HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.202006091
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
June 9, 2020
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
IV.CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS
(Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please
limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
V.A.Jeff Woods Retirement Proclamation
V.B.Annie Denver Recognition Proclamation
VI.CONSENT CALENDAR
(These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
VII.NOTICE OF CALL-UP
VIII.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
IX.PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX.A.Ordinance #06, Series of 2020 - Establishment of Transferable Development Right
(TDR) - 920 East Hyman
IX.B.Resolution #026, Series of 2020 - Lacet Subdivision - Amendment to Resolution No.
58, Series of 1994
1
2
IX.C.Comcast Franchise Agreement and Customer Service Standards
X.ACTION ITEMS
X.A.Resolution #045, Series of 2020 - Extension of Temporary Use, Silver City Ice Rink,
433 E. Durant Avenue
XI.ADJOURNMENT
2
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1880
WHEREAS, Jeff Woods has tirelessly worked for the City of Aspen as the Parks & Recreation
Manager since 1997, creating spectacular parks, trails, recreational spaces, golf courses, and
open spaces that seamlessly blend nature’s beauty into the built environment. His experience
includes designing and building over 20 National and State ASLA award winning projects
throughout the City of Aspen for the past 23 years of his expansive 40-year career.
WHEREAS, Jeff Woods throughout his long career at the City, has recruited a talented,
diverse, visionary team that has designed, constructed, built, managed, and masterfully
woven together projects throughout the City of Aspen. Some of these projects included the
John Denver Sanctuary/Rio Grande Park, Wagner Park, the Aspen Skateboard Park, Maroon
Creek & Jenny Adair Wetlands, Snyder Park, the Aspen Golf Course, Burlingame &
Promontory Park, the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC), the Aspen Community Campus and
future projects such as Dolinsek Gardens.
WHEREAS, Jeff did all of this while managing, advising, guiding, inspiring, building lasting
relationships with, and at times “disciplining” multiple departments and staff simultaneously
at once including Parks, Recreation, Golf, Special Events, and the Red Brick Arts Center/ AND
HE WAS the City of Aspen’s the record holder for supervising the most departments while not
losing his marbles.
WHEREAS, Jeff was most often inspired in his design ideas and visions (all for the benefit of
the City) while powder skiing, or riding his mountain bike on Sky Mountain Parks on his way
to a “meeting”, or drinking a margarita at Jazz Aspen Snowmass Festival;
WHEREAS, Jeff and his wife of 42 years Julie Ann Woods, and his two grown children Liz and
Tim, will now have more time to enjoy extreme mountain sports and adventure seeking
together as a family.
WHEREAS, Jeff’s passion, political savvy, knowledge, creativity, relationship building skills,
community involvement, coffee shop talk, love for natural spaces and love for the community and
the City will be deeply missed; BUT, luckily for us, he will be just an email away (tied to a small
consulting fee of course).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor, the City Council and Citizens of Aspen
hereby proclaim June 9thth, 2020 as
Jeff Woods Career Appreciation Day
By order of the Aspen City Council This 9
th Day of June, 2020
_____________________________________________________
Torre, Mayor Attest Sara Ott, City Manager
3
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1880
Whereas, Annie Denver has passionately and generously supported the design, creation,
funding, spirit and realization of the John Denver Sanctuary dream since its creative
inception which began in 1998 per the original proclamation which defined the intent of
this sacred space as follows:
“The focus of the Sanctuary will be the beauty of the re-created natural landscape,
including groves of trees, shrubs, wetlands and wildflowers. At the heart of the sanctuary
will be a boulder garden featuring native river boulders placed in a perfect circle to
represent the circle of life. At the circle’s center, a single ponderosa pine symbolizing the
spirit of John Denver will be planted.” Excerpt from City of Aspen proclamation, 1998
Whereas, Annie Denver and Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation and lead
landscape architect, and his talented in-house planning and construction team worked
together closely for over 20 years on this project. They collaborated designing and building
a garden that evoked John Denver’s soaring spirt and they did all of this by combining the
beauty of John’s inspiration with innovation and creative landscape design.
Whereas, Annie Denver spend countless hours of her own personal time assisting in the
actualization of this combined vision which started with a study of the surrounding
watershed and a study of the spirit of John Denver. It resulted in creating a truly heartfelt
iconic destination where state of the art stormwater management, ecology, art, culture and
legacy blend effortlessly.
Whereas, Annie Denver and her foundation, The John Denver Aspen Glow Foundation,
guided and funded in excess of several hundred thousand dollars the careful research,
selection, and installation of the large locally sourced granite boulders that anchor the
environment to John’s guiding beliefs and principles. These words are etched on each of the
carefully selected, crafted and inscribed boulders that rest in the Sanctuary.
Whereas, this entire project wouldn’t have been possible without Annie’s deep
understanding and embracement of the Aspen Idea of Mind, Body and Spirit. This is
powerfully communicated by the message that Annie herself created which is inscribed on
the large boulder that sits at the main entrance to the sanctuary which says:
John Denver Sanctuary
Earth, Water, Mountain, Sky
Pause, Reflect, Enjoy
Whereas, because of all of Annie Denver’s hard work, dedication, funding support and
enthusiasm, this special and sacred space has not only become a top Trip Advisor Award
destination, it has also become one of Aspen’s resting spots and crown jewels as well as one
of the projects the City of Aspen is most proud of. Most importantly, because of Annie’s
efforts, the John Denver Sanctuary’s most lasting effect is that it is a special place that
seeps into the memories of visitors, encouraging them to take John’s message beyond the
limits of the Sanctuary and out into the bigger world.
4
The entire City of Aspen and the Aspen Community can’t thank you enough Annie and we
are eternally grateful for your generosity and service!
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor, the City Council and Citizens of Aspen
hereby proclaim June 9th, 2020 as:
Annie Denver Appreciation Day
By order of the Aspen City Council this 9
th Day of June 2020
_____________________________________________________
Torre, Mayor Attest Sara Ott, City Manager
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
FROM: Sarah Yoon, Preservation Planner; Community Development
MEMO DATE: June 1, 2020
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2020; 920 East Hyman Avenue,
Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDR); PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant:
Larian, LLC
Representative:
Zone 4 Architects, LLC
Location:
920 E. Hyman Ave.;
Legally described as Lot N, Block
32, City of Aspen, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorado.
PID# 2737-182-06-005.
Current Zoning & Use:
RMF – Residential Multi-Family;
Single-family home
Summary: The owner of 920 E.
Hyman proposes to convert
unused floor area into one
Transferable Development Right
(TDR)
Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends City Council approve
the establishment of one TDR, on
second reading
Vicinity Map – Aerial Image
920 E. Hyman Avenue
920
6
Page 2 of 4
Establishment of TDR
920 E. Hyman Avenue
City Council 1st Reading
On May 12, 2020, City Council heard the request to establish one Transferable Development Right
(TDR) for this site on first reading. The following is staff’s response to Council’s questions at First
Reading:
1. Council asked where TDRs may land or be extinguished? City of Aspen Historic TDRs may
only be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen, and Pitkin County TDRs are not eligible
for extinguishment within the City of Aspen. A receiving site is determined by the zone district,
use of the land, and size of the parcel. All requirements are described in Chapter 26.710 of the
Land Use Code. A property may also be designated as a receiving site through a site-specific
Planned Development (PD), pursuant to Chapter 26.445.
2. Council asked if TDRs allow receiving sites to build beyond the maximum allowable
square footage permitted by underlying zoning? Yes, TDRs allow for properties to exceed
the maximum allowed floor area or maximum unit size for multi-family units as permitted by
underlying zoning. The program is based on the relationship between sending sites, which limit
the total development below the maximum allowable floor area, and receiving sites, which
exceed the maximum allowable by the amount of the TDR landed. Between the two properties,
there is no net increase in development rights, but historic properties are better preserved.
Floor area is calculated in increments of 250 s.f. and net livable area is calculated in increments
of 500 s.f. Chapter 26.710 (Zone Districts) provides detailed information on how many TDRs
may be extinguished on a given property.
3. Council asked what the process is for landing TDRs, and if City Council is involved?
The Aspen City Council is not involved in the landing or extinguishment process of specific
TDRs. The zone districts where receiving sites may be located was established by City Council,
and their issuance (as in this case) is approved by Council. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for a project involving the use of a TDR, property owners must provide development
plans and TDR certificates to the Community Development Department for review according
to the standards in Chapter 26.535.070 to ensure all requirements are met. As a final step, the
TDR certificates shall be marked “extinguished” and the Community Development Director
shall issue a letter confirming the extinguishment of the TDR certificates.
4. Council asked if sites receiving TDRs can also be granted setback or height variations?
Receiving sites are only eligible for setback or height variances if these are granted on the
basis of hardship by the Board of Adjustment (in the case of setbacks) or Council (in the case
of height). This is in accordance with the processes outlined in the Land Use Code for all
variations requested for development projects.
5. Council asked if a Floor Area bonus was grated to this development? No floor area bonus
was granted for this development. The allowed maximum floor area for this lot is 2,400 sf and
the proposed development is calculated at 2,149.66 sf.
7
Page 3 of 4
Establishment of TDR
920 E. Hyman Avenue
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting the following approval from City Council.
• Transferable Development Rights (Section 26.535) for the establishment of one TDR,
representing remaining residential development allowed on this historic parcel. The Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) is a recommending body and Aspen City Council is the final
review authority.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: As a historically designated landmark, the historic preservation
benefit to sever and sell unused development rights from the parcel in the form of Transferable
Development Rights (TDRs) is available. TDRs are calculated in increments of 250 s.f. of floor area.
The applicant proposes to remove the remaining residential development rights left on the property in
the form of one Transferable Development Right (TDR).
Background
920 E. Hyman is a designed landmark on a 3,000 s.f. lot in the RMF zone district. This single-family
residence is a one-story miner’s cabin with an existing non-historic addition to the rear of the property.
According to the floor area calculations provided in the application, one TDR may be established from
this site. All calculations must be verified by Zoning prior to the issuance of TDR certificates.
• Lot Size = 3,000 square feet
• Maximum Allowed Floor Area = 2,400 square feet
• Proposed Floor Area = 2,149.66 square feet
The remaining floor area that may be converted into a TDR equals 250.34 square feet (2,400 sf –
2,149.66 sf = 250.34 sf). The applicant requests approval for one TDR, which will consume all but
0.34 square feet of the remaining allowed development rights on the site.
HPC Meeting Summary
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met on January 22, 2020 to discuss the application for
Minor Development, Relocation, Setback Variations and Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs).
HPC voted unanimously (6-0) in support of the design proposal and recommended in favor of
establishing one TDR. See Exhibit B – HPC meeting minutes for more details.
DISCUSSION: The standard of review for the establishment of TDRs is in Section 26.535.070 of the
Land Use Code. The applicant demonstrates the existence of unused development rights of two
hundred fifty square feet of floor area on the historic property. The establishment of one TDR will not
create and/or increase any non-conformities, and the applicant has provided all necessary documents
including a draft deed restriction as part of the application. Staff finds that all applicable criteria for
establishing TDRs are met. (See Exhibit A for review criteria and staff findings.)
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
8
Page 4 of 4
Establishment of TDR
920 E. Hyman Avenue
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff and the HPC Recommendation
Staff and the HPC recommend approval of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2020 on Second Reading.
Recommended Motion
“I move to adopt Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2020.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________.
EXHIBITS:
A – Review Criteria & Staff Findings
B – HPC Meeting Minutes from January 22, 2020
C – Land Use Application
9
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2020
920 East Hyman Avenue
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 6
(SERIES OF 2020)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 920 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LOT N, BLOCK 32, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-06-005
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
applicant, Larian LLC, for the property located at 920 East Hyman Avenue, Lot N, Block 32,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, requesting approval for the following:
• Transferable Development Right (TDR) - Section 26.535 for the establishment of one (1)
TDR, representing the remaining residential development allowed on this historic parcel.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposed
application, found that the review standards were met, and recommended in favor of establishing
one (1) TDRs for this site; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the application on January
22, 2020, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Department were
heard by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and the Commission recommended in
favor of the establishment of one (1) TDR through Resolution #3, Series of 2020, by a vote of six
to zero (6 – 0).
WHEREAS, 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 recommendations of the Community Development Director and the Historic Preservation
Commission; and,
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the
applicable development standards; 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 OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize the creation of one
(1) TDRs from the 920 East Hyman Avenue with the following conditions:
10
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2020
920 East Hyman Avenue
Page 2 of 3
1. Commencing with the severing of the TDR from the property, the maximum floor area for
the lot shall be 2,400 square feet minus 250 square feet for each TDR Certificate issued.
2. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the City and the applicant shall establish a date on
which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be validated and issued by the City and
a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder. The property owner may decide when and if, as warranted by
the TDR market, the development rights will be converted into certificates and sold.
3. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and deliver
the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates on the property owner and the property
owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right
of the Sending Site by 250 square feet per TDR together with the appropriate fee for
recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office.
4. All calculations shall be verified by The City prior to the issuance of Historic TDR
Certificates.
Section 2: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 4: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested
for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any
failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly
record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the
effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property
rights and shall render 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
11
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2020
920 East Hyman Avenue
Page 3 of 3
Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described properties: 920 East Hyman Avenue.
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:
A duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 9th day of June, 2020 at 5:00 PM 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 12th day of May, 2020.
Attest: Approved as to content:
____________________________ ____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of __________, 2020.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
____________________________ ____________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Torre, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
12
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A
Review Criteria & Staff Findings
26.535.070. Standard of Review – Establishment of TDRs
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 Findings: The sending site, 920 E. Hyman, is in the RMF zone district which
allows for single-family residential use and is a designated historic landmark.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for
either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty
(250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates
requested.
Staff Findings: The maximum floor area for a single-family home on a 3,000 sf
lot is 2,400 sf. The applicant has provided floor area calculations indicating
250.34 sf of unbuilt floor area remains on this lot which results in one TDR. All
calculations will be verified prior to issuance. Staff finds this criterion is met.
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.
Staff Findings: The establishment of a TDR certificate will not create or increase
a non-conformity on this site. Staff finds this criterion is met.
D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built
development, any approved development order, the allowable development right
prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the
potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential
development incentives. Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently
contain a single-family home or duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance
#7, Series of 2005, shall be permitted to base the calculation of TDRs on 100% of the
allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for
the purpose of creating TDRs and does not permit the on-site development of 100%
of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. If the
additional 20% of allowable floor area exceeds 500 square feet, the applicant may not
request a floor area bonus from HPC at any time in the future. 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.
13
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Page 2 of 3
Staff Findings: This property is in the RMF zone district where residential floor
area is 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-sized lot located in the
R-6 zone district. The applicant is calculating 2,400 sf as the maximum allowable
floor area for this lot. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
E. 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 may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain
eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized
by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of
the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Findings: The applicant has provided a draft deed restriction in the
application, as required. TDR certificates are established in increments of 250
sf. All documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to execution.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
F. 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 Findings: This is a mandatory process that the applicant must pursue.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
G. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans
and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of
built floor area.
Staff Findings: The applicant has provided the needed plans and analysis to
review the application. The floor area calculations indicate that 250.34 sf of
unbuilt floor area remains on this lot. Final calculations shall be reviewed by
The City prior to the issuance of the TDR certificates. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
14
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Page 3 of 3
H. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of
transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the
City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such
transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor,
the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to
timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development
right certificate void.
Staff Findings: This is a mandatory process that the applicant must pursue.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
I. TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner.
Staff Findings: n/a
J. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution
for the affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall
provide Council with a recommendation.
Staff Findings: The applicant’s request to establish one TDR from this site has
been reviewed by staff and the HPC. A recommendation in favor of establishing
one TDR has been provided to City Council. City Council is the final authority
for granting TDRs.
15
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020
Ms. Greenwood asked if everyone is okay with the siding materials. She thinks it’s a better choice from
a color standpoint.
Ms. Thompson stated that she is happy with the materials. They look appropriate.
Mr. Halferty stated that he is also happy with the materials.
Mr. Moyer stated that he’s happy with the bamboo.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she finds that the landscape plan and the fence are compliant with the HPC
guidelines. She would support the design.
Ms. Greenwood stated that it is compliant with the guidelines. She wishes that most of the fence would
be 42-inches for the length of the historic resource. Since that’s not in their guidelines, she can’t really
ask the applicants to do it. She thinks it’s important. Little details like that make a difference in a
community when everyone wants to see the historic resource.
Mr. Halferty stated that he agrees with the landscape plan. What’s proposed is compliant with the HPC
guidelines. He echoed the same comment as Ms. Greenwood regarding being able to see the historic
resource.
Ms. Greenwood stated that applicants don’t always have to go with the guidelines. They should be
sensitive to all the effort that’s gone into restoring the historic resource. The right thing to do would be
to keep the fence low until it reaches the new addition. It’s not like it’s creating a whole lot of space.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that there are a lot of people attending the meeting. She
encouraged the commissioners to speak closely into their microphones. She reminded everyone to
state their name when they speak for the benefit of the clerk producing minutes remotely from the
recording.
Ms. Simon stated that staff and several commissioners are going to be at the Colorado Preservation Inc.
conference next week from Wednesday to Friday.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: 920 E Hyman Avenue – Minor Development, Relocation, Setback Variations, and TDR
Ms. Yoon introduced the project. 920 E Hyman is a 3,000 square foot lot, historically designated, has a
one-story miner’s cabin to the front of the property and it’s connected with an above-grade addition
that was approved by HPC back in 1999, so it doesn’t have the traditional connecting element that we
see today. Looking at the Sanborn Maps from 1904, it appears to be roughly in the same location. It
currently has a setback, which is approximately 22-feet from the property line in a district where 10-feet
is required. The site also has a number of large trees that are located towards the front of the property.
It is located in the RMF zone district. With this application, the applicant wishes to convert an existing
crawl-space into a full basement, add new lightwells, make some exterior material changes and
fenestration changes. The fenestration changes are concentrated on the above-grade addition, not the
historic resource.
16
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020
Ms. Yoon stated that the request for the relocation is needed because any work that requires
underpinning of the structure is considered relocation according to the design guidelines. No new
above-grade or structures are proposed. Nothing is essentially being moved. The applicant plans to
make modifications to the front walkway with this proposal. There is a step towards the front of the
property that is large, so they are going to make that modification there. In relation to stormwater
mitigation, they are proposing to use pervious walkway pavers. The applicant does need to work more
with the Engineering and Parks Departments to hone in on the requirements for drainage and
stormwater, but those are underway. The material that the applicant was providing this week related to
the pervious pavers is going to be a brick paver. In the process, staff recommends that the applicant try
to meet the Design Guideline 1.6. Currently, the existing walkway is not perpendicular. More
investigation into why that is is needed. It is staff’s recommendation to try and meet Guideline 1.6 as
this walkway is being restudied.
Ms. Yoon stated that it was represented in the drawings provided by the architects that footers are
already existing. Two new lightwells are abutting the historic resource towards the rear to provide
egress for the rooms on the sub-grade level. They are slightly larger than what is required by minimum
building code. The modifications to the size of the two existing lightwells are also proposed.
Ms. Yoon stated that fenestration changes are proposed on the north east west elevations of the non-
historic addition. No fenestration changes are proposed on the historic resource. The applicant also
included the addition of new downspouts along the east and west elevation. Staff did provide a
recommendation for additional re-study of where the downspouts are to be located.
Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant does plan to change the roofing material of the existing addition and
the historic resource. It was represented in the application that the historic resource would be restored
to cedar wood shingles. The addition would be changed to a standing seam metal roof. Staff does find
that both of these materials, and in combination with what is existing, meet the criteria and design
guidelines. Since the proposal does trigger relocation, new setback variations will be necessary to
memorialize the location of the existing historic resource, which is currently encroaching into the east
and west setbacks. Additionally, the lightwells are proposed in the setbacks and the applicant is asking
for setback variations for these features. Staff does find that the criteria for granting setback variations
are met with this request. In addition, the applicant is also requesting the establishment of one TDR.
Staff supports the establishment of the TDR that will reduce developable floor area on the site. It does
meet the criteria, as shown in the packet. It is important to note that the establishment of TDRs can
only be done by City Council. HPC is a recommending body for the TDRs. All floor area calculations
must be verified prior to the creating of the TDR certificates. Those all need to be considered.
Ms. Yoon stated that staff does recommend approval of the project. They ask that the applicant restudy
the walkway to be perpendicular if possible, utilizing the pavers and material that’s historically
appropriate. They should work with staff and monitor to find that balance. This is to be done before
the submission of building permit. Also the restudy of the downspouts, which are on the non-historic
addition. That final configuration to also be reviewed by staff and monitor. In the responses that the
applicant sent on Tuesday, they did provide a roof plan. It does show the dimensions and locations of
17
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020
new flues and vents. They also provided additional information about snow clips, so Condition Three
has been met and can be taken off. Staff ask that the lightwell curb heights be six inches or less to make
sure that it’s not too high. There was a request in the application related to the stained glass window.
Additional research and investigation of the materials themselves will be necessary. Staff encourages
the applicant to explore the stained glass that’s there to see if it is historic. It’s unclear at this moment.
Staff do not have enough documentation to support its removal. Working with all relevant City
departments regarding storm water mitigation and urban runoff management plans, the referral
agencies, the Engineering and Parks Departments did provide some comments indicating more
conversation needed related to the drainage and the stormwater mitigation. Those final plans are to be
reviewed and approved by staff and monitor prior to building permit submission. The setback variations
are to be granted to memorialize the location of the historic resource. It also encompasses the
proposed lightwells. The setback variation applies to above and below grade. Staff is in support of the
establishment of one TDR with the finalized floor areas to be verified by the appropriate City
departments before its establishment. Nine is the financial assurance required for relocation.
Ms. Thompson asked if the rear yard setback needs to be reestablished or if that’s set from the old
ordinance.
Ms. Yoon stated that the rear yard setback is set from the old ordinance. There is no work being done in
that area. That one will remain as well as what was approved previously.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the application was submitted after the board required concepts about site
drainage.
Ms. Yoon stated that their guidelines ask for preliminary concepts. She believes that the applicant did
reach out to Engineering and had a preliminary discussion. Since then, staff referred it to the
Engineering Department. There’s been more discussion related to that.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she thought HPC clarified that it was a plan or some sort of drawing that would
be a part of the application that the Commission could review.
Ms. Simon stated that the applicant did provide that and their intention was to tear up the existing
sidewalk and use pervious pavers. Engineering had a change of opinion about the extent of mitigation,
which is why they are now less certain.
Ms. Greenwood asked if they need a rear-yard setback for excavation below-grade.
Ms. Yoon stated that they’re not doing any excavation on the rear. It’s all concentrated to the front
where the historic resource is.
Ms. Thompson stated that they are changing the size of the lightwells. She would anticipate the grading
around them changing. She thinks that that is important to look at, too.
18
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020
APPLICANT PRESETNATION: Mark Janion of B2 Builders introduced himself. He introduced Colleen
Loughin and Bill Pollock of Zone 4 Architects. He stated that the applicants are meeting with the
necessary departments at the City next week to hash out drainage and parks issues that Ms. Simon
mentioned. Regarding the excavation, there’s already an existing basement under the entire addition
and about half the historic asset. The applicants are going to hand-dig out the remaining half, take the
dirt out. It’s already a full-height crawlspace. They are only taking out a small portion. The design from
the engineer goes straight down on the existing foundation, which is why they need the setback
variation. The original house was in the setback and they are just going straight down. They are not
going outside of the original perimeter.
Mr. Halferty asked if Jack discussed the underpinning and foundation extensions, regarding the
excavation.
Mr. Janion stated that it would be four-foot sections.
Mr. Halferty asked if it will all be dug from inside the structure.
Mr. Janion stated that it will be.
Mr. Kendrick asked about the excavation on the window wells. It appears that, on the east side, it goes
past the footprint of the house. On that side of the house, it’s very tight with the adjoining property.
Mr. Janion stated that they would hand-dig that as well and try to work with the engineer to see if they
can come up with a detail to not go over the property. Everything that they do will be on their property.
Mr. Kendrick asked if the window well goes past their property line.
Mr. Janion stated that it does not.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the soil will be wheelbarrowed to the back of the property.
Mr. Janion replied that it will be.
Ms. Sanzone asked how the applicants propose to remove the soil and get it through the area with the
existing tree.
Mr. Janion stated that they can cover the window well and take it over to the driveway in the back.
Ms. Sanzone asked how they plan to do that with the tree in between.
Mr. Janion stated that they will do it with buckets and carry it around.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they have talked with the Parks Department about how they might accomplish
work in that area.
19
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020
Mr. Janion stated that they have not.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she would like them to include that as a part of their conversation.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the applicants are in agreement with what the City is asking them for.
Mr. Janion replied that they are.
Mr. Moyer asked if the applicants foresee any problems with various pipes protruding through the roof,
as related to staff Condition Three.
Mr. Janion stated that it’s not an issue.
Mr. Moyer asked if they know whether the stained glass window is historic or not.
Mr. Janion stated that he does not know. The oldest photos they could find have the window.
Ms. Thompson asked why the lightwells behind the historic bump out past the existing wall instead of
just continuing straight back.
Mr. Pollock stated that it’s related to constructability. They also do need some room. They could bring
it in a bit, but for code reasons they need to be minimum 3x3.
Mr. Janion stated that they will bring it in as small as they can.
Mr. Pollock stated that it was recommended that way by the structural engineer.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the large spruce tree that was added back in the site plan is to remain.
Mr. Janion stated that it is to remain.
Ms. Sanzone asked how the front path will be both snow melted and pervious.
Mr. Janion stated that it will be accomplished with sand and drilled insulation to let the water through
the insulation and then the insulation protects from heating the ground.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the reason that’s proposed to be pervious is to accomplish the additional drainage
requirements or if that’s only related to the walkway. She asked if that includes any impacts with the
other sitework including the two new window wells.
Mr. Janion stated that the roof currently just sheds. There’s a dry well that’s in the right of way that
Engineering doesn’t want them to keep. So they are proposing taking their drainage through that
walkway.
20
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020
Ms. Sanzone asked if it’s a new pipe connection under the walkway. She asked if the drywall would be
in the right of way or in the street.
Mr. Janion stated that it would just be the rock bed below the pervious pavers.
Ms. Sanzone asked what they think the excavation depth is going to be.
Mr. Janion stated that he thinks it was seven by three feet.
Ms. Sanzone asked if protections for trees that might come up in their discussions with Parks would alter
the design.
Mr. Janion stated that trying to get the walkway straight is impacted by the trees, so they are going to
work with Parks, Engineering, and Ms. Simon to figure out what the final alignment looks like.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they are married to the width of the walk that they’re showing in the plans.
Mr. Janion stated that they are not.
Ms. Sanzone stated that she would suggest narrowing that to help reduce the impact on the trees. It
may be that they can do deeper versus wider to accomplish the drainage requirements.
Mr. Janion stated that they would be fine with that.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they are confident that they will be able to protect the trees on the neighbors’
property during their work.
Mr. Janion stated that they are.
Ms. Sanzone asked if that will be discussed with the Parks Department.
Mr. Janion stated that that is.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Yoon stated that staff did receive public comment on the project that was sent
out to the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION: Ms. Greenwood stated that there are conditions in the application for
this project to move forward.
Mr. Moyer stated that he is in concurrence with staff’s recommendation.
21
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2020
Mr. Halferty stated that he concurs with the recommendations of staff and the guidelines are met.
They’ve thought about the constructability and conservation of the trees. He could support this
application as is.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he concurs with staff recommendations. The applicant has done a good job
addressing the concerns.
Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees.
Ms. Sanzone asked if they are coming back for a Final.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this is a minor development, so this is their only hearing.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the irrigation control box is in a yard box.
Mr. Janion stated that it is.
Ms. Sanzone asked what will happen with the path lights if they straighten the path.
Mr. Janion stated that they will do whatever staff, the board, and the guidelines recommend.
Ms. Sanzone stated that, in general, the guidelines wouldn’t support this marching of lights to the front
door. She suggested eliminating those.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they have a lot to work out with the stormwater and landscaping. It might
be a simple situation where a monitor could work with staff on it. They are more landscaping issues
than they are building issues.
Ms. Sanzone stated that, with that, she would support the application and staff’s recommendation.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she does not see any problem with this application.
Mr. Kendrick motioned to approve Resolution Three as written. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Role Call Vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr.
Moyer, yes; Ms. Sanzone.
Ms. Sanzone volunteered to be the monitor for this project.
620 Gillespie Avenue and 845 Meadows Rd, Aspen Institute – Historic Designation and Benefits,
Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design, Growth Management, Planned
Development, Special Review, Transportation Impact and Trash Storage
22
October 29, 2019
HAND DELIVERY
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 920 East Hyman Ave.
Pre-Application Summary
Dear Amy:
On behalf of B2 Builders (Applicant), Zone 4 Architects would like to present an application to
consider a Relocation review, Variation review, Minor Development review, and Transferable
Development Right review for the purposes of remodeling an existing home located at 920 East
Hyman Avenue. The property is currently a landmarked site. For this application, the Applicant is
proposing to excavate a basement below the existing historic cottage, re-roof the existing roofs,
add a new window well, new storm windows, and to sever one TDR from the property.
Per the pre-application summary, this application is subject to the following provis ions of the City
of Aspen Land Use Code. Individual responses to these sections will follow.
▪ 26.304: Common Development Review Procedures
▪ 26.415.070.C: Development involving designated historic property, or property within a
_________________historic district, Certificate of Appropriateness for a minor development
▪ 26.415.090: Relocation of designated historic properties
▪ 26.415.110.C: Variations
▪ 26.535: Transferable Development Rights
▪ 26.575.020.E: Measuring Setbacks
▪ 26.710.090: Residential Multi-Family (RMF)
Responses to Review Criteria:
▪ 26.304: Common Development Review Procedures
▪ Pre-application conference between the applicant and Amy Simon, of the
Community Development Department, occurred to discuss the project scope and
goals.
23
▪ The applicant intends to comply with all requirements under section 26.304
including the following:
• Application fees will be paid upon submittal of each step of the application;
• Compliance with the City of Aspen Charter and the Land Use Code;
• Application will undergo review of applicable Decision-making bodies
▪ 26.415.070.C: Development involving designated historic property, or property within a
historic district, Certificate of Appropriateness for a minor development
1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor
development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that
the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes:
a) Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure
is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or
▪ 26.415.070.C.1.a: The proposed project reduces the existing FAR from 2,174.40
square feet to 2,119.78 square feet.
b) Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall
materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or
fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative
effect or
▪ 26.415.070.C.1.b: The historic cottage is largely unaltered in the proposed remodel.
One of the existing entry doors will be removed and replaced with a window in a
similar style as the existing cottage windows. The existing roof will not be altered,
and existing exterior siding is to remain. The work does not qualify for a certificate of
no negative effect.
c) Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical
equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties
such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no
negative effect or
▪ 26.415.070.C.1.c: No awnings, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, or
accessory features and other attachments to the designated property are proposed.
d) Alterations that are made to non-historic portions of a designated historic property that do
not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or
▪ 26.415.070.C.1.d: The non-historic main house will have new windows which do not
qualify the proposal from a certificate of no negative effect.
e) The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within
designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact
does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect.
▪ 26.415.070.C.1.e: No street furniture, signs, public art and other visible
improvements are proposed.
2. An application for minor development shall include the following:
a) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
▪ 26.415.070.C.2.a: The application will comply with code section 26.304.030.
b) Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the
designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity.
▪ 26.415.070.C.2.b: The application includes ¼”:1’-0” elevations and plans depicting
its relationship to the designated historic cottage.
c) An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the
development.
▪ 26.415.070.C.2.c: Elevations and renderings depict the exterior materials and
finishes to be used. The existing cottage finish materials are not proposed to
change from the existing condition. The existing siding is proposed to be repainted.
d) Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design
of proposed work.
▪ 26.415.070.C.2.d: Photograph exhibits show the lot for redevelopment as well as
the surrounding neighborhood context. A site plan and vicinity map locate the
property in the larger context of downtown Aspen.
e) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards
or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met.
24
▪ 26.415.070.C.2.e: The proposed development is not changing or modifying any of
the existing exterior except for a couple of window replacements. Due to the nature
of the work, this application is exempt from RDS per code section 26.410.010.C.1.
▪ 26.415.090: Relocation of designated historic properties
A. Application. An application for relocation shall include:
1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030
▪ 26.415.090.A.1: The application complies with the information required in section
26.304.030.
2. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed
for relocation.
▪ 26.415.090.A.2: Refer to drawing set for graphic illustrations of the existing building
proposed for minor development.
3. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site) and
justification for the need for relocation.
▪ 26.415.090.A.3: The minor development proposes to excavate under the existing
historic cottage’s existing crawlspace. This proposed basement will require
structural support and underpinning to conduct the work necessary to excavate
under the historic cottage.
4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building,
structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once
relocated.
▪ 26.415.090.A.4: Refer to the Structural Engineer’s report regarding the integrity of
the structure and ability to withstand the excavation work.
5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property
boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned
improvements.
▪ 26.415.090.A.5: Not applicable to this application.
6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site's property owner of the
willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object.
▪ 26.415.090.A.6: Not applicable to this application.
7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on
the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building
will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a
preservation easement.
▪ 26.415.090.A.7: Not applicable to this application.
8. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the
building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure
through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate.
▪ 26.415.090.A.8: Refer to the Applicant’s documentation outlining their financial
means for the proposed development, preservation of the historic cottage during
excavation, and site preparation.
9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated
property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape.
▪ 26.415.090.A.9: Not applicable to this application as the work is not relocating the
property.
26.415.090.C.Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building,
structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
▪ 26.415.090.C.1: The proposed relocation is to excavate under the existing
crawlspace under the historic cottage. This will not have any effect on the character
of the historic district as the work is entirely subgrade.
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
▪ 26.415.090.C.2: The proposed relocation is to excavate under the existing
crawlspace under the historic cottage. This will not have any effect on the character
of the historic district as the work is entirely subgrade.
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
25
▪ 26.415.090.C.3: Not applicable.
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural
or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
▪ 26.415.090.C.4: The proposed relocation is to excavate under the existing
crawlspace under the historic cottage. This will not have any effect on the character
of the historic district as the work is entirely subgrade, and the relationship to adjacent
properties is maintained.
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical
impacts of relocation;
▪ 26.415.090.C.1: Refer to the Structural Engineer’s letter stating the integrity of the
structure and proposed construction methods.
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
▪ 26.415.090.C.2: The relocation is temporary while the basement is excavated. There
is no receiving site as the historic cottage is remaining in the existing location.
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation
of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security.
▪ 26.415.090.C.3: Refer to the submission drawings showing the existing and proposed
plans, structural engineer’s letter, and owner letter stating financial ability to undertake
the safe relocation.
▪ 26.415.110.C: Variations
Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create
development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what
would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant
variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
▪ 26.415.110.C.1.a: A new egress window well is proposed in a side yard setback.
The existing property has window wells in the side yard setbacks, and a portion of
the historic cottage is 4.3’ within the east side yard setback and 3.4’ within the west
side yard setback. The existing addition attached to the cottage conforms to front,
year, and side yard setbacks.
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings;
▪ 26.415.110.C.1.b: No development is proposed that doesn’t meet the minimum
distance requirements between buildings.
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
▪ 26.415.110.C.1.c: No additional site coverage is proposed.
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties.
▪ 26.415.110.C.1.d: The temporary relocation does not require any public amenity as
it is not a commercial historic property.
2. In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
▪ 26.415.110.C.2.a: The proposed variation is in-line with existing features and
character on the site. The variance would allow for an expansion under the existing
crawlspace of the cottage, which is currently non-conforming to side-yard setbacks.
Additionally, the Applicant’s request to sever a TDR from the property would
enhance the historic lot by limiting developable FAR on the site.
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
▪ 26.415.110.C.2.b: The proposed variations do not have an adverse impact on the
existing historic character of the property as the work is entirely subgrade.
▪ 26.535: Transferable Development Rights
26
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.
▪ The sending site is a historic landmark on which a single-family residence is a
permitted use per the R/MF zone district.
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.
▪ The Applicant requests to sever one TDR from the site for the single-family home,
equaling or exceeding 250 s.f. of floor area x 1 TDR.
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.
▪ The severance of one TDR will not create a nonconformity. This will bring the
existing property into further compliance with allowable FAR on the site.
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. Properties in the MU
Zone District which do not currently contain a single -family home or duplex established prior to
the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be permitted to base the calculation of TDRs
on 100% of the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is
only for the purpose of creating TDRs and does not permit the on -site development of 100% of
the allowable floor area on an equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. If the additional 20%
of allowable floor area exceeds 500 square feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus
from HPC at any time in the future.
▪ The Applicant requests to sever one TDR applies to the existing built development
and minor below-grade expansion under the existing historic cottage.
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.
▪ The severance of one TDR will lower the allowable FAR on the site to be less than
the current condition.
F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the property
(the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a single -family or
duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the
number of historic TDR certificates established.
▪ The severance of one TDR will lower the allowable FAR on the site to be less than
the current condition. Additionally, the proposed FAR will be greater than 250 s.f.
under the allowable FAR on the site, which on this property is 2,400 s.f.
1. 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.
2. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square footage
reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence, as may be amended
from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or
exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from t ime to
time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to 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.
H. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans and a
zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area.
27
▪ The Applicant has included building plans and a zoning analysis as part of the Land
Use Application.
I. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable
development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community
Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall
disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value o f the consideration
paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the
transferable development right certificate void.
J. TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner.
K. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for the
affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall provide Council
with a recommendation.
▪ 26.575.020.E: Measuring Setbacks
5. Allowed Projections into Setbacks. Setback areas shall be unobstructed above and below
ground except for the following allowed projections:
e) Foundation footers, soil nails or below-grade tiebacks, and similar improvements necessary
for the structural integrity of a building or other structures.
▪ The property has established setbacks as determined by the City of Aspen Land
Use Code. The existing historic cottage encroaches on both the 5’-0” side yard
setbacks. In order to excavate under the existing cottage crawlspace, foundation
footers will be in the 5’-0” side yard setbacks.
h) The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement
stairwells as required by adopted Building or Fire Codes as long as these features are
entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building
façade(s) closest to any Street(s).
▪ The proposed egress wells will be the minimum projection necessary to meet the
Building and Fire Codes. The historic cottage facades screen these window wells
from East Hyman Avenue.
▪ 26.710.090: Residential Multi-Family (RMF)
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Residential Multi-Family
(RMF) Zone District:
1. Detached residential dwelling.
2. Two (2) detached residential dwellings.
3. Duplex dwelling.
4. Multi-family dwellings.
5. Home occupations.
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. Dormitory.
8. Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses meeting the provisions of Chapter 26.520.
9. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast.
10. Vacation Rentals. Pursuant to Section 26.575.220
▪ 26.710.090.B.1: The proposed application is permitted as of right in the RMF Zone
District as a detached residential dwelling.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the
Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures
established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Arts, cultural and civic uses.
2. Academic uses.
3. Recreational uses.
4. Group home.
5. Child care center.
▪ 26.710.090.C: This is not applicable to the application.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District:
1. Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet): six thousand (6,000). For lots created by
Paragraph 26.480.030.A.4, Historic landmark lot split: three thousand (3,000).
▪ 26.710.090.D.1: The historic landmark lot is 3,000 s.f. +/-.
28
2. Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. Detached residential dwelling: four thousand five hundred (4,500). For historic
landmark properties: three thousand (3,000).
▪ 26.710.090.D.2.a.: The historic landmark lot is 3,000 s.f. +/- with a detached
residential dwelling.
b. Duplex dwelling unit: four thousand five hundred (4,500). For historic landmark
properties: three thousand (3,000).
c. Multi-family dwellings: No requirement.
d. Bed and breakfast: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): sixty (60). For lots created by Paragraph 26.480.030.A.4,
Historic landmark lot split: thirty (30).
▪ 26.710.090.D.3.: Refer to the Survey which shows the lot is 30’-0” in width pursuant
to 26.480.030.A.4.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet):
a. Detached residential and duplex dwellings: Same as R-6 Zone District.
▪ 26.710.090.D.4.a.: Refer to the Survey which shows a front yard setback of 10’-0”
which meets R-6 Zone District requirements for principal buildings.
b. Multi-family: five (5).
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet):
a. Detached residential and duplex dwellings: same as R-6 Zone District.
▪ 26.710.090.D.5.a.: Refer to the Survey which shows a side yard setback of 5’-0”
which meets R-6 Zone District requirements for principal buildings. The west side
yard setback is in conformance, but the east side yard setback has a portion of the
existing historic cottage within the setback.
b. Multi-family: five (5).
6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet):
a. Detached residential and duplex dwellings: same as R-6 Zone District.
▪ 26.710.090.D.6.a.: Refer to the Survey which shows a rear yard setback of 5’-0”
which meets R-6 Zone District requirements for the portion of a principal building
used solely as a garage.
b. Multi-family: five (5).
7. Maximum height (according to density) (feet):
a. Detached residential and duplex dwellings: same as R-6 Zone District.
▪ 26.710.090.D.7.a.: The existing and proposed development meet the requirements
of the maximum height limit of 25’-0”. Reference elevation drawings in submittal
package.
b. Multi-family – parcel density less than one (1) unit per one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet of Gross Lot Area: twenty-five (25).
c. Multi-family – parcel density equal to or greater than one (1) unit per one thousand
five hundred (1,500) square feet of Gross Lot Area: thirty-two (32).
8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet):
a. Detached residential and duplex dwellings: same as R-6 Zone District.
▪ 26.710.090.D.8.a.: This is not applicable to the lot as there is only one building.
b. Multi-family: No requirement. (Building and Fire Codes may apply.)
9. Pedestrian amenity space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
▪ 26.710.090.D.9.: The adjacent parcels are multi-family developments and don’t
have business operations adjacent to/on the same parcel as the outdoor space. The
existing public right-of-way is not proposed to be altered.
10. Floor area ratio (FAR). This Paragraph applies to each type of use according to density
and applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record:
a. Existing detached residential and duplex dwellings: one hundred percent (100%)
of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District.
(See Section 26.710.040, R-6 Zone District.) City historic transferable development rights
shall not permit additional floor area for detached residential and duplex dwellings.
▪ 26.710.090.D.10.a.: The proposed minor development is an existing detached
residential dwelling which is entitled to 100% of the allowable FAR of an equivalent
sized lot located in the R-6 Zone District. This lot is entitled to 2,400 square feet of
FAR. The historic landmark is a legally non-conforming structure, and the FAR and
dimensional improvements that are proposed are below-grade. While floor area is
29
being added below-grade, there is a net reduction in FAR. This is reducing the non-
conforming situation because of the FAR reduction.
b. New or replacement after demolition detached residential and duplex dwellings:
eighty percent (80%) of the allowable floor area of an equivalent-sized lot located
in the R-6 Zone District. (See Section 26.710.040, R-6 Zone District.) City historic
transferable development rights shall not permit additional floor area for detached
residential and duplex dwellings.
▪ 26.710.090.D.10.b.: Not applicable.
c. Multi-family – parcel density of less than one (1) unit per one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet of Gross Lot Area: 0.75:1.
▪ 26.710.090.D.10.c.: Not applicable.
d. Multi-family – parcel density equal to or greater than one (1) unit per one thousand
five hundred (1,500) square feet of Gross Lot Area: 1.25:1.
▪ 26.710.090.D.10.d.: Not applicable.
e. Multi-family – parcel density equal to or greater than one (1) unit per seven hundred
fifty (750) square feet of Gross Lot Area: 1.5:1.
▪ 26.710.090.D.10.e.: Not applicable.
11. Maximum multi-family unit size (square feet): For properties in the Aspen infill area,
two thousand (2,000) square feet of net livable area. For properties outside the Aspen
infill area, two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of net livable area.
▪ 26.710.090.D.11.: Not applicable.
a. The property owner may increase individual multi-family unit size by extinguishing
historic transferable development right certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"),
subject to the following:
1) The transfer ratio is five hundred (500) square feet of net livable area for each
certificate that is purchased.
2) The additional square footage accrued may be applied to multiple units.
However, the maximum individual unit size attainable by transferring
development rights is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of net
livable area for properties within the Aspen infill area and three thousand (3,000)
square feet of net livable area for properties outside the Aspen infill area (i.e.,
no more than five hundred [500] additional square feet may be applied per unit).
3) This incentive applies only to individual unit size. Transferring development
rights does not allow an increase in the floor area ratio (FAR) of the lot.
▪ 26.710.090.D.11.a.: This is not applicable as the property is a single-family lot.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bill Pollock
Zone 4 Architects
Cc: File
Applicant
30
1
DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A
HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PURSUANT TO ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE #___ , SERIES OF 20__
THIS DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____
day of ______________, 20__, by_________________, (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”),
whose address is___________________________________, and The City of Aspen, a body
politic and corporate pursuant to its Home-Rule Charter and the Constitution of the State of
Colorado, acting through its City Council, (hereinafter the “City”);
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically described as 920 E Hyman
Ave. Subdivision: EAST ASPEN ADDITION Block: 32 Lot: N; Parcel ID 2737-182-06-005,
Pitkin County, Colorado, (hereinafter referred to as “Real Property”), which Real Property is
designated as a Historic Site, as such are defined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code (“City
Code”); and
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted an affidavit, duly notarized, in compliance with
Section 26.535.090.A.2 of the City Code, and supplied the necessary application materials
identified in Section 26.535.090 showing compliance with the criteria set forth in Section
26.535.070 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, The Community Development Department has reviewed Owner’s
application according to the review standards identified in 26.535.070 of the City Code, and has
recommended approval of the application and the establishment of one (1) approved Historic
TDR Certificates as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance #____, Series of 20___ (the “Ordinance”) was
approved on ___(date)__________, establishing the above referenced Historic TDR Certificates,
and requiring that a Deed Restriction be recorded in real property records of Pitkin County,
designating the Real Property as a Sending Site and permanently restricting the development of
the Real Property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for
a single-family residence or duplex if allowed, minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the establishment of one (1) Historic TDR Certificates
pursuant to the Ordinance and City Code, Owner agrees to restrict the Real Property as set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained
herein, Owner and the City hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Development of the Real Property (the Sending Site) is hereby permanently
restricted to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-
31
2
family residence or duplex as otherwise permitted by the City Code on the Real
Property, minus any deductions resulting from previous issuance of TDR
certificate(s) and minus 250 square feet, that being two hundred fifty (250) square
feet of Floor Area multiplied by the one (1) Historic TDR Certificate hereby
established.
2. In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the City Code and the
Ordinance, the City shall cause the issuance of one (1) Historic TDR Certificate,
executed by the Mayor, allowing the transfer of development rights to a Receiver
Site to be determined pursuant to the City Code. This Historic TDR Certificate
may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of title shall be
evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re-issue the certificate
acknowledging the new owner. Reissuance shall not require adoption of a new
ordinance. The market for such Historic TDR Certificates shall remain
unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of
any Historic TDR Certificates.
3. This deed restriction shall not be construed to stipulate an absolute Floor Area on
the Real Property, but only a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor
Area, as that allowable Floor Area may be amended from time to time.
4. The Real Property (Sending Site) shall remain eligible for Floor Area incentives
and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Code, as it may be amended
from time to time.
5. This restriction may be modified only in a writing signed by both the Owner and
the City.
6. Unless modified as stated above, this Agreement shall constitute a covenant
running with the Real Property as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be
specifically enforceable by, the City Council of the City of Aspen by any
appropriate legal action including, but not limited to, injunction or abatement.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
32
3
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the date and
year above first written.
OWNER:
By:___________________________
(property owner)
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of
______________, 20___, by ___________
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:___________________
_____________________________
Notary Public
33
4
APPROVAL OF CITY ATTORNEY
By:___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
a body politic and corporate pursuant to
its Home-Rule Charter and the Constitution of the State of Colorado
By:____________________________ Date:______________
Torre, Mayor
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
_________________, 20__, by_____________, as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:___________________
_____________________________
Notary Public
34
35
36
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
Relocation (temporary, on
or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
920 E. HYMAN AVE
2737-182-06-005
920 E. HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611
LOT N, BLOCK 32
ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS, LLC.
432a E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611
970.429.8470 BPOLLOCK@ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM
X
X
An existing landmarked site with historic cottage connected to a single-family home.
Excavation below existing historic cottage crawlspace for a basement, continued use as single-family
home, exterior materials are to remain, new storm windows, a new egress window well, replacement of
roofing.
Joel Schenkman
Larian, LLC
ian@obppartners.com
11301 S. Dixie Highway Unit 566418
Miami, FL 33256
305.463.9838
37
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This
information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that
may be involved.
YES NO
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,
new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in
Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed
on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential
properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for
Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances
Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
Conditional Uses Tax Credits
Exemption from Growth Management Quota System
X
X
X
X
38
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high
water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the
Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Proposed % of demolition: __________
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance between
buildings:
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
920 E. Hyman Ave.
920 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Joel Schenkman Larian, LLC.
R-MF
+/- 3,000 S.F.
+/- 3,000 S.F.
N/A N/A
1 1
2,174 2,400 2,119.78
25'
N/A N/A
10'22.7'22.7'
5'5'5'
15'27.7'27.7'
S.
N.
E.
W.
N/A N/A
2 car garage 2 car garage
25'
none
none
none
0.7'0.7'5'
5'
10'
1.6'1.6'
2.3'2.3'
5'
The existing historic cottage encroaches on both the East and West side yard setbacks by 4.3'
and 3.4' respectively. The remaining home complies with the side yard setbacks.
The Applicant requests a variance for the
side yard setbacks to accommodate the existing aforementioned non-conformities. A variance is
needed to allow for excavation under the footprint of the existing cottage's crawlspace.
+/-24'-5 3/4"+/-24'-5 3/4"
+/- 47%+/- 47%
+/- 53%+/- 53%
+/- 2.14%
39
40
1924
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DATE: October 11, 2019
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 920 E. Hyman Avenue
REPRESENTATIVE: bill.pollock@zone4architects.com
DESCRIPTION: A new property owner proposes the following scope of work for this landmarked site:
Relocation review to excavate a basement below the historic cottage (where there is currently only a crawl
space), Variation review for sideyard setback variations for the new basement, Minor Development review
for modifications to the site and cottage (including re-roofing, new storm windows, changes to the front
doors, a new lightwell and possibly a new front walk), and Transferable Development Right review to sever
one TDR from the property.
This review (with the exception of the TDR) is a one-step hearing, meaning that all details of the proposal will
be presented to HPC in one application. Staff will review the project and make a recommendation to HPC,
based on the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. HPC will make a decision to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal.
Regarding the TDR, HPC will make a recommendation to City Council, who will determine whether criteria
have been met.
Below are links to relevant documents and a list of information needed to submit an application.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.415.070.C Development involving designated historic property or property
within a historic district, Certificate of Appropriateness for a minor
development
26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties
26.415.110.C Variations
26.535 Transferable Development Rights
26.575.020.E Measuring Setbacks
26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF)
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Historic Preservation Land Use Application Packet
41
Land Use Code
REVIEW BY:
• Staff for Application Completeness and Recommendations
• Historic Preservation Commission and City Council for decisions
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, at HPC and Council
PLANNING FEES: $1,300 Deposit for 4 hours of staff time (additional/lesser hours will be
billed/refunded at a rate of $325/hr.)
REFERRAL FEES: No, however staff will seek referral comments from the Building Department,
Zoning and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or considerations.
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $1,300
APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,
contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for
the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of
the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached to Application)
A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and
proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how
the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development
application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated
buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
42
A floor area analysis of the existing and proposed development.
An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development.
Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extend and design of
proposed work.
A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on -site or off-site) and
justification for the need for relocation.
A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building,
structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once
relocated.
Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the
building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through
the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate.
A notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying acknowledgment of the
following:
o A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's
development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of
historic TDR certificates established from that sending site.
o For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site,
that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as
permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended.
o The sending site property owner shall have n o authority over the manner in which the
certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR
certificate.
Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an
e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the complete application and the deposit. Once the
deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin.
During review of the case, additional items may be requested.
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
43
44
45
46
47
X
X
COEGGIWN 14°50'4
9
"
E
1
0
0
.
0
0
'S 75°09'11" E 30.00'S 14°50'4
9
"
W
1
0
0
.
0
0
'N 75°09'11" W 30.00'9.50'12.00'14.90'3.20'48.10'20.20'48.50'3.60'23.70'15.00'1.6'22.7'0.7'5'#5 REBAR & REDPLASTIC CAP L.S.#25947#5 REBAR & YELLOWPLASTIC CAP L.S.#15710 BEARSN76°08'24"W 0.38'#5 REBAR & YELLOWPLASTIC CAP L.S.#15710 BEARSS68°01'17"W 0.28'BASIS O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
CONCRETEDRIVEWAYALLEY20.89' R-O-WASPHALT#5 REBAR & REDPLASTIC CAP L.S.#25947BOULDERRET. WALLCONCRETESIDEWALKCOVEREDWOODDECKIRRIGATIONCONTROL BOXFLAGST
O
N
E
W
A
L
K
ADJOINE
R
H
O
U
S
E
4.3'WINDO
W
W
E
L
L
WINDO
W
WELL
WINDO
W
WELL
GASMETERCONCRETEDRIVEWAYCONCRETEDRIVEWAYTIESTEPS5.1'WOOD D
E
C
K
TIEPLANTE
R
CLEAN
O
U
T
ELEC.METERWATERMETERGASMETERCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE CURB & GUTTEREAST HYMAN AVENUE74.80' R-O-WASPHALTBUILDING SETBACKPER REC. NO. 4278625'5'10'BUILDINGSETBACKLOT MBLOCK 32LOT OBLOCK 32LOT NBLOCK 323,000S.F.±2 STORY WOODFRAME HOUSEWITH BASEMENT920 E. HYMAN AVE.YARD EASEMENTPER BK 356 PG 116& PERMANENT PERPETUALEASEMENT PER BK 786 PG 6185'CONIFER12" 20'CONIFER18" 5'CONIFER16" 20'CONIFER10" 18'EAVEGUTTER0.1'0.5'0.3'0.6'NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRSTDISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT INTHIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THECERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.ByNO.DateProject NO.RevisionDrawn By:Checked By:Date:Computer File:P.O. Box 1746Rifle, CO 81650Phone (970) 625-1954Fax (970) 579-7150www.peaksurveyinginc.comSNWEPeak Surveying, Inc.Since 2007190631 OF 1ACHIM BUERKLINCITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATLOT N, BLOCK 32, EAST ASPEN ADD.920 E. HYMAN AVENUEJRNJRNSEPT. 04, 2019063.DWG1 09/09/19UPDATE SURVEYJRNIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATLOT N, BLOCK 32, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPENCITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLOT N, BLOCK 32, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CITY OFASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.NOTES:1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDINGSETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN INTHE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES AS AGENT FORCHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO. 0706046-C DATED EFFECTIVEAUGUST 16, 2019.2) THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS SEPTEMBER 03, 2019.3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S14°50'49"W BETWEEN THENORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT N, BLOCK 32, A #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP L.S. #25947FOUND IN PLACE AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT N, BLOCK 32, A #5 REBAR & REDPLASTIC CAP L.S. #25947 FOUND IN PLACE.4) UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S. SURVEY FEET.5) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 14, 2005 ASRECEPTION NO. 516269, THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT PREPARED BY JOHNSONLONGFELLOW AND ASSOC., DATED OCTOBER 02, 1978, RECORDED IN BOOK 760 AT PAGE 532 INTHE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE, AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLATPREPARED BY SEXTON SURVEY COMPANY, DATED OCTOBER 07, 1998, JOB NO. 98137 ANDCORNERS FOUND IN PLACE.6) ACCORDING TO RECEPTION NO.'S 428448 AND 433966 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATEDAS A HISTORIC LANDMARK.7) THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R/MF ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WEBSITE. BUILDINGSETBACKS ARE AS FOLLOWS: FRONT=10' PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND 15' FOR ACCESSORYBUILDING; REAR=10' PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND 5' FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING; SIDES=5'.BUILDING SETBACKS SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO ANYPLANNING, DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION.NESW0306090120150180210240270300330P e ak Surveying, Inc.0101020405IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENTI, JASON R. NEIL, HEREBY CERTIFY TO LARIAN, LLC., A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,ACHIM BUERKLIN AND TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES AS AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLEINSURANCE COMPANY, THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO; THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IS TRUE,CORRECT AND COMPLETE BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AS LAIDOUT AND SHOWN HEREON; THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IS NOT A GUARANTY ORWARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WASMADE BY ME FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE REAL PROPERTY PERFORMED BY ME ORUNