008, the City, believing the 2001 action created a PUD
Overlay for the entire project, processed a PUD Amendment for a unit in the 200 Building enabling
expansion of a unit. While the entire area has essentially functioned as one PUD since 2001 and the
Community Development Department believes the intent in 2001 was to establish a single PUD Overlay
for all eight (8) parcels, staff has included a rezoning as part of this review to clearly establish that the
entire Aspen Alps is zoned Lodge (L) with a PUD Overlay.
Proposed PUD:
No new development is proposed as part of this application. Many of the existing dimensions do not
meet the underlying Lodge Zone District dimensional requirements, and are considered legally
established non-conformities. This means the Alps buildings were originally developed in conformance
and compliance with City regulations, but code changes made by the City over time have resulted in the
buildings no longer meeting all the current requirements in the Land Use Code.
The Applicant wishes to memorialize the existing development through the PUD, including all existing
non-conformities, while updating utility easements. Each building has at least one non-conformity, and
most have four or more. The dimensions permitted in the Lodge Zone District and the existing
dimensions at the Alps, which are proposed to me memorialized, are attached in Exhibit E. Table 2, on
the next page, highlights the specific non-conformities for each building that are proposed to be
memorialized through the PUD. Each non-conformity is marked with an “X.”
P83
VII.b
Page 4 of 7
Aspen Alps PUD – Council 1st Reading – 8.26.2013
Table 2: Existing Non-Conformities
Density
Floor
Area
Unit
Size Setbacks Height Parking
100 Building X X X X X
200 Building X X X X
300 Building X X X X
400 Building X X X X
500 Building X X X X
700 Building X X X X X X
800 Building X X X X X
Winter Building X
The Winter Building, where the affordable housing is located, is only non-conforming in terms of a
single setback, which was a construction error. All the other Alps buildings involve more extensive
non-conformities, including density, unit sizes, height, and parking.
One particular non-conformity in the 100 Building was raised as a potential issue by the neighboring
Glory Hole Condominiums during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings. The parking and
vehicular access for the 100 Building are located on a combination of land owned in fee simple and
within parking and access easements. There are a total of sixteen (16) parking spaces, one of which has
historically been used by Glory Hole Condominiums under the terms of an unrecorded revocable
Parking Agreement. If the agreement is revoked, the sixteenth parking space and a portion of the
fifteenth space would revert to access easement use (as opposed to parking) for the benefit of the Alps.
The proposed PUD would memorialize fifteen (15) parking spaces for the Alps 100 Building, which is
the current number of spaces being used by that building. The applicant believes that even if the
existing parking agreement with Glory Hole Condominiums is revoked, 15 spaces can be
accommodated, either through re-striping or reconfiguration.
Effect of PUD vs Non-Conformities: While it appears the City intended to include a PUD Overlay
over the entire Aspen Alps property in 2001, that application was focused on the creation of the Winter
Building and Parking Garage, and did not include dimensional information for any other building. This
means that today, any changes to the existing buildings would be processed under the non-conformities
section of the Land Use Code. The non-conformities chapter is triggered when an existing non-
conforming building is partially or completely demolished (meaning 40% or more of the building is torn
down).
If a non-conforming building is remodeled or redeveloped after triggering demolition, it would need to
meet today’s code requirements for dimensions, unless it received Special Review approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Special Review allows non-conforming dimensions to be maintained
if the P&Z finds that there are special circumstances necessitating the continuation of the non-
conformity, and that literal enforcement of current dimensional requirements causes unnecessary
hardship.
P84
VII.b
Page 5 of 7
Aspen Alps PUD – Council 1st Reading – 8.26.2013
Because each Alps building is non-conforming in terms of unit size and density1, the Alps would likely
request the ability to build back what exists today through Special Review to ensure all owners maintain
their current property and investment. If owners were going to lose the ability to build back their unit to
its current size, it is highly unlikely they would proceed with any upgrade or redevelopment. This has
the result of the existing buildings remaining on-site as-is, but potentially being in danger of deferring
maintenance to ensure demolition is not triggered.
If a PUD is established for the Alps, it would allow the existing buildings to be built-back as-is without a
land use review because it locks in the existing dimensions and building placement as conforming. If
the Alps wanted to change any dimensional aspect or building location, a PUD amendment would be
required. This option allows maintenance and upgrades, such as replacing roof or siding elements, to
proceed at the Alps without a concern of triggering demolition and potentially losing the ability to build
back what exists today.
Approval of a PUD does not preclude any future development. Likewise, not approving the PUD does
not preclude any future development. The PUD establishes a clear baseline that any future request can
be judged against. With or without the PUD, any future changes at the Alps will require a land use
review, either through the non-conformities review or the PUD review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The project is required to comply with the PUD standards set forth in Chapter 26.445, the Subdivision
standards set forth in Chapter 26.480, and the Rezoning standards set forth in Chapter 26.310. Overall,
staff finds that the project meets the requirements set forth in the said Chapters.
Staff believes there are important benefits to the City by proceeding through a PUD rather than relying
on the non-conformities section.
1. The City will now have recorded, established baseline dimensions for each Alps unit and
building. If an owner wanted to submit a building permit to upgrade their unit, the City review
would be faster because the existing information is readily available through the recorded PUD
documents. (This also means individual unit owners would not need to go through the time and
expense of unit calculations for their permit.)
2. The existing utilities will now be located within written and recorded easements. Currently there
are some utilities located outside their easements, making servicing difficult. The PUD requires
all easements to be updated to ensure the utility lines are located within them. This will ensure
the City and other districts can quickly service these lines if there are maintenance or upgrade
needs.
3. Updated lot descriptions will be created. The existing lots were established before the city’s
subdivision regulations, so they are based on the original condominium documents and metes &
bounds descriptions. This PUD/Subdivision would create new lot numbers and property
descriptions, with creates more clarity moving forward.
4. Establishing a PUD supports the city’s goals of maintaining and bolstering the lodging base by
making the buildings conforming and allowing them to proceed with any needed maintenance
and upgrades without a lengthy land use review.
1 meaning some units exceed the maximum unit size and there are more units than would otherwise be allowed in the zone
district
P85
VII.b
Page 6 of 7
Aspen Alps PUD – Council 1st Reading – 8.26.2013
None of these benefits are realized without the PUD. Staff believes these benefits, in exchange for the
existing conditions on the site, is a worthwhile tradeoff and meets all the applicable review criteria.
Staff supports establishing one, consistent, PUD for the entire Aspen Alps project as it creates
consistency and reliability within the project. The Alps has been developed in its current built form
since the 1960s-70s, and formally memorializing the existing dimensions is consistent with the long
standing use and dimensional characteristics of the area. In addition, because the lots were created prior
to subdivision regulations, staff supports the subdivision request to formally subdivide the project rather
than relying on the condominium language from the 1960s.
The City Utility Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District commented on the application,
and support the proposed easement updates. Any future development will require flow testing and
updated utility infrastructure may be required.
The deed restrictions on the three (3) affordable housing units were never recorded, so the applicant is
working with APCHA to update and record those.
The existing fire access to the Alps does not comply with the Fire District regulations. However, no
changes are proposed at this time because no new development is proposed. If new development or
redevelopment occurs in the future, the Alps will be required to comply with all Fire District rules in
place at the time, and Aspen Alps Road will need to be modified in a manner acceptable to the Fire
District. Based on information available today, the right of way will need to be expanded, a turnaround
to accommodate fire vehicles, and building sprinklers will be required.
The City Engineering Department is concerned about runoff and mudflow on the site. Any new
development or redevelopment will require compliance with all applicable regulations, including the
City’s Urban Runoff Management Plan, in place at the time of said development. Based on information
available today, staff anticipates that, at a minimum, drainage conveyance for any redevelopment of
Buildings 300 – 700 will need to be accommodated on Parcel 6 and as part of an updated Aspen Alps
Road. Drainage easements will likely be required as part of any future redevelopment.
Overall, staff finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the review criteria for Subdivision,
PUD, and Rezoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission held two (2) hearings on this application, and ultimately voted
3:2 to recommend City Council deny the application. A copy of their minutes is attached as Exhibits H
and I. A majority of members indicated in their comments that they were not necessarily concerned
with memorializing the Alps existing improvements, but were concerned about the process.
For the members voting to deny the applicant’s request, many of their comments focused on a concern
not of what was proposed today, but of what might be proposed in the future. Some members were
concerned that adding a PUD overlay and memorializing the existing improvements might jeopardize
the City’s ability to review redevelopment in the future. They also felt a PUD was not the correct
process to use. Others felt that the application should wait until the City processes code amendments it
is currently contemplating regarding lodges and condominiums.
P86
VII.b
Page 7 of 7
Aspen Alps PUD – Council 1st Reading – 8.26.2013
For members voting in favor of the applicant’s request, their comments were focused on the fact that no
new development is proposed as part of the current application and that any future change would be
subject to City review and approval. They also focused on the benefits to the City, including ensuring
utilities are located within recorded easements, as well as the benefits of memorializing the existing
conditions for unit owners. Finally, they felt it was important to judge the application based on the code
in place, not based on code amendments that may or may not happen in the future.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project, with the following conditions:
1. The existing dimensions on a unit and project-wide basis are memorialized by this approval.
Any changes to the building dimensions will require a PUD Amendment, pursuant to the Land
Use Code in effect at the time.
2. All dimensions shall be documented in the Final PUD Documents. The applicant has not
indicated exact heights as part of the land use application. These are required to be included as
part of the Final PUD Documents.
3. Any future development is required to comply with all City rules and regulations in place at that
time.
4. Updated deed restrictions shall be recorded for the three (3) affordable housing units prior to or
simultaneously with the recordation of the Final PUD and Subdivision Documents.
5. All utility easements shall be updated to ensure the utility line is located within proper
easements.
a. Any water lines not located in a Right of Way shall require an easement. Twenty (20)
foot easements are preferred, and required to the extent the existing development can
accommodate them.
b. All sewer lines shall be located within easements acceptable to the ACSD, including the
main line located in Alps Road and all extensions into the property.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #34, Series 2013, approving a PUD
Amendment, PUD review, Rezoning, and Subdivision for the Aspen Alps that memorializes the existing
development.”
Attachments:
Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Rezoning Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit D – DRC Comments
Exhibit E – Dimensional Tables – existing dimensions and permitted dimensions in the Lodge zone
Exhibit F.1 – Application
Exhibit F.2 – Appendix
Exhibit G – City Council minutes, August 27, 2001
Exhibit H – Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, June 11, 2013
Exhibit I – Planning and Zoning Commission draft minutes, August 6, 2013
P87
VII.b
Ordinance No 34, Series 2013
Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE NO. 34,
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT, REZONING TO PUD, AND SUBDIVISION
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 700 UTE AVE (THE ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS),
LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A TO THIS ORDINANCE.
Parcel ID: 2737-182-67-800
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The Aspen
Alps Condominiums Homeowners Association, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates
requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and Rezoning to memorialize
the existing improvements at the Aspen Alps Condominiums and establish a single PUD for the entire
project; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Lodge (L) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
on Parcels 4 and 7 and portions of Parcels 3 and 6 ; 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 June 11, 2013, continued to July 18, 2013,
and August 6, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 18, Series of 2013, by
a three to two (3 – 2) vote, recommending City Council deny PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning reviews;
and,
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2013 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 34, Series 2013,
on First Reading by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with conditions PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning
reviews; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on September 9, 2013, the Aspen City Council approved
Ordinance No. __, Series 2013, by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with conditions PUD, Subdivision,
and Rezoning reviews; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
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:
P89
VII.b
Ordinance No 34, Series 2013
Page 2 of 6
Section 1: Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, The City of
Aspen City Council approves a PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning for the Aspen Alps Condominiums,
legally described in Exhibit A to this Ordinance.
Section 2: Dimensions
The existing dimensions on a unit and project-wide basis are memorialized by this approval. Any
changes to the building dimensions will require a PUD Amendment, pursuant to the Land Use Code in
effect at the time. All dimensions shall be documented in the Final PUD Documents. The applicant has
not indicated exact heights as part of the land use application. These are required to be included as part
of the Final PUD Documents. Approved dimensions are outlined in Exhibit B to this Ordinance.
Section 3: Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall record a PUD/subdivision agreement and PUD/subdivision plat that meets the
requirements of Land Use Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of this approval.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
Deed restrictions for the three (3) affordable housing units shall be recorded before or simultaneously
with recordation of the Final PUD and Subdivision Documents.
Section 5: Utilities
All utility easements shall be updated to ensure the utility line is located within proper easements. Any
water lines not located in a Right of Way shall require an easement. Twenty (20) foot easements are
preferred, and required to the extent the existing development can accommodate them. All sewer lines
shall be located within easements acceptable to the ACSD, including the main line located in Alps Road
and all extensions into the property.
Section 6: Code Compliance
Any future development or redevelopment in the Aspen Alps PUD is required to comply with all rules
and regulations in place at that time, including but not limited to fire, stormwater, building, water,
sanitation, and trash requirements.
Section 7: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal
approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the 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 8:
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 9:
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.
P90
VII.b
Ordinance No 34, Series 2013
Page 3 of 6
Section 9: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of
issuance of the Development Order.
No later than fourteen (14) days following the 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 vested property right, 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: 700 Ute Avenue (Aspen Alps)., City of Aspen, CO,
by Ordinance No. __ Series of 2013, of the Aspen City Council.
Section 10:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of September, 2013, at a meeting of the Aspen
City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a
minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the
City of Aspen on the ___ day of _________, 2013.
_______________________________
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
Exhibit A: Legal Description of The Aspen Alps Condominiums
Exhibit B: Approved Dimensions
P91
VII.b
Ordinance No 34, Series 2013
Page 4 of 6
Exhibit A: Aspen Alps Condominiums Legal Description
Parcel 1: Building 100, Aspen Alps, according to the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Alps
recorded December 11, 1963 in Book 205 at Page 145, as amended, and according to the Condominium
Map recorded January 8, 1964 in Plat Book 2a at Page 308, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
Parcel 2: Building 200, Aspen Alps West, according to the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Alps
West recorded March 15, 1965 in Book 212 at Page 83, as amended, and according to the Condominium
Map Recorded March 17, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 26, Amendment No 1 Recorded February 25,
1992 in Plat Book 28 at Page 69, Second Supplemental Condominium Map Recorded July 26, 2002 in
Plat Book 61 at Page 40, Third Supplemental Condominium Map Recorded October 12, 2010 in Plat
Book 94 at Page 90, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
Parcel 3: Building 300, 400, 500, Aspen Alps South Condominiums, according to the Condominium
Declaration for Aspen Alps South Recorded December 1, 1965 in Book 217 at Page 189, and The First
Supplement Recorded January 6, 1969 in Book 238 at Page 804, and according to The Condominium
Map Recorded December 10, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 54, and First Supplement Recorded December
10, 1969 in Plat Book 3 at Page 373, Second Supplement Recorded April 14, 2005 under Reception No.
508992, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Parcel includes a portion of Government Lot 42, Section
18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of The 6th Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado (Lot 42 merged with Lot 33, per Bureau of Land Management Supplemental Plat, Dated 1995,
Recorded in Plat Book 36 at Page 94);
Parcel 4: Building 700, Aspen Alps South Condominiums, according to the Condominium Declaration
for Aspen Alps South recorded December 1, 1965 in Book 217 at Page 189, and The First Supplement
Recorded January 6, 1969 in Book 238 at Page 804, and according to the Condominium Map recorded
December 10, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 54, and First Supplement Recorded December 10, 1969 in
Plat Book 3 at Page 373, Second Supplement recorded April 14, 2005 under Reception No. 508992,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Parcel includes a portion of Government Lot 42, Section 18,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of The 6th Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
(Lot 42 merged with Lot 33, per Bureau of Land Management Supplemental Plat, Dated 1995, Recorded
at Plat Book 36 at Page 94);
Parcel 5: Building 800, Aspen Alps North Condominiums, according to The Condominium Declaration
For Aspen Alps North recorded January 31, 1973 in Book 271 at Page 967, and the Amendment
recorded June 4, 1973 in Book 276 at Page 393, and Agreement to Amend Condominium Declaration
for Aspen Alps North Condominiums recorded October 19, 1993 in Book 727 at Page 437, and
Agreement to Amend Condominium Declaration for Aspen Alps North Condominiums recorded
October 19, 1993 in Book 727 at Page 457, and according to The Condominium Map recorded January
31, 1973, in Plat Book 4 at Page 353, and First Supplemental Condominium Map recorded October 19,
1993 in Plat Book 32 at Page 87, and Second Supplemental Condominium Map recorded October 19,
1993 in Plat Book 32 at Page 88, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
Parcel 6: Lot 2a, Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Subdivision Plat
of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefield, Jr Property, according to The Plat Thereof recorded
September 3, 1992 under Reception No. 348317, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Parcel includes
Government Lot 42, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of The 6th Principal Meridian,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (Lot 42 merged with Lot 33, per Bureau of Land Management
Supplemental Plat, Dated 1995, Recorded in Plat Book 36 at Page 94);
P92
VII.b
Ordinance No 34, Series 2013
Page 5 of 6
Parcel 7: Lot 2b, Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Subdivision Plat
of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefield, Jr Property, according to The Plat Thereof recorded
September 3, 1992 under Reception No. 348317, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
Parcel 8: A Tract of Land Situated in The West One-Half of The Northwest One-Quarter of Section 18,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of The 6th P.M., County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as
follows: Beginning At The Most Southwesterly Corner of That Tract of Land Shown On The
Condominium Map of Aspen Alps North Recorded in Plat Book 4 At Page 353, From Whence Corner
No. 9 of Aspen Townsite Bears North 10*06’00” East 239.97 Feet and North 39*57’22” West 403.50
Feet; Thence Along The Southerly Line of Said Tract of Land South 79*05’00” East 35.72 Feet; Thence
South 20*15’00” East 11.00 Feet; Thence South 03*30’00” East 12.50 Feet To Line 5-6 of The M&Y
Lode, United States Mineral Survey No. 3921; Thence Along Line 5-6 of Said M&Y Lode South
44*59’00” West 67.87 Feet To Line 3-4 of The Millionaire Lode, United States Mineral Survey No.
3620a; Thence Along Line 3-4 of Said Millionaire Lode North 04*30’00” East 55.20 Feet To Corner
No. 4 of Said Millionaire Lode; Thence North 10*06’00” East 22.97 Feet To The Point of Beginning.
P93
VII.b
Ordinance No 34, Series 2013
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit B: Approved Dimensions
parcel
#
building # /
common
name
Parcel Size
(Gross
Area)
Current
# Units Height*
Unit Size (sq
ft net livable
as depicted
on recorded
PUD Plans)
Floor
Area
(sq ft)
Setbacks (feet) Parking
Spaces
1 100
Building
.612 acres;
26,668 sf 16 2 story 1,133-1,515 21,559
Front – 4
East Side – 11.5
West Side – 18
Rear – 20
14 off-
site
2
200
Building,
Structure A .761 acres;
33,163 sf
10 2 story 1,213-1,537
24,100
Front – 13
North Side – 23.5
South Side – 16
Rear – 13
27 200
Building,
Structure B
6 3 story 1,345-2,421
3
300
Building
.971 acres;
42,286 sf
7
4 story
1,122-2,255
34,604
Front – 19.5
South Side – 19
Rear – 22 8 off-
site (on
Parcel
6)
400
Building 7 1,130-2,265 Front – 7.5
Rear – 9.5
500
Building 8 408-1,844
Front – 14
North Side – 7
Rear –9
4 700
Building
.312 acres;
13,612 sf 10 3 story 1,475-2,973 22,789
Front – 8.5
North Side – 4.5
South Side – 5.5
Rear – 13
12 off-
site (on
Parcel
6)
5
800
Building -
Structure A
.514 acres;
22,393 sf
1 3 story 2,992
18,866
Front – 55
East Side – 13.5
West Side – 11.5
Rear – 4
6
800
Building -
Structure B
4 4 story 1,695-1,876
800
Building -
Structure C
4 4 story 1,606-1,989
6 Vacant Land 3.402 acres;
148,182 sf N/A
7
Winter
Building
(Parking,
Affordable
Housing)
.122 acres;
35,314 sf 3 2 story 775-854 NLA 6,289
Front – 17.5
East Side – 14.5
West Side – 20
Rear – 10
69
8 Vacant Land .049 acres;
2,126 sf N/A
*Exact Height for each building and parcel shall be recorded as part of the Final PUD Documents.
P94
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 9
Exhibit A – PUD Review Criteria
26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture,
as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The purpose of the PUD is to fully memorialize the existing Alps
improvements, which includes 7 buildings on 5 parcels, three (3) affordable housing units
and a parking garage located on Parcel 7, and various parking and road improvements
All told, there are 8 parcels in the Alps (6 that include improvements, and 2 vacant
parcels). The main Alps buildings range in height from 2 stories to 4 stories. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The existing development is in character with the surrounding uses,
consisting mostly of multi-family residential complexes and hotels. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The site currently has utilities that are not located in their respective
easements. This is proposed to be rectified in this application by establishing new
easements that correspond with existing utilities. The Water Department and Sanitation
District have indicated that the applicant may be interested in upgrading those utilities,
but that is it not needed at this time as they are sufficient to serve the area. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, there are not GMQS allotments required. There are three existing affordable
housing units on Parcel 7 that were never deed-restricted as required. The applicant is
P95
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 9
aware of this and is currently working with APCHA to deed-restrict the units. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall
establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in
General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the
underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate
dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements,
compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be
emphasized.
Staff Finding: The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties
in a PUD. The existing dimensional requirements the applicant would like to memorialize are
listed below:
Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Parcel 5 Parcel 7
Lot Size 26,668 sq. ft. 33,163 sq. ft. 42,286 sq. ft. 13,612 sq. ft. 22,939 sq. ft. 35,314 sq. ft.
Density 16 units 16 units 22 units 10 units 9 units 3 units
Floor Area 21,559 sq. ft. 24,100 sq. ft. 34,604 sq. ft. 22,789 sq. ft. 18,866 sq. ft. 6,289 sq. ft.
Maximum
Unit Size 1,515 NLA 2,421 NLA 2,265 NLA 2,973 NLA 2,992 NLA 854 NLA
Front
Setback 4 ft. 13 ft.
300 bldg. –
19.5 ft.
400 bldg. –
7.5 ft.
500 bldg. –
14 ft.
8.5 ft. 55 ft. 17.5 ft.
Side
Setbacks
East-11.5 ft.
West-18 ft.
North-23.5 ft.
South-16 ft.
300 bldg. –
19 ft.
400 bldg. –
none
500 bldg. –
7 ft.
North-4.5 ft.
South-5.5 ft.
East-13.5 ft.
West-11.5 ft.
14.5 ft.
20 ft.
Rear
Setback 20 ft. 13 ft.
300 bldg. –
22 ft.
400 bldg. –
9.5 ft.
500 bldg. –
9 ft.
13 ft. 4 ft. 10 ft.
Height
To be
documented
during
recordation
To be
documented
during
recordation
To be
documented
during
recordation
To be
documented
during
recordation
To be
documented
during
recordation
To be
documented
during
recordation
Parking 15 off-site 27 (20 off-
site) 8 off-site 12 off-site 6 69
P96
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of 9
The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses
in the surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as
steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking
and historical resources.
Staff Finding: The applicant only intends to memorialize the existing development
dimensions. No existing features of the property will be changed as part of this
application. If the applicant wishes to make any changes or propose new
development in the future, a PUD Amendment and review will be required. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The existing open space and site coverage will not be changed as part of
this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any nonresidential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City.
Staff Finding: No existing parking spaces are to be removed and no new parking
spaces are proposed as part of this application. The existing parking for the Alps is
accommodated in a variety of ways, depending on the parcel. These are outlined in
the Table below:
P97
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 9
Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Parcel 5 Parcel 7
building # /
common
name
100 Building 200 Building 300, 400, 500
Buildings 700 Building 800 Building
Winter
Building
(Parking,
Affordable
Housing)
# Units 16 16 22 10 9 3
Access From
Original St From Spring St From Ute Ave via Aspen Alps
Road
Original St &
Ute Ave via
Aspen
Mountain
Road
Ute Ave
# Parking
Spaces 15 off-site 27 (20 off-site) 8 off-site 12 off-site 6 69
Form of
Parking
provided on
Sky Hotel
property
pursuant to
1976
Easement
Agreement
and on
Glory Hole
Condominiu
ms pursuant
to 1987
agreement -
15 spaces
portion of
parking area
encroaches onto
777 Ute Condos
property
through
exclusive
easement for
parking - 20
spaces;
7 spaces
partially on Ute
Ave ROW
(needs
encroachment
license)
8 spaces on
Parcel 6
12 spaces on
Parcel 6 (with
easement)
6 spaces on-
site
69 spaces on-
site (general
parking for
project)
The existing parking scenario appears to work for the Alps. Any new development,
and its associated parking requirements, would be reviewed if and when an
application is made. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to
service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
P98
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 9
Staff Finding: The Alps were developed in the early-mid 1960s, and were the first
condominiums in the state of Colorado. They were developed before modern
subdivision or zoning standards. Initially 77 units were developed. Over the years, 8
units were combined in various combinations, and 3 affordable housing units were
added to parcel 7creating an existing total unit count of 76 units. The result is that
the existing density is higher than that currently allowed by underlying zoning. Code
currently would allow 38 units. The applicant does not propose to reduce the
maximum allowable density. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: As stated above, the existing density is already higher than that
currently allowed by underlying zoning and the applicant does not intend to reduce
the maximum allowable density. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there
exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible
with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development
pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or
lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average,
the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective
Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density
pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
P99
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 9
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required
to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The existing density is already higher than that currently allowed by
underlying zoning. There have been no issues with the existing density. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces,
is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town
are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing site features will be preserved. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff Finding: No changes are proposed at this time, as no new development is proposed.
South Alps Road can be modified to an 18 foot road if all buildings are sprinklered upon
redevelopment and an adequate turnaround is provided. The applicant will provide an
explanation of the existing trash and recycling access and service areas for the record.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, the existing accesses will remain. Any new development will trigger
accessibility and energy code requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, the existing drainage situation will remain. Any new development will
trigger the need for a complete drainage plan consistent with the City of Aspen’s Urban
Runoff Management Plan. In addition, because of the site’s location a mudflow
assessment will be required if any new development is proposed. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed
to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
P100
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 9
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing site features will be preserved. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the
proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and
with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development
shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety
of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features
is appropriate.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing landscape features will be preserved. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
E. Architectural character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate
to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable
for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby
historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or
less-intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior
materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, the existing buildings will remain. Any new development will trigger
accessibility and energy code requirements and will be required to meet all applicable
design standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development
will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general
aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site
features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to
the property is prohibited for residential development.
P101
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 9
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing lighting will remain. Any new development will be required to
comply with all lighting codes. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a
common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in
the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or
industrial development.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing common spaces will be preserved. Future development will
require compliance with all Parks standards, including tree protection standards. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development
does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the
public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately
and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional
improvement.
Staff Finding: There are current utilities that do not lie within access easements. The
applicant intends to update all easements to contain the existing utilities. The existing
utilities will not be modified unless redevelopment occurs or replacement is necessary.
The applicant intends to contact any property owners necessary to obtain the required
easements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The
purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
P102
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 9
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public
street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or
other area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or
such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable,
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are
proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: Adequate access exists for all structures within the PUD. The existing
access points and parking arrangements have not created issues. There are no new
proposed roads, drives or trails. Aspen Alps Road will be required to be upgraded, per
Fire District comments and standards, should any new development be proposed in the
future. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The
purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed,
each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan
shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any
facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required
affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to
the respective impacts associated with the phase.
Staff Finding: No phasing is proposed at this time. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
P103
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit B, Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit B – Subdivision Review Criteria
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.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to memorialize the existing parcels as subdivided
lots to be recorded in a subdivision plat. The lots were legally established before the
current subdivision regulations. No new subdivision of land is occurring, and the existing
lots will remain the same, all conforming in size and width. Staff finds this criterion to be
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.
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 Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The existing development has not created issues regarding land suitability or
spatial pattern. Any future development will be required to address slopes, drainage, and
mudflow, in accordance with the Engineering Department’s standards and requirements.
Staff finds this criterion to be 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.
P105
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit B, Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 2 of 2
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 Finding: The existing lots were legally established prior to the current regulations.
The applicant is proposing to update and align the existing utility easements to 20 feet as
required. Only new development will require flow testing and potential water line
replacement. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, no new affordable housing is required. There are 3 units on parcel 7 that were never
deed-restricted as required. The applicant is currently working with APCHA to deed-restrict the
units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth
at Chapter 26.620.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, School land dedication is not required. Staff finds this criterion to be 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
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 Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, Growth Management approval is not required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P106
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit C, Rezoning Review Criteria
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit C – Rezoning Review Criteria
26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to memorialize the existing development. No new
development is proposed at this time. A portion of the Aspen Alps site is zoned with a PUD
overlay. Extending that PUD to the entire Alps site will ensure clarity and consistency within
the project. Other similar PUDs are located in the area, including The Gant. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical
facilities.
Staff Finding: The Alps was developed in the 1960s and 1970s and is currently served by all
utilities. No new development is proposed that would require new services. The applicant is
proposing to update and align the existing utility easements. Only new development will require
flow testing and potential water line or sewer line replacement. Aspen Alps Road does not meet
Fire District standards, and will be required to be updated should any new development be
proposed in the future. At this time, no changes are required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding: No new development is proposed as part of this application, thus no new impacts
to the natural environment will occur. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
Staff Finding: The proposal is consistent with all requirements of the Land Use Code. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
P107
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit D, DRC Comments
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit D - Aspen Alps DRC Comments
Planning/Zoning
• By memorializing the existing conditions, any unit wanting to expand internally, add a
sky light, enclose a deck, etc will require a PUD Amendment. If the owners want the
ability to change items related to height, unit size, or floor area, that needs to be built into
the PUD, otherwise it’s not allowed.
• The application indicates the exact heights will be recorded with the final documents.
We prefer to know that information now, but can work with the information in the
application.
• The Alps will need to record the deed restrictions for the 3 affordable housing units in the
Winter Building prior to or as part of the approval. The deed restriction must be
acceptable to AHPCA.
Parks
• Any future development will be required to comply with all Parks standards, including
tree protection standards.
• Any trees to be removed on the site require a tree removal permit.
• No trails are planned for these properties at this time.
Utilities
• Electric service is through Holy Cross, so the applicant should address any
concerns/issues with them.
• Water is provided by the City. Any water lines not in a Right of Way require an
easement. These should be 20 foot easements, as can be accommodated by the existing
development.
• If any future development occurs on the site, flow testing will be required, and water line
replacement will be needed.
Sanitation
• All sewer lines must be in easements acceptable to ACSD. Based on the information,
this would include the main sewer line easement for the line coming up Alps Road and a
small extension into the property, as shown in the application.
• In the future a couple of main line extensions into the property would help them by
eliminating some of the long service lines that serve some of their existing buildings.
• We can comment in detail on future development with the new applications.
Fire
• Any new development or redevelopment will require compliance with Fire District rules
and regulations.
• Aspen Alps Road can be modified to an 18 foot road if all buildings are sprinklered and
an adequate turnaround is provided.
Building
• No comments at this time as no new development is proposed.
P109
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit D, DRC Comments
Page 2 of 2
• Any new development will trigger accessibility and energy codes.
Environmental Health
• Any new development or redevelopment will trigger compliance with the City’s Trash
and Recycling requirements
• Please provide an explanation of existing trash and recycling access and service areas for
the record.
Engineering
• Any future development will be required to comply with all Engineering requirements,
including the URMP and the mudflow hazard area regulations. Staff is concerned there
are no easements related to drainage throughout the project area. Easements will be
required as part of any future development. Given the limited information available
related to drainage, staff anticipates at a minimum conveyance will need to be
accommodated on Parcel 6 and on Aspen Alps Road. Additional items that may be
required as part of any future development proposal include:
o All Engineering requirements applicable to the development must listed as part of
any future development application, including but not limited to those
requirements specified in the code, in the URMP and the design guidelines.
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 upon any future
proposed development, when there is enough information to review.
o Section 1.3.2 “Development Review Committee” of the URMP states: “Prior to
the DRC review process, applicants must submit a conceptual grading and
drainage site plan to the Engineering Department for approval. For complete
requirements, see the conceptual review submittal checklist in Appendix A.” The
checklist is attached. Considering the location of the project, the applicant should
also prepare a mudflow assessment. The intent of the conceptual drainage plan
and mudflow assessment is to ensure that adequate planning has been
incorporated into the PUD for mitigation of runoff and mudflows.
o A compliant conceptual drainage plan and mudflow assessment must be
submitted and approved prior to finalizing approval of any future development.
Parking
• No comments.
P110
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit E, Dimensional Information
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit E, Allowed and Existing Dimensions
Table 1: Allowed Dimensions in Lodge Zone District
parcel
#
building # /
common
name
Parcel Size
(Gross Area)
Unit
Density Height
Unit Size
(sq ft net
livable)
Floor
Area (sq
ft)
Setbacks Parking
Spaces
1 100 Building .612 acres;
26,668 sf 7
28 feet 1,500
21,571
Front – 5
Side – 5
Rear – 5
16
2 200 Building .761 acres;
33,163 sf 9 29,590 16
3 300 - 500
Buildings
.971 acres;
42,286 sf 11 35,501 22
4 700 Building .312 acres;
13,612 sf 4 13,157 10
5 800 Building .514 acres;
22,939 sf 4 14,503 9
7 Winter
Building
.122 acres;
35,314 sf 3 28 feet 775 – 854 7,065
Front – 12
East Side –
20
West Side
– 15
Rear – 10
69
P111
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit E, Dimensional Information
Page 2 of 3
Table 5: Existing Dimensions
parcel
#
building #
/ common
name
Parcel
Size
(Gross
Area)
Current
# Units Height1
Unit Size
(sq ft net
livable as
depicted on
recorded
PUD Plans)
Floor
Area
(sq ft)
Setbacks
(feet)
Parking
Spaces
1 100
Building
.612
acres;
26,668 sf
16 2 story 1,133-1,515 21,559
Front – 4
East Side –
11.5
West Side – 18
Rear – 20
15 off-
site
2
200
Building,
Structure
A .761
acres;
33,163 sf
10 2 story 1,213-1,537
24,100
Front – 13
North Side –
23.5
South Side –
16
Rear – 13
27 200
Building,
Structure
B
6 3 story 1,345-2,421
3
300
Building
.971
acres;
42,286 sf
7
4 story
1,122-2,255
34,604
Front – 19.5
South Side –
19
Rear – 22 8 off-
site (on
Parcel
6)
400
Building 7 1,130-2,265 Front – 7.5
Rear – 9.5
500
Building 8 408-1,844
Front – 14
North Side – 7
Rear –9
4 700
Building
.312
acres;
13,612 sf
10 3 story 1,475-2,973 22,789
Front – 8.5
North Side –
4.5
South Side –
5.5
Rear – 13
12 off-
site (on
Parcel
6)
5
800
Building -
Structure
A .514
acres;
22,393 sf
1 3 story 2,992
18,866
Front – 55
East Side –
13.5
West Side –
11.5
Rear – 4
6 800
Building -
Structure
B
4 4 story 1,695-1,876
1 Exact height for each building and parcel shall be recorded as part of the Final PUD Documents.
P112
VII.b
8.26.2013 Aspen Alps City Council 1st Reading – Exhibit E, Dimensional Information
Page 3 of 3
800
Building -
Structure
C
4 4 story 1,606-1,989
6 Vacant
Land
3.402
acres;
148,182 sf
N/A
7 Winter
Building
.122
acres;
35,314 sf
3 2 story 775-854
NLA 6,289
Front – 17.5
East Side –
14.5
West Side – 20
Rear – 10
69
8 Vacant
Land
.049
acres;
2,126 sf
N/A
P113
VII.b
P115
VII.b
P116
VII.b
P117
VII.b
P118
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013
Chairman U Erspamer called the meeting to order at 4:30 with Walterscheid, Goode, Weiss, Myrin,
DeFrancia,Tygre, and Gibbs present.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
1.Weiss told the Commission he is going to attend a Council meeting and bring up the number of
code amendments recommended in the AACP; hopefully the new Council will pick up efforts for code
amendments. Several other board members said they would attend with Weiss.
2.Myrin thanked staff for the community development department update. Jessica Garrow told
the Board at the work session June 25,they will be reviewing lodge policies and trying to get direction
on amending the code or working with outside organizations. Ms. Garrow said she will forward the
Council packet and background information to P&Z.
3.Erspamer told the Board their code books are not up to date and the Board can get copies at the
community development department or online at the clerk's page.
4. Erspamer asked about review or commenting on a project that is in front of HPC. Weiss
suggested joint meetings on some projects. Myrin stated he would support working out a process for
referrals.
MINUTES—May 21, 2013
The Board agreed to approve these at the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Jim DeFrancia said he is working with the Aspen Alps and will recuse himself. Debbie Quinn, assistant
city attorney, noted the conflict of interest section states city officials may not appear on behalf of an
applicant in front of the board of which they are a member.
700 UTE AVENUE ASPEN ALPS PUD AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION
Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, said the appropriate mailing and publication has been done.
Jessica Garrow, community development department,told the Board there is no development proposed
in this application; it is to memorialize the existing conditions of the Aspen Alps. Ms. Garrow said the
request is for PUD, rezoning and subdivision. P&Z is the recommending body; Council is final approval.
Ms. Garrow showed the property, which is 8 different parcels, 2 of which are vacant. Parcel 6 is a large
parcel, originally part of the Moses lot split. The Winter building is where tennis courts, parking garage
and affordable housing are located. The 777 Ute at the Aspen Alps was approved and built in 1992 and
is not part of this application. Ms. Garrow pointed out the various Aspen Alps building and their location
on the site; the 300, 400 and 500 buildings have access off the Aspen Alps road off Ute Avenue.
1
P119
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning &Zoning Commission June 11, 2013
The Aspen Alps was developed from 1962 through 2002 and was the first condominium in Colorado
before modern subdivision regulations. There are 73 residential multi-family units with the ability to
short term; no units have housed a local working resident. There are 3 affordable housing units in the
Winter building developed in 2002; the deed restriction was never filed and the applicant has
committed to doing so as part of this application. There 16 offsite parking space for the 100 building on
the Sky hotel property and all other parking is within the site.
Ms. Garrow pointed out this property is zoned lodge with some of it having a PUD designation,the lack
of total PUD designation may have been a staff error in 2001,and parcels 1 through 8 should have had a
PUD designation so this application includes a rezoning in order to make it clear there is one PUD for the
entire Aspen Alps property. Ms. Garrow said the utility easements will be updated; a new subdivision
will be established to make the descriptions clearer. The proposal is to establish the existing dimensions
as conforming; there are a lot of non-conformities on the site compared to what is permitted under the
Lodge zone district,there are more units than would be allowed under the existing code. Any
improvements after this application would be required to submit a new application; there is no ability to
change configurations.
Ms. Garrow told the Board there has been a long standing agreement with 525 South Original street for
one of the parking spaces so the resolution should note there are 15 offsite parking spaces for the 100
building. Ms. Garrow stated staff finds this proposal complies with all criteria for PUD, subdivision and
rezoning and staff recommends approval of the application.
Weiss asked why the current floor area for building 2 is 24,100 square feet and the allowed dimension in
the lodge zone.district is 29,950 square feet and would not approving this allow 5,800 square feet of
development. Ms. Garrow said this approval does not memorialize what would be allowed under
existing code; it memorializes what exists today, building 2 will be 24,100 square feet. Ms.Tygre asked
if the overall square footage on the site would allow additional development in a new building. Ms.
Garrow said that would be a new land use application. Ms.Tygre asked if there is enough land available.
Ms. Garrow said any development will come through a new land use process and on certain parcels
there may be room for new buildings; staff did not calculate what could be built because that is not the
application in front of P&Z. Ms. Garrow noted any PUD approval by P&Z locks in the dimensions by
what is presented;this request will say what exists on the site today is what is allowed; any change from
that would require land use review.
Myrin asked about vested rights. Ms.Garrow said any project that goes through review gets a 3-year
vested; however,there is no development proposed for this site; the dimensions are being established
and stay in perpetuity until a future amendment. Weiss asked if the individual unit sizes are being
locked in by this proposal. Ms. Garrow answered the P&Z resolution locks in the range for dimensions;
the final PUD documents will include unit by unit showing how large each unit is. The site specific
approval will make the buildings and units conforming. Ms. Garrow told the P&Z,the water supply is
sufficient for the existing development but any new proposal would require upgrading the water lines to
deal with capacity issues. Ms. Garrow noted locking the units and buildings in to what is existing clarifies
what is there and what is allowed.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told the Boards they had to do surveys and title work on all the
properties and boundaries and the application documents what is there today. Vann said some of the
buildings at the Aspen Alps are almost 50 years old; some units have been remodeled. Vann stated the
units at Aspen Alps were legally created but due to ensuing changes in the land use code,they are
referred to as non-conforming structures. These are not a non-conforming use and are allowed to
2
P120
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning &Zoning Commission June 11, 2013
continue. This approval will memorialize what is there today. Vann told the Board this is not a
subdivided parcel and the applicants want to file a plat to memorialize the existing parcels, clean up the
easements; a PUD document that states what the dimensional requirements are,the review processes
necessary for any future improvements. Vann said memorializing what is there gives the applicant
greater flexibility to deal with the older buildings and would make the building permit process simpler.
Vann noted this is a depreciating asset and is a vital component of the community's lodging inventory.
Myrin asked why go through this approval process in advance rather than waiting for an actual
application. Vann said the master homeowner's association is trying to get in front of future issues.
Vann pointed out the land use code has been amended to disincentivize residential uses in the lodge
zone; heights and FAR have been lowered. The Aspen Alps was conforming when built and it could not
be built today under the current regulations. This application is to find a way to facilitate retaining this
part of the lodging market.
Ms.Tygre said one purpose of a PUD is to cluster buildings on a site and this approval would not allow
that. Vann said the existing buildings are pretty much in the location they would go and the ability to
tear all down and move it around is fairly limited. There are too many owners to gain consensus on
tearing all the buildings down and starting over. There are areas where development is prohibited;
there are areas that using the land area to increase floor area is prohibited.
Erspamer asked about the statement that the reduction for steep slopes shall not exceed 25%and is
that a change from 20%. Vann stated in a PUD one is required to reduce the allowable lot area for FAR
calculation for steep slopes at the maximum of 25%.
Erspamer opened the public hearing.
Susan Gaines,Aspen Alps resident,told the Board she does not rent her unit and she is concerned that
the actual square footage of her unit is larger than is on record and if this is memorialized, it would not
be good for her and the assessment for her unit is not accurate. Ms. Gaines asked P&Z not to approve
this request. Vann told P&Z the applicants used the county recorded maps and field verified the figures;
used the building permit plans to update the square footage. Vann said they were not able to verified
Ms. Gaines unit and would be glad to rectify that. Vann noted floor area is different than gross area;
things like stairwells do not count in floor area.
Michael Marek, unit 113 Aspen Alps, told P&Z there are homeowners who are confused as to why this
application was promulgated. Marek said no one has been polled about redevelopment and
redevelopment is not an issue and questioned the money spent by the homeowner's board to come up
with a PUD application without any development proposals. Joan Marek stated she does not
understand the purpose of this PUD application;the questions P&Z is asking are the same that some of
the homeowners have.
Sarah Jane Morrell, unit 114, also questioned the purpose of P&Z approving the PUD without other
benefit to the city. Ms. Garrow said part of the benefits for the city is getting utilities into proper
easements. The information on what exists at the Aspen Alps and when owners come in, it is cost and
time for the city staff and for owners to see if their proposal is allowed. Richard Auhll, Alps owner,told
P&Z in 2012 Board of Managers received an 11 page document on 3 suggested proposals to redevelop
the Aspen Alps so this proposal has caused concern with homeowners that a redevelopment will come
in with after this step is approved.
3
P121
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013
Connie Harvey, Alps owner, told P&Z the owners, without a vote,were asked to send proxies to the Alps
planning committee without understanding what the point is. Ms. Harvey said she does not feel this is a
good idea.
Paul Taddune told P&Z he is working with some of the homeowners and this appeared to be a routine
application and a memorialization of what exists; however,there may be impacts on the homeowners,
like a reduction in FAR. The homeowners should be given a chance to review this and see how it may
affect each individual's circumstances.
Erspamer closed the public hearing.
Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z that the homeowner's associations are not part of this review and there are
criteria in the packet related to PUD, rezoning and subdivision and the two, homeowner association
issues and land-use criteria, are separate. Ms.Darrow clarified if there is a non-purposeful destruction
and a building needs to be redone, if the building is non-conforming, it can be rebuilt exactly as it was. If
there is a purposeful destruction and the building is non-conforming, it has to be rebuilt complying with
underlying zoning, except for density. One reason to do this PUD is to clarify exactly what exists on the
site and will make the buildings conforming.
Ms. Garrow said the Winter building was approved in 2001 and at that time staff requested the
applicants apply a PUD to the property; however, because the way the ordinance was written,that was
not accomplished and the PUD only covered part of the project. Applying a PUD to the entire parcel has
been the intent for the last dozen years. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, said it
is important for staff and for applicants to have a base line of what exists on a property and what would
be permitted. The Aspen Alps has a partial PUD with unclear boundaries, buildings that may or may not
meet the height limit.
Weiss asked about combining units. Ms. Garrow said that would require a land use application and P&Z
review, regardless of whether this PUD passes or not. Ms.Tygre said if this is approved, the Alps or
homeowners could come in and process a land use application for more units or for another building.
Ms. Garrow said at anytime the owners could request amending their dimensional requirements. Ms.
Tygre said a concern to P&Z members is the future requests, not necessarily this PUD, and the
dimensional limits can be overturned.
Ms. Garrow reiterated these buildings were built according to the codes in place and they are legally
established non-conforming buildings in terms of most of the dimensional requirements. P&Z has to
look at the review criteria and determine if this request to memorialize what is there meets the criteria.
Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z that the nature of PUDs is that they are site specific; this is a unique situation
and probably no other property in Aspen is half covered by a PUD. The rezoning is to clarify what was
intended 12 years ago. Ms. Garrow said most land use applications in front of P&Z are for new
development,the applicants are asking to vary dimensions of a building that does-not exist. This
application is for existing buildings; the default is today—what exists, regardless of whether there is a
PUD. P&Z needs to evaluate this application based on the criteria in front of them.
Ms. Garrow said if P&Z feels what is there now is inappropriate, does not fit with the neighborhood,
does not fit the context of the area and if there were to be a totally new application, P&Z could say it
has to comply with the underlying lodge district,that could be the recommendation.
Weiss moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 to finish this item; seconded by Goode. All in favor, with
the exception of Ms.Tygre. Motion carried.
4
P122
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013
Erspamer requested the minutes regarding the intent of the PUD approval for the Alps as referred to by
staff. Weiss said P&Z cannot enforce or weigh in on homeowner's association rules. P&Z reviews how
this application compares to the code. Myrin said he is not comfortable approving this application
based on table 4 existing non-conformities as one of the criteria is that the dimensional requirements of
the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide; according to that table, none of density or unit sizes
or heights would fit the dimensional requirements of the code. The code requires P&Z to use the
underlying zone district as a guide and this does not match the PUD. Weiss stated the request is to
memorialize something that cannot be changed without further land use review.
Walterscheid suggested leaving the property as is rather than speculate what might come back as a
future land use application. Ms.Tygre agreed P&Z could establish what exists on the property without
making it a PUD. There is a baseline and it does not need to be memorialized in the form of a PUD.
Gibbs stated the new development issue is not germane to this application. Gibbs agreed with staff
there are good reasons to apply this PUD and staff has pointed out in order to deal with the Alps
property in the future, it needs to be regularized and put into one coherent parcel with known
dimensions and standards. Walterscheid said he does not see the necessity to change what the
dimensional requirements are. Goode said although he can see staff's reasons for this proposal he can
also support the P&Z members who are questioning this approval.
Vann said PUD is a complex section of the city's code and if the applicants were coming in with a new
development resembling what exists on site, P&Z would be correct in saying this is so far out of bounds
it would not meet the requirements of the PUD section. Vann reiterated the buildings can be torn down
and replaced as they exist and new structures or buildings voluntarily torn down must meet the
underlying zoning dimensional requirements. One can replace existing non-conformities subject to
special review approval based on the criteria if it is appropriate in the location; if it is consistent with
surrounding development. The Alps is a non-conforming structure which the applicants could propose
to demolish, request special review approval to put it back the way it is and if the P&Z were not inclined
to give special review approval,the buildings will stand the way they are. Vann stated the idea of this is
to address an aging complex and if a majority of homeowners wanted to do some work,this would
remove some of the impediments. Vann said one has to assume what exists on the property is
effectively the zoning; what exists today could not be built under today's code. Vann said the purpose
of this application was to facilitate the Alps' ability to upgrade, maintain, reconfigure, replace and
modernize their properties. Vann said the first direction from the homeowners was"do no harm";this
application was to make things consistent.
Tom Todd, representing the applicant,told Council there would probably be significant discussion at
homeowners meetings before any plan is approved for submittal to the city. Todd said this application
is a baseline and was spurred on by the city's lodging study and the finding that 2/3 of condominium
owners at the Alps rent their units and how can upgrade of the units be encouraged.
Myrin moved to approve Resolution#14, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment,
rezoning to PUD and subdivision for the property located at 700 Ute Avenue; seconded by Ms.Tygre.
Myrin moved to amend, Ms.Tygre withdrew her second.
Myrin moved to approve Resolution #14, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment,
rezoning to PUD and subdivision for the property located at 700 Ute Avenue that exhibit B is modified to
include only the parking space column and the first two columns on the left; seconded by Ms.Tygre.
5
P123
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013
Myrin said his purpose is to leave the dimension and underlying zoning to what exists at the time of an
application. Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, noted no dimensions are being established by this
motion. Vann stated a PUD approval with no underlying zoning does not work.
Gibbs moved to continue to June 18; seconded by Walterscheid. All in favor with the exception of
Weiss, motion carried.
Gibbs moved to adjourn at 7:30; seconded by Goode. All in favor, motion carried.
Kathr Koch
City Clerk
6
P124
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 6, 2013
Exhibit I, P&Z draft minutes 8.6.2013
1
ASPEN ALPS PUD AMENDMENT
Jessica Garrow, community development department, noted this is a continued public hearing for the
applicant, Aspen Alps, requesting rezoning, PUD and subdivision review. Council is the final review
authority with a recommendation from P&Z. Ms. Garrow said this project should be renumbered as
Resolution #18. At the previous meeting, staff outlined the project request, which is to memorialize the
existing development by a PUD overlay. There are existing legally established non-conformities, which
the applicant is requesting be memorialized. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z there were many questions on
how the non-conforming chapter works, how it relates to this project and the effect of establishing a
PUD for this property.
Ms. Garrow pointed out in the non-conformity chapter there are two ways a non-conforming structure
can be rebuilt. To be considered a legally established non-conformity, the building has to have been
built under the code in place at the time. When the zoning changes over time, buildings built legally at
the time are now non-conforming, this is the situation of the Alps. A non-conforming structure can be
rebuilt through non-purposeful destruction, acts of God or acts of nature. Another way a non-
conforming structure can be rebuilt is related to purposeful destruction when a building owner tears the
building down and they can rebuild by complying with the existing code or they can go through special
review process with P&Z. The latter is when a building owner wants to retain any parts of the non-
conformity, like building over the adopted height limit.
There are two non-conformities at the Aspen Alps that make this difficult. The first is unit size and the
second is unit count. According to the non-conformity chapter, if one demolishes their building, they
have one year to rebuild it to maintain the density and unit count. If it is not rebuilt within one year, a
property owner has to get special permission to maintain the unit count. There is not the same
provision for unit size. Ms. Garrow told P&Z at the Alps every building is over the code in terms of unit
size. If the Alps were to come through the non-conformities chapter of the code, they would request
the ability to build back the exact unit count and unit size in order not to create winners and losers in a
redevelopment, where some owners might lose 700 square feet because they are a non-conformity in
terms of unit size. Ms. Garrow said if the Alps does not receive approval to rebuild the same unit count
and unit sizes, they will not go through with redevelopment.
Ms. Garrow said going through the PUD or the non-conformity section of the code creates the same
situation – what is there today is the baseline of what can happen with the parcel. The PUD would lock
in and state the dimensions for each unit and for each building. If one of the buildings wanted to
change parking, to expand, to increase setback, they would be subject to a full PUD process.
Establishing a PUD does give some benefits to the city by establishing recorded dimensions for each of
the units. When a property owner wants to remodel, they have to do floor area calculations and
adopting a PUD would eliminate that work and that cost. Another benefit is that most of the utilities on
the site are not located within easements or in sub-standard size easements. Going through the PUD
process, the Alps will establish properly sized and located easements for the utilities. As part of the PUD
process, updated lot descriptions will be created and will establish a clear legal description.
Ms. Garrow noted adopting a PUD would provide some protection for the property owners to know
what they have is legal and can be rebuilt rather than having to go through a discretionary process with
an unknown outcome. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z the parking for building 100 was discussed at the last
Exhibit I
P125
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 6, 2013
Exhibit I, P&Z draft minutes 8.6.2013
2
meeting and the application stated there were 16 parking spaces for building 100; one of those spaces is
on the Glory Hole condominium property. The attorney for Glory Hole states it is 1.5 spaces; the
applicant is working with Glory Hole on an easement to continue use of the 15th spot. Staff recommends
approving this request.
Gibbs asked if there is a difference in how the common areas of the Alps parcel would be treated. Ms.
Garrow said the non-conformity deals with the structure and the PUD is locking in building size. Ms.
Garrow said the common areas at the Alps are governed through the master declaration, which would
continue whether this is a PUD or not. Ms. Tygre asked whether the building measurements would be
memorialized whether this is a PUD or not. Ms. Garrow said PUDs requires floor and site plans to be
recorded and without that requirement, there is no need for the applicant to record these as an official
document nor would it be recognized by the city.
Ms. Garrow pointed out the Council ordinance and minutes regarding the Winter building have been
included in the packet. Ms. Garrow said staff feels the intent was to put a PUD on the entire property
but that is not way the ordinance is written nor is it clear in the minutes. Myrin asked if it would make
more sense to adopt a general code amendment for projects within the city rather than adopting this
rezoning for the Aspen Alps. Ms. Garrow said that is part of the lodge proposals and any code
amendment related to that will not be before P&Z until next year. Ms. Garrow stated Council may not
want to determine that every short term rental building is conforming. Myrin asked if there is another
way to establish dimensions without using the PUD. Ms. Garrow said the only way to vary dimensions is
through a PUD process or a specific redevelopment through special review.
Jim DeFrancia, representing the applicant, pointed out there is no specific development proposal. The
purpose of this request is to memorialize the existing Alps improvements in a regulatory way. DeFrancia
stated the PUD would create a consistency and reliability within the property and clean up issues like
utility easements, what is private and what is public, ownership of the South Alps road and would give
the city a better point from which to address any development applications. DeFrancia said
infrastructure issues, like easements, mud flows, roads, need to be addressed within the entire Alps
property and those issues would be identified in a PUD agreement. DeFrancia reiterated the only point
of this application is to bring the property into regulatory context so the property owners can consider
what they need to do on some of the older buildings.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told P&Z this application was referred to all referral agencies
and the water and fire departments indicate some of the lines are inadequate to meet modern fire
codes and to allow any redevelopment. Vann said the PUD would contain conditions requiring the Alps
to comply with the city’s new drainage requirements. Vann said City Council is concerned about
retaining short term accommodations, especially older condominiums and how to facilitate replacement
and upgrading of these facilities. Vann noted the lodge zoning permits multi-family and lodges and in
the past decades mostly multi-family has been built. To address the concern of declining bed base,
Council down zoned the lodge district regarding multi-family and cut the floor area ratio in half, which
made many properties non-conforming. Part of the current discussion is a realization that existing
multi-family is important to the lodging inventory and it should be maintained to benefit the tourist
base. Vann said with a PUD, the applicants have the certainty of knowing the properties can be
retained, upgraded and the Alps will remain an important asset of short term accommodations.
DeFrancia said applying the PUD is not meant to be an endorsement of higher density or heights; this is
to address buildings that were built legally. DeFrancia said an alternative is to address individual
applications for special review through the non-conforming code, which is not in either the owner’s or
P126
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 6, 2013
Exhibit I, P&Z draft minutes 8.6.2013
3
the city’s best interests. Vann said these individual special review applications have both uncertainty
and costs and does not address issues for the entire complex or for the city. Myrin asked about a
commitment to short term rentals as part of this application. DeFrancia said that is not the purpose of
this PUD application. DeFrancia told the Commission that 50 to 65% of the units are in the short term
rental pool and that probably will not change.
Ms. Garrow said when a PUD is established, all dimensional requirements are established and if a PUD is
adopted for the Alps, it will be conforming no matter what changes are adopted with the lodging
program. Tom Todd, attorney, told the P&Z adding their resolution or Council ordinances to chain of
title would not trigger a call of mortgage loans; these would be looked at as enhancing the value of the
collateral as making regulations more clear. Vann said the fire department commented they would like
appropriate turn arounds at the culminations of the roads within the Alps as part of redevelopment.
Vann pointed out other infrastructure the applicant would have to address would be adequacy of water
lines for fire protection purposes; adequacy of the roads for the fire trucks; and drainage. These issues
are a benefit to the city and an encumbrance to the Alps. Erspamer asked about the deed restricted
housing units. Todd said the Board approved the deed restriction and these will be presented to the
housing office for approval.
Myrin asked if this request could result in the units being rebuilt exactly as they are. Vann said the plan
is to record elevations, floor plans and dimensional requirements. Currently small changes, like
windows or doors, can be approved administratively. Larger changes would have to go through P&Z for
a PUD amendment. Ms. Garrow pointed out the recommendation from the water department is for 20’
easements, which is their standard requirement. The water department recognizes there are
constraints on this property and they can accept less in some circumstances.
Erspamer opened the public comment.
Jeanne Doremus, attorney for Glory Hole condominium association, reaffirmed there are 1.5 parking
spaces on their property and they are working with the Alps to resolve that. Susan Gaines said the
square footage in her unit has not been ratified. Ms. Gaines said since this has come up 25% of the Alps
owners have put their units for sale as they are concerned about this application. Ms. Gaines told P&Z
she lives at the Alps full time; she is not covered by insurance for landslides or unstable soil conditions.
Ms. Gaines said this property is on a hill and there are a lot of unknowns.
John Corcoran, general manager Aspen Alps, told P&Z that 25% of the units have not been put on the
market and no Board members have put their units up for sale; there are about 8 units for sale. Peter
Carmen, Board member, said a number of owners have expressed concerns about this process and
some of them ran for the Board. The incumbents were mostly re-elected by the Alps owners. Larry
Abramson, Alps owners, stated there is a communication problems between owners and the Board and
perhaps this application will make the communication better. Abramson said one of the biggest
problems is this application and lack of information by the owners.
Erspamer closed public comments.
Myrin stated he is not comfortable with an application based on the number of non-conformities. Myrin
said if this is a direction the community wants to take, it should be a code amendment, which he could
support as opposed to this process. Ms. Tygre said she would like the Alps to be able to maintain its
structures and to do improvements. Ms. Tygre said she supports the memorialization, however, has
issues with the process – this is not a PUD, it was built before PUDs existed. Ms. Tygre said calling
P127
VII.b
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission August 6, 2013
Exhibit I, P&Z draft minutes 8.6.2013
4
something a PUD after the fact seems to be a bad use of the PUD process. Previous PUD applications
have been in conjunction with proposed developments not to memorialize an existing development;
there is no provision in the code for a “reverse PUD”. Contorting a process to fit an individual need
creates problems.
Gibbs pointed out there is already a PUD designation on a portion of the Alps and the intent was to
make the entire parcel a PUD. Gibbs stated he supports this application; staff has explained the
rationale and the benefits, consistent with the code. Gibbs said he does not see the negative impacts of
approving this application. Weiss said there is a conflict between the Board and the Alps owners;
however, that is not under the P&Z’s purview. Weiss said he does not have a problem with this
application. Erspamer agreed this application will probably better the process; however, there are some
concerns. The first is the outreach process; the application instructs applicants to conduct outreach,
which should include one’s homeowners. Second, the city will draft a new code on lodging; no one
knows what that code will entail and Erspamer said he is reluctant to approve an amendment that might
be addressed by the code amendment. Erspamer stated he would prefer to wait to see the lodging code
amendment.
Weiss told the commission he attended the lodging incentive work session and it will probably not be
major amendments, especially regarding condominiums. Myrin agreed with he would like to see what
code amendments will come out of the lodging incentive. Gibbs stated basing decision on future code
possibilities is an abuse of P&Z’s discretion. Gibbs said the Commission should look at the application,
look at what the code says and make a decision based on that. The application was submitted in good
faith, under the existing code, and the Commission should make a decision.
Myrin pointed out the chart in the packet illustrates that this does not meet any of the current code and
he cannot support applications under the existing code that are non-conforming. Myrin said before
adopting a PUD to vary these requirements, there should be things like a transportation study and a site
visit. Vann reminded P&Z the Alps went through the process to build the Winter building under existing
zoning. Vann said portions of the Alps were zoned conservation, R-15 and lodge through zone
designations after the Alps was built. City staff said they could recommend approval of the Winter
building with a PUD and rezoning to lodge so that the Alps is no longer a non-conforming use and as a
quid pro quo to put a PUD over the entire parcel so the city could review an application on a global
basis. Vann said the ordinance that approved the Winter building is unclear regarding the parcel
descriptions and staff recommended redoing the PUD overlay as there are no documents of record.
DeFrancia reiterated the core issue is cleaning up the property from a partial PUD to a total PUD with a
PUD agreement, and identifying constraints and make it easier for the Alps addressing their future
needs.
Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution #18, Series 2013, recommending City Council approve a PUD
amendment, PUD review, rezoning and subdivision for the Aspen Alps that memorializes the existing
development; seconded by Gibbs.
Myrin reiterated he is opposed to this as table 4 indicates this project does not meet current code.
Weiss, yes; Myrin, no; Ms. Tygre, no; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, no. Motion NOT carried.
Myrin moved to recommend to City Council to deny the application; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Weiss, no;
Myrin, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Gibbs, no; Erspamer, yes.
P128
VII.b
P129
VII.b
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: August 28, 2013 continue to October 14, 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.
P131
VIII.a
360 Lake Ave. – Subdivision Amendment
Staff Memo
Page 2 of 2
City Council continued the public hearing on July 22nd to allow the applicant time to discuss
their next steps with legal counsel and the property owner. The applicant requests a continuation
to October 14, 2013 to continue these discussions with the property owner.
P132
VIII.a
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, Second Reading of Ordinance # 30, Series of 2013
DATE: August 26, 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
P133
VIII.b
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.
P134
VIII.b
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
P135
VIII.b
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.
P136
VIII.b
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
P137
VIII.b
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 adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2013.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits:
Ordinance #30, Series of 2013
A. Application
B. HPC Resolution
C. HPC minutes
P138
VIII.b
430 W. Main
Ordinance #30, 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:
P139
VIII.b
430 W. Main
Ordinance #30, 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.
P140
VIII.b
430 W. Main
Ordinance #30, 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.
P141
VIII.b
430 W. Main
Ordinance #30, 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
P142
VIII.b
P143
VIII.b
P144
VIII.b
P145
VIII.b
P146
VIII.b
P147
VIII.b
P148
VIII.b
P149
VIII.b
P150
VIII.b
P151
VIII.b
P152
VIII.b
P153
VIII.b
P154
VIII.b
P155
VIII.b
P156
VIII.b
P157
VIII.b
P158
VIII.b
P159
VIII.b
P160
VIII.b
P161
VIII.b
P162
VIII.b
P163
VIII.b
P164
VIII.b
P165
VIII.b
P166
VIII.b
P167
VIII.b
P168
VIII.b
P169
VIII.b
P170
VIII.b
P171
VIII.b
P172
VIII.b
P173
VIII.b
P174
VIII.b
P175
VIII.b
P176
VIII.b
P177
VIII.b
P178
VIII.b
P179
VIII.b
P180
VIII.b
P181
VIII.b
P1
8
2
VI
I
I
.
b
RECEPTION#: 601247, 07/12/2013 at
09:48:33 AM,
1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONRECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFANAPPLICATIONFORAHISTORIC
LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SETBACKVARIANCEANDAFLOORAREABONUSFORTHEPROPERTYLOCATEDAT430W. 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 PlanningServices, has requested a Historic Landmark Lot Split, Setback Variance and Floor AreaBonusforthepropertylocatedat430W. Main Street, Lots K, L, and M, Block 37, CityandTownsiteofAspen, 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 shallmeettherequirementsofAspenMunicipalCodeSection26.415.110.C.La; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for a floor arez< bonus, the application shallmeettherequirementsofAspenMunicipalCodeSection26.415.1101; 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 approvedwithconditions; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on June 26, 2013, the Historic PreservationCommissionconsideredtheapplication, found the application to meet the standards, andapprovedtheapplicationbyavoteof6to0.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
HPC supports Council approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split and grants a setbackvarianceandfloorareabonuswiththefollowingconditions:
1. HPC recommends that Council approve a Historic Landmark Lot Split, dividingthepropertyintoa4,000 square foot lot and a 5,000 square foot lot. The applicanthasrepresentedthat, if approved by City Council, the unused development rights
will, from time-to-time and as warranted by the TDR market, be converted toTDRs, and sold.
2. HPC grants a 2' west sideyard setback reduction for the lot containing theVictorianbuilding.
1
P183
VIII.b
3. HPC grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus, to be applied to the calculation offloorarearelativetotheexistingbuilding. 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-specificdevelopmentplanvestedforaperiodofthree (3) years from the date of issuanceofadevelopmentorder. 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 recordallplatsandagreementsrequiredtoberecorded, as specified herein, within 180daysoftheeffectivedateofthedevelopmentordershallalsoresultintheforfeitureofsaidvestedpropertyrightsandshallrenderthedevelopmentordervoidwithinthemeaningofSection26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is notpartoftheapprovedsite-specific development plan shall not result in the creationofavestedpropertyright.
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 CityClerkshallcausetobepublishedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationwithinthejurisdictionalboundariesoftheCityofAspen, a notice advising the general public
of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested propertyrightpursuanttothisTitle. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specificdevelopmentplan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period ofthree (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 describedproperty: 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 arenotinconsistentwiththisapproval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and
J udicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rightsshallnot, begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of finaldevelopmentapprovalasrequiredunderSection26.304.070(A). The rights of
referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and theAspenHomeRuleCharter.
2
P184
VIII.b
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 26th day ofJune, 2013.
Appr ved a to Form:
2
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to Content:
I RESERV TIO COMMISSION
Jay Mayt' , Ac ing Cha
ATTEST:
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P185
VIII.b
P187
VIII.b
P188
VIII.b
P189
VIII.b
P190
VIII.b
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, Second Reading of
Ordinance #31, Series of 2013
DATE: August 26, 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.
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.
P191
VIII.c
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.
P192
VIII.c
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 adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2013.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits:
Ordinance #31, Series of 2013
A. Application
B. HPC resolution
C. HPC minutes
P193
VIII.c
125 W. Main
Ordinance #31, 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
P195
VIII.c
125 W. Main
Ordinance #31, 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
P196
VIII.c
125 W. Main
Ordinance #31, 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
P197
VIII.c
P1
9
9
VI
I
I
.
c
P2
0
0
VI
I
I
.
c
P2
0
1
VI
I
I
.
c
P202VIII.c
RECEPTION#: 601520, 07/19/2013 at
09:50:32 AM,
1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING 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.La; 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 roof on the non-historic 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
1
P203
VIII.c
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.
A roved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
2
P204
VIII.c
Approved as to Content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Jay May(tin, Chair
ATTEST:
r
Kathy St ickland Chief Deputy Clerkpty
3
P205
VIII.c
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2013
1
DRAFT
125 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split and Variances,
Public Hearing
Debbie said the affidavit of posting is in order and the applicant can proceed.
Exhibit I.
Amy said this is a 6,000 square foot lot and is landmarked and has a
Victorian home on it. It doesn’t have very many alterations and is fairly
authentic. The applicant is requesting a lot split with two 3,000 square foot
lots. There is no specific development requested at this time. In this case
because of the width of the historic house and where it sits they can’t just
draw a straight line from front to back. There will be a jog. The new lot line
is held three feet away from the Victorian house. The required side yard
setback is actually five feet and if they provided that it would be creating a
minimal usable vacant lot. Three feet is the minimum for building code.
You are being asked to approve the lot split and award the variance. This
will also go onto city council. Assuming the lot stays a residential use with
this subdivision the allowed FAR basically covers the Victorian with very
little future expansion. If they turned the house into a mixed use they would
have some square footage to ad on if they wanted to. If someone builds a
house on the vacant lot they would take an FAR penalty and it would be
about a 1,900 square foot house. If they developed it as mixed use they
would be allowed up to 3,000 square feet. Staff supports the lot split and the
setback variance. The setback variance is only for the lot with the Victorian
house.
Cynthia Milling represented the owners.
Chairperson, Jay Maytin opened the public hearing.
Jeffrey Halferty representing David Melton
Mr. Melton is the adjacent neighbor. All in all he supports the lot split. The
lot split concept is fantastic because it minimizes the large additions onto
historic resources. It also helps the board manage the mass and scale. Mr.
Melton supports the lot split with a few conditions. Mr. Melton doesn’t
want to get pigeon holed due to the variance. HPC should analyze the
existing allowable FAR ratio for both lots. The massing should be minimal
P207
VIII.c
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2013
2
a one story link with some potential FAR added to the back of the historic
resource and making sure the variances do not have any negative effect on
the lot. Also he would like to make sure the demolition by neglect standard
is prevented on the historic resource. There is a current ice damming issue
on the west side of the historic resource. This should be addressed in the
resolution. Gutters and heat tap should be installed in order to prevent
damage to the historic house and any potential liability to the users of his
property. The parking on both sides of the lot should be addressed. The
vested rights should also be addressed. Mr. Melton also wants to make sure
that someone doesn’t come in after buying the lot and asks for variances
based on hardships on the west side. Somehow in the resolution language we
need to protect his basic rights. The applicant understands the zone district
he lives in and the FAR.
Photograph Exhibit II
Chairperson, Jay Maytin closed the public hearing.
Amy said we need to look closer at the side porch. The sidewalk and the
porch steps and platform are OK in the setback because they are less than 30
inches off the ground. The fact that the porch is covered means you need to
grant a variance specific to that porch or require the covering to be removed.
Amy also said all properties are required to remove their ice and snow from
their properties. This property went through an enforcement of demolition
by neglect and we required some repairs to the front porch and deterioration
issues. We should talk about some conditions when it goes to council. We
need to make sure the house is OK and that the ice issue is taken care of.
Jay identified the issues:
East side yard setback variance
Covered porch variance
Lot split
Patrick asked if there was a sidewalk that runs along the side of the house up
to the porch. Amy said yes. The covered porch is for the doorway.
Possibly the cover could be reduced in size. On the 1,920 square feet is that
the maximum or could they come in for a hardship and get more.
P208
VIII.c
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2013
3
Amy said the 1,920 square feet is the maximum allowed and it doesn’t mean
you always get it. On the vacant lot in an historic lot split you can’t give
them setback variances unless they have a hardship such as a large tree. You
don’t have the same ability because it is an empty lot and they shouldn’t
need a variance. Hopefully whoever buys this can live with a skinny lot.
Patrick said we need to do something about the ice buildup.
Jane asked about the parking requirement for mixed use.
Amy said it is a certain number of spaces per 1,000 square feet. Every
residential unit has to have one or two spaces. You aren’t being asked to
grant any parking variances right now. I believe there is room for two
spaces behind the Victorian.
Jay said his only concern is that it looks like there is 30 feet to the east
property line minus the five on either side which brings it to 20 feet for a
building envelope in the center. The concern is that the new developer
comes in and says they have three feet and I want three feet. I don’t see a
reason to grant a variance to the east lot. I do like the five foot setback on
the west side.
Cynthia Milling said she is representing an elderly owner and the children
are starting to take over the estate. They want to take care of their asset. If
they sell part of the lot they will put that money back into the Aspen asset. I
I am sure the family doesn’t know anything about the ice buildup and I will
inform them.
MOTION: Jay moved to approve Resolution #23 as written; second by
Patrick. The cover comes off the porch.
Jane said the estate needs to be educated as to what the process is and the
responsibility that they have with the asset.
Amy suggested adding an additional sentence to condition #2. Remove the
roof covering on the east porch of the Victorian allowing the stoop to
remain. #4 solve the identified ice damage on the west to be approved by
staff and monitor.
P209
VIII.c
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2013
4
Jay amended his motion, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried 4-
0.
Vote: Patrick, yes; Sallie, yes; Jane, yes; Jay, yes.
P210
VIII.c
Page 1 of 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 201 N. Mill Street, Subdivision Amendment
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 32, (Series 2013) – Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: August 26, 2013
________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Bleeker Mill LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Adam Roy, Method Planning
and Development
LOCATION:
Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 78,
City and Townsite of Aspen,
commonly known as 201 N.
Mill Street.
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
Located in the Mixed Use
(MU) zone district. The
building is a two/three story
office building containing
nineteen condominium units.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
amend the existing entitlements
for the property that were
granted in 2008 for a mixed-
use building containing sub-
grade parking, five (5)
affordable housing units, five
(5) free-market housing units,
and commercial/office uses.
Applicant requests to reduce
the number of affordable
housing units to four (4), reduce the number of free-
market units to four (4) and slightly reduce the net
leasable commercial/office space.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the proposal and recommends that the
City Council approve the request.
Photo: 201 N. Mill Street
P211
VIII.d
Page 2 of 10
SPECIAL NOTE: At first reading a number of items were raised by Council that are
addressed in further detail within this memo. These items touched upon stormwater,
affordable housing mitigation, the design of the building and its neighborhood context, as
well as parking. Additional information is provided within the text of the memo and is
underlined to differentiate it from the text of first reading. A new section on dimensional
standards is included and the staff recommendation has been updated.
Also raised at first reading was the fact that this is the second time, since the original
approval in 2008, that the property has come before the Council. The question posed was
why is it back before the Council?
In 2008, the Applicant was granted a three year vesting for the approved project although
the applicant had requested five years of vesting. In 2009, prior to the expiration of the
vested rights period, the applicant requested that the City Council extend the vesting
period. At the time the Applicant stated that it was difficult to get financing for the
project during the recession. Council agreed to extend the vesting period to 2015 but
conditioned the approval on the Applicant being prohibited from applying to amend the
development plan if it “increases the floor area of the free market residential units or the
commercial units nor which reduces the floor area of the affordable housing units.” The
application before Council does not increase the allowable floor area for the free-market
or commercial uses and increases the square footage of the affordable housing
component.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
Resolution No. 42 (Series of 2009) extended the vesting period for the project until
February 4, 2015. The project is currently vested under the April 24, 2006, Land Use
Code and any amendments are subject to the 2006 regulations. The Applicant is
requesting the following land use approvals of City Council to redevelop the site:
• Subdivision - Other Amendment for the amendment of the subdivision approval
pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 (via a combined review City Council
is the final review authority).
• Growth Management Review – Substantial Amendment for the amendment to a
development order authorizing development allotments pursuant to Land Use
Code Chapter 26.470 (via a combined review City Council is the final review
authority). Specifically, the amendment requests changes to the number of free-
market residential units, the number of affordable housing units, and the net
leasable commercial/office space.
• Commercial Design Review Approval – Other Amendment for an amendment to
the design of the building’s approved exterior pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.412 (via a combined review City Council is the final review authority).
P212
VIII.d
Page 3 of 10
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 2006, the property owner of 201 N. Mill Street, located on the corner of Mill and
Bleeker, submitted a land use application to demolish the present building and rebuild the
site with a mixed use building containing commercial, affordable housing, and free
market residential uses. The existing property is located in the Mixed-Use zone district on
a sloped site. A five story building (some of which is below grade) was approved In
January of 2008, via Ordinance No. 25 (Series of 2007). The highlights of that approval
include:
• A completely sub-grade parking garage. Vehicular access to the property and the
garage was approved from the platted, but currently unimproved, alley right-of-
way that is adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The garage
will provided twenty-one parking spaces, four of them in a tandem configuration.
As part of the approval, two hybrid vehicles were required to be provided for use
by the residents of the affordable housing units and the initial residents were
required to be enrolled in the local carshare program.
• The next level is partially above and below grade and contains the lower level of
two (2) of the affordable housing units and net leasable commercial/office space.
• The third level is above grade on all sides and contains the upper levels of two (2)
affordable housing units and net leasable commercial/office space.
• The fourth level contains two (2) free-market units and three (3) affordable
housing units.
• The fifth level contains three (3) free-market units.
The current application requests amendment of the previous approval by providing:
• A completely sub-grade parking garage. Vehicular access to the property and the
garage was approved from the platted, but currently unimproved, alley right-of-
way that is adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The garage
will provided twenty parking spaces, with an additional space located outside.
The hybrid vehicle provision and carshare provision is requested to be rescinded.
• The next level is partially above and below grade and contains one (1) of the
affordable housing units and net leasable commercial/office space.
• The third level is above grade on all sides and contains the lower levels of three
(3) affordable housing units and net leasable commercial/office space.
• The fourth level contains the upper levels of three (3) affordable housing units,
two (2) free-market units and net leasable commercial/office space.
P213
VIII.d
Page 4 of 10
• The fifth level contains two (2) free-market units.
Generally speaking, the footprint and dimensional standards of the project are similar to
what is approved, while the programming in the building changes as well as the exterior
design of the building.
Table 1: Project Programming Changes
Approved Proposed Difference
Free-market units 5 4 -1
Affordable housing units 5 4 -1
Net leasable commercial
office space
10,826 10,376 -450
Off-street Parking 21 21 0
Figure 1: Zone Districts
The subject property is located in the Mixed-Use zone district which is intended to
“provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential
neighborhoods.” To the south of the property is the Hotel Jerome, located in the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Further to the west the development pattern
becomes residential as properties are located in the Medium-Density (R-6) zone district,
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) is directly to the north, while the Public zone district is
primarily to the east across Mill Street.
Public
zone
Commercial
Core
Medium
Density
Residential
P214
VIII.d
Page 5 of 10
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
The 2008 approval to redevelop the site was submitted in 2006 and is subject to the code
in effect at the time as the approvals are vested until February 4, 2015. Following is a
table that outlines the 2006 code requirements, the existing approvals associated with the
property and the proposed amendments to the project. Some notes are included to outline
the dimensional requirements of 2006.
Table 1: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional
Requirement
2006
Mixed Use
zone district
2008 Approved
Dimensional
Requirements
Proposed
Dimensions
Minimum Lot
Size
3,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot
Width
30 Feet 120 Feet 120 sq. ft
Minimum Lot
Area/Dwelling
N/A N/A N/A
Minimum Front
Yard Setback
10 Feet 10 Feet 10 Feet
Minimum
Alternative Front
Yard Setback
6.66 Feet
7 Feet 7 Feet
Minimum Side
Yard Setback
5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet
Minimum Rear
Yard Setback
5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet
Maximum Height 32 Feet 32 Feet 32 Feet
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
2:1 or
24,000 sq. ft.
Commercial:
.75:1 (up to
1:1 via
Special
Review)
23,957 sq. ft. Commercial:
.802 or 9,624
sq. ft.
1.96 or
23,520 sq. ft.
Commercial:
≤ .802:1 or
9,103 sq. ft.*
Affordable
Housing: No
limitation
.25 or 3,099
sq. ft.
≥ .42:1 or
5,029 sq. ft.
Free-Market:
.75:1 up to
1:1 (by
Special
Review)
Free-Market:
.79 or 9,480
sq. ft.
Free-Market:
≤ .79:1 or
9,408 sq. ft.
Minimum Off-
Street Parking
Residential – Multi-Family:
One space per unit
Commercial: One space per
1,000 net leasable sq. ft.
100% may be provided
21 spaces
21 spaces**
P215
VIII.d
Page 6 of 10
Dimensional
Requirement
2006
Mixed Use
zone district
2008 Approved
Dimensional
Requirements
Proposed
Dimensions
through a payment-in-lieu
Maximum Unit
Size***
2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft.
Notes:
* The Mixed-Use zone district requires that the total free-market residential Floor Area on the parcel be no
greater than the commercial Floor Area, the standard is met as the net leasable commercial/office space equals
over 10,300 sq. ft. while the residential net livable is less than 8,000 sq. ft.
** Four of the parking spaces are required to be provided for the affordable housing units.
*** The land use code in 2006 permits a unit to be up to 2,000 sq. ft. in net livable area but does not permit the
extinguishment of a Transferable Development Right to increase the unit size
STAFF COMMENTS:
SUBDIVISION – OTHER AMENDMENT:
Subdivision approval was originally required because the development of multi-family
dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision
in the City’s land use code. The amendment being requested will memorialize the
reduction in density of the residential units on-site.
In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal
meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section
26.480.050, Review Standards.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW – SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT:
In 2006, the applicant requested development allotments for six free-market units, three-
affordable housing units and an increase of net leasable commercial/office space. With
changes to the project during the public hearing process five free-market allotments, five
affordable housing allotments and an increase of 3,276 sq. ft. of net leasable
commercial/office space was granted by the City Council.
The provision of affordable housing mitigation is required to receive residential free-
market and commercial allotments. Under the 2006 code, by proposing on-site affordable
housing, only the greater affordable housing mitigation requirement between the new
free-market units being proposed and the increase in net leasable commercial/office space
was required to be mitigated. Both the 2006 and current land use code require affordable
housing provided as mitigation to be Category 4 income level or lower and APCHA
requires a minimum amount of net livable area by unit type. An applicant, when
developing housing, chooses the number of units and unit types to meet the required
mitigation.
P216
VIII.d
Page 7 of 10
Table 2: Net Leasable, Net Livable Comparison
Existing Approved Proposed
Net Leasable
Commercial/Office
Space
7550 10,826 10,376
Free – Market Net
Livable
0 8,558 8,000
Affordable Housing
Net Livable
0 4,701 4,902
In calculating the proposal under the 2006 code, the greater mitigation requirement
between the free-market residential development and the net leasable commercial/office
space is for the commercial with a requirement of 6.57 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). By
providing four affordable housing units, in a 3 bedroom configuration each, twelve FTEs
will be housed exceeding the required mitigation amount.
Of the proposed affordable housing units, one unit is proposed at a Category 2 income
level, while the other three are proposed as Category 4 units, all of the units exceed the
minimum unit size required in the APCHA guidelines and are proposed as ‘for-sale’
units. Comparatively, the existing approvals provide for a mix of Category 2, 3 and 4
income levels, one unit is undersized according to APCHA Guidelines, and the units may
be rentals. The APCHA board reviewed the new proposal and recommends approval of
the amendment.
Table 3: Affordable Housing Comparison
Approved Proposed
Number
of Units
Employees
Housed
Income
Category
Number
of Units
Employees
Housed
Income
Category
1 bedroom 2 3.5 2 and 3 0 0 NA
3 bedroom 3 9 1 @3
2@4
4 12 1@2
3@4
Totals 5 12.5 4 12
Summary points:
• The affordable housing units proposed house 12 FTEs and exceeds the number
of employees required to be housed (6.57) under the 2006 land use code.
• All of the proposed affordable units meet or exceed the minimum net livable size
required for a 3 bedroom unit and are proposed as for sale units. Three units are
proposed at a Category 4 income level and one is proposed at Category 2.
Overall, the affordable housing component increases in size compared to the
existing approvals.
P217
VIII.d
Page 8 of 10
In reviewing the growth management standards, the affordable housing mitigation
proposed in this application exceeds the 2006 code requirements and APCHA supports
the affordable housing proposal. Staff finds that the review criteria are met.
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL – OTHER AMENDMENT:
In 2006, the standards associated with Commercial Design review was quite limited in
scope, focusing on the building’s relationship with the street, street level design
characteristics of the building as well as the location of parking, trash and utilities. Figure
1 below shows the approved design, while Figure 2 shows the proposed amendment.
Figure 2: Approved Design
The massing and design of both proposals is very similar, with the building placement
paralleling both Mill Street and Bleeker Street, the corner being anchored by the stepped
entry and the provision of multiple entrance points along Mill and Bleeker. The biggest
changes are with treatment of the exterior materials. More brick is proposed as well as
changes in the fenestration in this latest proposal.
P218
VIII.d
Page 9 of 10
Figure 3: Proposed Design
In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the standards
of Commercial Design Review and recommends approval of the changes.
PARKING
In 2006, as a result of the public hearings, a unique requirement was included in the
ordinance approving the development. Although twenty-one parking spaces were
provided in the garage, none of the spaces were designated for the vehicles of the
affordable housing units. Instead two hybrid vehicles were to be provided in the garage to
be used, in carshare style, by the affordable housing residents. Additionally, the first
resident(s) of each unit would be initially enrolled into the carshare program.
The minutes of January 14, 2008 (Exhibit F) outline how the above referenced conditions
was included in the approvals. When the original application was initially reviewed
before Council, three affordable housing units with an off-street parking space for each
was proposed. As the public hearing process continued, the Applicant increased the
affordable housing component to five units. With the increase in units, the applicant
stated that it was difficult to commit to five off-street parking spaces for the proposed
affordable units and proposed providing two hybrid vehicles for the use by the affordable
housing residents. Additionally the mayor requested that enrollment into the carshare
program be required.
The current proposal is to provide twenty-one parking spaces for the development with
one on-site parking space allocated to each affordable housing unit, removal of the hybrid
vehicle requirement and to have the first residents of the affordable housing units initially
enrolled in the carshare program.
The required parking for the project is 19 spaces so the parking requirement is exceeded.
APCHA supports the provision of a parking space per unit for the affordable housing
units. The Transportation department does not see a need to require the developer to buy
P219
VIII.d
Page 10 of 10
vehicles to be used on the site, but does support the initial residents being enrolled in the
car share program.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Transportation Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing
Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and
their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
Housing has recommended approval of the changes. The Parks department had some
concerns on the viability of existing trees along the western property line but with a site
visit and slight changes to the proposal along the western boundary (maintenance of the
existing retaining wall and less retaining/smaller window well for along the northwest
corner of the property, the department supports the proposal. The ordinance includes a
requirement to meet all of engineering standards, including stormwater, and requires
coordination with the department on the Mill Street Complete Street project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed mixed-use building is located near transit and within walking distance to
the commercial core. The proposed changes: a refined design and changes to the
programming meet the review standards applicable to the project. The Mixed-use zone
district is anticipated “to provide a transition between the commercial core and
surrounding residential neighborhoods.”
Staff supports the proposal and recommends approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2013, approving amendments to the
approvals associated with 201 N Mill Street.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS: (NEW EXHIBITS ARE IN BOLD)
Exhibit A – Subdivision Review Criteria (provided 8/12/13 and 8/26/13)
Exhibit B – Growth Management Review Criteria (provided 8/12/13 and 8/26/13)
Exhibit C – Commercial Design Review Criteria (provided 8/12/13 and 8/26/13)
Exhibit D – Application (provided 8/12/13)
Exhibit E - Council minutes, 10/22/2007
Exhibit F – Council minutes, 1/14/2008
Exhibit G – Referral Comments
Exhibit H – Amended site plan, additional drawings
P220
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE NO. 32
(SERIES OF 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION-OTHER AMENDMENT, GROWTH MANAGEMENT
REVIEW-SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW
APPROVAL-OTHER AMENDMENT FOR 201 NORTH MILL STREET, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING CONDOMINIUM, CITY
OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel Nos. 2737-073-17-010 through 2737-073-17-028
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
owner of the property requesting of the City Council amendments to the entitlements approved
via Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requires the following land use approvals: Subdivision -
Other Amendment, Growth Management Review - Substantial Amendment and Commercial
Design Review Approval – Other Amendment to reduce the number of residential units
approved for the site and reduce the net leasable commercial/office space as well as other
programmatic and architectural features of the building; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the amended application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 26, 2013, the City Council
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development
Director, and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and adopted
said ordinance, approving with conditions, Subdivision - Other Amendment, Substantial
Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order, and Other Amendment to a
Commercial Design Review Approval; 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 amendments; 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:
Section 1: General Development Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves the following land use reviews: Subdivision - Other Amendment,
Substantial Amendment of a Growth Management Development Order, and Other Amendment
P221
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 2 of 9
to a Commercial Design Review Approval to amend the approvals granted via Ordinance No. 27,
Series of 2008.
The amended site specific approval permits the property to be developed with a mixed-use
building containing four (4) free- market units, four (4) affordable housing dwelling units and up
to 10,376 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial/office space. This approval is vested under the Land
Use Code in effect in April 24, 2006, for the remaining vesting period as outlined in Resolution
No. 42 (Series of 2009).
Section 2: Plat and Agreement
The Applicant shall record an amendment to the subdivision agreement that meets the requirements
of Land Use Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval; however, a
subdivision plat is not required to be filed.
Section 3: Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional Requirement Approved
Dimensions
Minimum Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 120 sq. ft
Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling N/A
Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 Feet
Minimum Alternative Front Yard Setback 7 Feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 Feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 Feet
Maximum Height 32 Feet
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
2:1 or
24,000 sq. ft.
Commercial:
≤.802:1
Affordable
≥.42:1
Free-Market:
≤.79:1
Minimum Off-Street Parking 21 spaces**
Maximum Unit Size*** 2,000 sq. ft.
Notes: * The Mixed-Use zone district requires that the total free-market residential Floor Area
on the parcel be no greater than the commercial Floor Area; the standard is met as the
commercial net leasable equals over 10,000 sq. ft. while the residential net livable is less than
8,000 sq. ft.
** Four of the parking spaces are required to be provided for the affordable housing units.
*** The land use code in 2006 permits a unit to be up to 2,000 sq. ft. in net livable area but does
not permit the extinguishment of a Transferable Development Right to increase the unit size
P222
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 3 of 9
Section 4: Affordable Housing
All of the affordable housing units shall meet the APCHA Guidelines. The Applicant may choose
two purchasers for the affordable housing units that qualify via APCHA’s guidelines with regard to
top priority. Units shall be for sale units. All units meet the required standards of providing a
percentage of the finished floor at or above natural or finished grade.
Following are the number and type of units approved.
Category Number of
Units
Unit Type Minimum Net
Livable per Unit
4 3 3 bedroom 1@1,235
1@1,291
1@1,278
2 1 3 bedroom 1,098
The Certificate of Occupancy for the free-market portion shall not be issued until the Certificate of
Occupancy for all of the deed restricted units have been executed. All deed restrictions shall be
recorded coincident with the recordation of a condominium plat and prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy.
One annual membership shall be purchased for the initial residents of each affordable housing unit
for the Car to Go program. Additionally, one off-street parking space shall be provided for each
unit.
Section 5: Building Permit Application
The applicant may not submit a Building Permit Application until the requirements in Land Use
Code § 26.304.075.A, Building Permit Application, are fulfilled. The building permit
application shall include the following:
A. A copy of the Development Order issued by the Community Development Department
(see § 26.304.075(A)(2), City of Aspen Municipal Code.)
B. A copy of the final City Council Ordinance.
C. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the Building Permit set.
D. A construction management plan (CMP) and drainage report pursuant to Engineering and
Building Department requirements.
E. Accessibility and ANSI requirements shall meet adopted Building Code requirements.
Section 6: Engineering
Final 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
inclusive but not limited to the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements (URMP)
construction management and excavation stabilization requirements. The development will
coordinate its plans with the engineering department on its Mill Street Complete Street project.
P223
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 4 of 9
Further design detail is required prior to building permit submission for the engineering
department to determine whether the sidewalk on Bleeker Street may be attached, detached or a
combination of the two options.
Section 7: 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). Stand Pipes for fire
protection need to extend into the basement. Service size needs to account for the required fire
flows. The alley size needs to accommodate aerial fire truck access for a minimum width of 20
feet or as otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal.
Section 8: Water Department Requirements
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Each of the
units within the building shall have individual water meters.
Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements
A. 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.
B. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
C. 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.
D. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments. Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells. Elevator shafts drains must
flow thru o/s interceptor.
E. 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.
F. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may
impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
G. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
P224
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 5 of 9
H. The glycol heating and snow melt system 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.
I. 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.
J. Applicant’s civil engineer will be required to submit existing and proposed flow calculations.
Section 10: Electrical Department Requirements
The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in
order to determine if the existing transformer has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a
new supplemental transformer is required to be installed, the Applicant shall provide for a new
transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior
to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to
access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is
installed
Section 11: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 12: School Lands Dedication Fee
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a
fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community
Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and
fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the
market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on
the site.
Section 13: Impact Fees
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Impact Fees, the Applicant shall pay a Parks
Development impact fee assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at
building permit issuance. The amount shall be calculated using the methodology and fee
schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. As the land use application was
submitted prior to adoption of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality
impact fee, the fee shall not be required.
Section 14: Parks
A. Excavation: any excavation under the drip line of a tree to be preserved will need to
approved and receive a drip line permit along with the tree permit. The existing retaining
wall along the western boundary shall be maintained to protect trees along the shared
property line. Vertical excavation may be required and over digging will be prohibited in
such zones; work in these zones will need to be coordinated with the Parks Department.
B. 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
P225
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 6 of 9
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. Root damage is required to be minimized by preserving the
existing foundation, unless an alternative is acceptable and approved by the Parks
Department, around the large Spruce Tree.
C. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work
takes place. Mitigation for tree removals shall be required.
D. The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on-call in order to
address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Roots 2” or greater shall be
professionally pruned by the on-call tree service. Root trenching will be required around all
trees that will be subject to excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can
be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the
contractor’s team.
E. Landscaping and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be
subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements, including:
o Street tree plantings shall be evenly spaced a minimum of 20 foot on-center.
o ROW plantings require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage.
o Improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current soils to improve air,
water filtration and increase longevity of the new plantings) may be necessary and shall
be reviewed by the Parks Department.
o Tree trenches will need to be utilized for the street tree plantings. Bleeker Street planting
can be accomplished with an attached curb and sidewalk with a brick paver accent.
F. Applicant should work with the developer of the adjacent property (to the west) to coordinate
the access issues, tree removals and grading associated with opening of the alley.
Section 15: Cost and Financial Assurances
A. Proof of Financing. Before the issuance of a building permit for the development of the
property, and as a condition of such approval, owner shall provide to the City Building
Department and City Attorney for review and approval, satisfactory evidence that owner has in
place sufficient financing to accomplish and complete the construction of the development of the
project covered by the building permit and any public improvements identified within an
improvements agreement and required under this ordinance; provided, if there is no loan with
respect to development of the project, then owner shall provide a letter from a financial
institution stating that the owner has funds available in an amount that covers the estimated cost
of construction for the development. Such financing may include without limitation, a
construction loan from an institutional lender or lenders and equity capital investments and/or
donations from owner or third party investors or contributors. In addition, before issuance of a
building permit for the project, owner shall provide supporting cost estimates for all
P226
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 7 of 9
improvements covered by the requested building permit prepared by owner’s general contractor
for review and approval by the City of Aspen Building Department.
B. Cash Escrow for Site Enhancement Fund. Before the issuance of a building permit for the
project, and as a condition of such issuance, the owner will deposit with a title company the sum
of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO/100THS ($250,000.00) (the
“Site Enhancement Escrow Funds”) in the form of cash or wired funds pursuant to an Escrow
Agreement made and entered into between the owner and the City which shall provide as
follows:
i. In the event construction work on the development of the project shall cease for ninety
(90) days or longer, to a final inspection by the City of the work authorized by a
foundation/structural frame permit (“F/SFP”) on said parcel and cessation of such
construction work continues for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days after notice
from the City to the owner specifying the subject work in reasonable detail, or if such
breach cannot be cured reasonably within such one hundred twenty (120) day period and
owner fails to commence and proceed diligently to cure such breach within a reasonable
time period, then the City, in its reasonable discretion, may draw upon the Site
Enhancement Escrow Funds from time to time as needed for the purposes of improving
the appearance of any construction work not already completed on the site.
ii. The Site Enhancement Escrow Funds or any remaining balance thereof shall be returned
to the owner, upon completion by the City of a final inspection and issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the parcel or when otherwise agreed to by Owner and the
City.
C. Cash Escrow for Site Protection. Before the issuance of a building permit for the project, and
as a condition of such issuance, the owner will deposit with a title company the sum of TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO/100THS ($250,000.00)(“Escrow
Funds”) in the form of cash or wired funds pursuant to an Escrow Agreement made and entered
into between the owner and the City which shall provide as follows:
i. In the event construction work on the development of the project shall cease for sixty
(60) days or longer (“Work Stoppage”), prior to a final inspection by the City of the
work authorized by a foundation/structural frame permit (“F/SFP”) on such lot, and
cessation of such construction work continues for a period of thirty (30) days after notice
from the City to owner specifying the subject work in reasonable detail, or if such breach
cannot be cured reasonably within such thirty (30) day period and the owner fails to
commence and proceed diligently to cure such breach within a reasonable time period,
then the City in its reasonable discretion may draw upon the Escrow Funds from time to
time as needed for the purposes of protecting and securing the construction site and
improvements thereon from damage by the elements and/or from trespass by
unauthorized persons, and for purposes of improving the site to a safe condition such that
it does not become an attractive nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to neighbors or other
persons.
P227
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 8 of 9
ii. Half of the Escrow Funds shall be returned to the owner upon completion by the City of a
final inspection of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural Frame Permit on the
project. The balance of funds shall be returned to the owner once exterior finishes to the
building have been installed.
Section 16: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a
vested property right pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.011 attaching to and running with
the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the
site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site
specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. As the current approval is a
site specific development plan approved via Ordinance No. 25 (Series of 2007), the approved
amendments are subject to the existing vesting period and shall sunset on February 5, 2015 as noted
in City Council Resolution 42 (Series of 2009).
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall
result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended,
failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein,
within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture
of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of
§ 26.104.050, Void Permits.
Section 17:
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 18:
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 19:
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 20:
P228
VIII.d
Ordinance No. 32
(Series of 2013)
Page 9 of 9
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 26th day of August, 2013, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of August, 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this --- day of August, 2013.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A – Approved Exterior Elevations and floor plans
P229
VIII.d
Exhibit A
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Finding
The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP’s
housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which
is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. With the location of the development,
the building supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes: transit, walking, and
bicycling. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed mixed- use is consistent with the land uses in the immediate
vicinity which include commercial office uses, multi-family affordable housing uses and free-
market uses within the downtown area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed.
Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding
The proposed development is in compliance with the mixed-use zone district requirements
and meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. 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
P231
VIII.d
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
b. 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 Finding
Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The sloped site contains no overly
steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the
inhabitants of the proposed development. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a
duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is
already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be 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 the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, 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 Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be 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
Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. 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 Finding
The Applicant is providing affordable housing units as required by the Land Use Code and
exceeds the affordable housing review standards of the GMQS system. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
P232
VIII.d
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be
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
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.
(Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2)
Staff Finding
Allotments for the property have already been granted for five free-market units, five affordable
housing units, and an additional 3,276 of net leasable, the application requests a reduction in
allotments. Staff finds this criterion met.
P233
VIII.d
EXHIBIT B
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS:
The Applicant is requesting an amendment the three (3) separate growth management approvals
already granted. It should be noted that when affordable housing units are provided on-site, the
individual mitigation requirements are not required to be added together for a combined sum, as
long as the largest amount of required mitigation of any one growth management request is met.
The requests and the project’s compliance with the applicable review standards are discussed
below:
1) Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed-use Development. Section 26.470.040
C.2, of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Growth
Management approval must comply with the following standards and requirements.
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
expansion pursuant to Section 26.470.030 D., Annual Development Allotments.
Staff Finding
Allotments for the property have already been granted for five free-market units, five
affordable housing units, and an additional 3,276 of net leasable, the application requests a
reduction in allotments. Staff finds this criterion met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding
The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP’s
housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which
is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. With the location of the development,
the building supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes: transit, walking, and
bicycling. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c) Sixty percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge
development, according to Section 26.470.050.A., Employee Generation Rates, are
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof.
Affordable Housing shall be provided shall be approved pursuant to Section
26.4740.040C. 7., Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in
the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free-
Market residential units within a mixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section
26.470.040.C.6 – Free- Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project.
Staff Finding
Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial development are
required to be mitigated for through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu;
however, the applicant is required to mitigate only for the difference between the existing
and proposed development. Within the Mixed-Use zone district, 3.7 Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) are generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. For basement and upper
P235
VIII.d
floors the employee generation rate is reduced by twenty-five (25) percent or 2.775 FTEs per
1,000 square feet of net leasable area.
The existing building contains 3,775 sq. ft. of first floor net leasable and 3,775 square feet of
upper floor net leasable. The net leasable area generates 13.97 FTEs [(3,775 sq. ft./1,000 sq.
ft.) x 3.7] on the first floor, and 10.48 FTEs [(3,775 sq. ft./1,000 sq. ft.) x 2.775] on the
second floor. In sum, the existing building generates 24.45 FTEs.
The proposed building will contain an expected total of 10,376 sq. ft. of net leasable area,
with 7,155.5 sq. ft. of first floor net leasable and 3,220.5 square feet of upper floor or
basement net leasable. The new net leasable area generates 26.47 FTEs [(7,155.5 sq.
ft./1,000 sq. ft.) x 3.7] on the first floor, and 8.93 FTEs [(3,220.5 sq. ft./1,000 sq. ft.) x 2.775]
on the second floor. In sum, the proposed building would generate 35.4 employees. The
difference between the credit and what is proposed is 10.95 FTES and when mitigated for at
sixty (60) percent equals 6.57 FTEs.
The Applicant is proposing to provide four three-bedroom affordable housing units. In
Section 26.470.050 A.2., Employees Housed, a three-bedroom unit houses 3 employees;
therefore, 12 employees are mitigated for through the on-site affordable housing units. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and transit services.
Staff Finding
The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure. Any changes and
or upgrades to infrastructure will be installed during construction of the building. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
2) Growth Management for Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use project.
Section 26.470. 040 C.6., of the City Land Use Code provides that development
applications for Growth Management approval must comply with the following
standards and requirements.
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
expansion pursuant to Section 26.470.030 D., Annual Development Allotments.
Staff Finding
Allotments for the property have already been granted for five free-market units, five
affordable housing units, and an additional 3,276 of net leasable, the application requests a
reduction in allotments. Staff finds this criterion met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
P236
VIII.d
Staff Finding
The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP’s
housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which
is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. With the location of the development
the building supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes: transit, walking, and
bicycling. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c) Affordable Housing net livable space, for which the finished floor is at or above
Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal
to thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market residential net livable space, for
which the finished floor level is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is
higher. Additional net livable affordable housing space beyond this requirement may be
developed below Natural or Finished Grade but shall not count towards this criterion.
Affordable Housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040 C.7., Affordable
Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
Staff Finding
As proposed, all of the free-market net livable space is above-grade and equals 8,000 square
feet. Growth Management Review requires affordable housing net livable space, “be
provided in an amount equal to thirty (30) percent of the additional free-market residential
net livable space, for which the finished floor is at or above natural or finished grade.” This
results in 2,400 square feet of affordable housing necessary to be provided on-site. The
Applicant is proposing four (4) affordable housing units with a total of 4,902 sq. ft. of net
livable area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and transit services.
Staff Finding
The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure. Any changes and
or upgrades to infrastructure will be installed during construction of the building. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
3) Affordable Housing. Section 26.470.040 C.7., Affordable Housing, of the City Land Use
Code provides that development applications must comply with the following standards
and requirements.
a. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new
units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels.
P237
VIII.d
Staff Finding
Allotments for the property have already been granted for five free-market units, five
affordable housing units, and an additional 3,276 of net leasable, the application requests a
reduction in allotments. Staff finds this criterion met.
b. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding
The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP’s
housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which
is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. With the location of the development,
the building supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes: transit, walking, and
bicycling. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall
be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may
choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Finding
APCHA recommended approval of the amendment to the existing approval to allow the
development of four, three-bedroom affordable housing units. Thus, staff finds this standard
to be met.
d. Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the
finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit’s net livable square footage is
at Natural of Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units shall be provided
within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as
mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040 D.2. Provision of affordable
housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and
Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
Staff Finding
All of the units are proposed to be “for sale” units. All units are above natural or finished
grade. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
e. The proposed units shall be deed restricted as “for sale” units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin Country Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined
in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
P238
VIII.d
Authority as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of
Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and
associated with a lodging or commercial operations to be rental units if a legal
instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability
of the units. Unit owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of
Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall
not be subject to this mandatory “for-sale” provision.
Staff Finding
All of the units are proposed to be “for sale” units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P239
VIII.d
EXHIBIT C
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW:
As part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting Commercial Design Review approval
for the proposed mixed-use building. The intent of the design criteria is to, “foster proper
commercial district scale and character.” The subject property is not located within the Main
Street Historic District, but is adjacent to the district and across the street from an historic
landmark property. The Commercial Design Standards contain a number of standards that the
subject building is required to meet.
A. Building Relationship to Primary Street. This standard requires that the building be
parallel to the adjoining streets, provide a setback that is similar to adjoining
properties, provide a consistent setback on the first and second story, as well as design a
first story that is consistent with the sidewalk. Due to the site constraint of the existing
grade change, the first story is not consistent with the sidewalk, but all other
requirements are met.
B. Pedestrian Amenity Space. The subject property is outside the area required to
provide pedestrian amenity. So this standard is not applicable.
C. Street Level Elements. The commercial storefront is an element that provides
transparent viewing of goods and services at the street level and is an important
characteristic of the downtown. The standard requires articulated exterior walls, a
certain percentage of fenestration at street level (for retail buildings), defined building
entrances, and entrances designed to accommodate airlocks. Please review the
comments provided below in italics.
D. Parking. Parking is required to be provided via an alleyway and provides
constraints on above grade parking. The Applicant is proposing to provide parking
accessed by an alley and all of the parking proposed is sub-grade.
E. Utility, Delivery, and Trash Service Provision. This standards requires that trash
service be provided along the alley, be a minimum of twenty (20) feet by ten (10) feet in
size, locate utility service pedestals along the alley and on private property, provide for
delivery service areas, and provide minimal mechanical venting on the roof. As
designed, the trash service area meets the minimum requirements. Utility service
pedestals will be provided on-site or along the alley, delivery service can be
accommodated through the alley and parking garage, and the mechanical will be
vented through the roof.
Staff Finding
Staff finds that the commercial design standards are met. The intent of the commercial design
standards is to create a building that fits within the commercial context of the downtown,
which in great part contains turn of the century commercial buildings. These buildings have
individual character but still contain consistent design elements, for example, the repetition
of upper story windows in a general alignment along multiple buildings, creating a cohesive
architectural context.
P241
VIII.d
The building provides distinguishable differences in levels of the buildings. As proposed, the
building generally provides a typical street front 1st story, with the facade being
predominately transparent glass and minimum amounts of opaque materials. It also
incorporates retail entrances. The second story is more opaque in nature as suggested in the
guidelines, with windows being smaller, transparent openings in the solid facade. The Brick
proposed is a typical material of downtown. With elevation changes in topograghy and the
treatment of materials along the façade, the massing of the building is broken into smaller
modules.
P242
VIII.d
P243
VIII.d
P244
VIII.d
P245
VIII.d
P247
VIII.d
P248
VIII.d
P249
VIII.d
P250
VIII.d
P251
VIII.d
P252
VIII.d
P253
VIII.d
P254
VIII.d
P255
VIII.d
32’
-
0
”
32’
-
0
”
05.20.2013JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITDAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS aspen, co
20’
-
0
”
P2
5
7
VI
I
I
.
d
DRAWING ISSUE
J
E
R
O
M
E
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
0
1
N
O
R
T
H
M
I
L
L
S
T
.
|
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
SHEET No.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1306
CPF
PROGRAM STUDY
FMU SCHEMATIC
PLANNING SUBMISSION
418 East Cooper Ave
Suite 206
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-3444
970-920-2186
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
TEL
FAX
2.2
SITE PLAN (PROPOSED)
(1" = 8'-0")
02/19/13
owned by and are the property of David Johnston
Architects, PC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of David Johnston Architects, PC.
03/27/13
05/21/13
06/06/13
SHEET No.N
LINE OF EXISITING BUILDING
(TO BE DEMOED)
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
(TO BE REMOVED)
LINE OF EXISITING BUILDING
(TO BE DEMOED)
PLANTER
WALL
BENCHES
(TBD)
PLANTER
WALL
PEDESTRIAN
COURTYARD
ENTRY TO
PARKING
GARAGE
NEW PLANTING
STRIP (COA IMPROVEMENTS)
NEW CURB
& GUTTER
(COA IMPROVEMENTS)
LANDSCAPED
AMENITY SPACE
PROPOSED
ENTRY
STAIR
NEW SIDEWALK
(COA IMPROVEMENTS)
EXISTING
RETAINING WALL
PLANTER
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
(TO BE REMOVED)
AHU
PARKING 1
LOWER
COURTYARD
UPPER
COURTYARD
DRIVEWAY
NEIGHBORING BUILDING
AHU
ENTRY
PORCH
AHU
LANDSCAPED
ENTRY
PATH
OFFICE
ENTRY
PATH
LOBBY
ENTRY
PATH
EXISTING SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPED
AREA
LANDSCAPED
AREA
BLEEKER STREET
NORTH MILL
STREET
AHU
ENTRY
PORCH
EGRESS
WELL
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN
0 4'8'16'P2
5
8
VI
I
I
.
d
05.20.2013JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SOUTHHEAST PERSPECTIVEDAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS aspen, co
P2
5
9
VI
I
I
.
d
05.20.2013JERMOME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVEDAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS aspen, co
P2
6
0
VI
I
I
.
d
05.20.2013JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVEDAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS aspen, co
P2
6
1
VI
I
I
.
d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM : Tyler A. Christoff, P.E., Senior Project Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: August 20, 2013
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2013
RE: Main Street Pedestrian Safety – Bollard Illumination
__________________
SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding pedestrian safety measures for the Main Street
corridor. Staff will provide a night time demonstration of this system immediately following the
regular Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
City Council identified bicycle and pedestrian safety as one of 2012-2013’s top ten goals.
The language of the goal states: “develop and present a conceptual pedestrian and bicycle
priority master plan including phased improvements that can be implemented over the next five
years.”
The City of Aspen staff has been tasked to address safety concerns along Main Street as they
relate to vehicle pedestrian interactions. Through extensive public outreach, research, and trial
treatments pedestrian crosswalk lighting has emerged as a promising solution to Aspen’s safety
concerns. Widely used pedestrian lighting treatments found in other communities were rejected
by Aspen’s citizenry due to aesthetic, historic, and maintenance concerns.
DISCUSSION:
This project seeks to create safer and easier pedestrian crossings of Main Street at specific
intersections through the use of crosswalk bollard-based lighting at strategic locations. The City
has partnered with 3M, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Lighting Research Center, and Intrigue
Lighting to develop and test a prototype bollard lighting system.
A representative from the Lighting Research Center along with City staff was stationed at
Garmisch Street and Main Street on August 14th and at Hyman Ave and Monarch Street August
15th to gather public feedback on the prototype. Participants were asked to fill out a brief survey
with questions ranging from the system’s aesthetics to its safety elements. A summary of the
survey data and a brief statistical overview are provided (Exhibit A). Comments were largely
positive, with a majority of respondents mostly agreeing or completely agreeing to the overall
effectiveness of the system.
Exhibit A – Survey Questionnaire Results
Exhibit B – Photos from August 14 & 15 prototype trials
P263
X.
1
City of Aspen Crosswalk Lighting Demonstration
Preliminary Survey Questionnaire Results
Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Draft for Discussion: August 20, 2013
The crosswalk lighting demonstration occurred over two nights (August 14 and August 15). On
the first night the luminaires were set up at the intersection of Main and Garmisch Streets,
crossing Main Street. On the second night they were set up at the intersection of Monarch and
Hyman Streets, crossing Hyman Street.
Participants indicated their agreement with the following statements using a five-point scale (-2:
completely disagree, -1: partly disagree, 0: neither agree/disagree, +1: partly agree, +2:
completely agree). The number of people (n) responding to each statement is shown in
parentheses:
1. I would feel secure while waiting to cross the street after dark (n=41)
2. I would feel secure while crossing the street after dark (n=41)
3. As a pedestrian, I can see vehicles approaching clearly after dark (n=40)
4. As a pedestrian, I can see other pedestrians clearly after dark (n=37)
5. I would be able to see pedestrians clearly while driving after dark (n=31)
6. Overall, the lighting is comfortable (n=37)
7. I like the color of the lighting (n=41)
8. I like the appearance of the light fixtures (n=40)
9. I could easily find objects dropped on the ground after dark (n=41)
10. Overall, the light fixtures would help me feel safe at night (n=37)
There were no statistically significant differences between responses on August 14 and August
15, except for statement #9 (finding objects on the ground). The average response on August 14
was +1.39 and on August 15 was +1.78.
The bar graphs below show the mean responses for each statement, and the error bar indicates
the standard deviation of responses. In all cases, the responses to each statement were positive,
and using a one-sample Student's t-test, were statistically significantly (p<0.05) different from
zero, indicating overall agreement with each statement. The statements with the lowest amount
of agreement were #4, on being able to see other pedestrians, and #6 on the comfort level from
the lighting.
Participants could also provide further comments regarding their impressions of the lighting
system. The "word cloud" on the final page of this document contains the text of responses as
provided, and increases the size of the most commonly used words. The word cloud confirms
that many participants commented on the brightness of the lighting system.
P264
X.
2
P265
X.
3
WORD CLOUD FOR PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES
P266
X.
P2
6
7
X.
P2
6
8
X.
August 13, 2013
Aspen City Council
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am an owner in the 300 building of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association. I wish to make it known
that I support the Long Range Planning Process the Aspen Alps is undertaking, and I su
application for a Conforming PUD. I ask and encourage you to a p the recent
your consideration in this matter. approve the PU D applicati ort on. I appreciate
Sincerely,
EXECUTIVE SESSION
010
Date August 26, 2013 Call to order at: m.
I. Councilmembers present: Councilmembers not present:
nn Mullins ❑ Ann Mullins
Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch
Art Daily ❑ Art Daily
Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero
II. Motion to go into executive session by </`�L/� -�7 ; seconded by '>
Other persons present:
AGAINST:
FOR:
E.Ann Mullins ❑ Ann Mullins
...Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron
.Adam Frisch ❑ Adam Frisch
Art Daily ❑ Art Daily
Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero
III. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF:
C.R.s. 24-6-402(4) , "
a) he purchase, acquisition, lease,transfer, or sale f any real, personal, or other property interest
(b)Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal
questions.
(c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations.
(d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic
and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the
purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law;
e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations;
an nstructing negotiators;
(f) (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if
the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting.
IV. ATTESTATION:
The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the
subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney-cli t communication:
r'
The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the iscussio in this ex cu i e se 7wre ed
to t he topic(s)described in Section I1I, above.
Adjourned at: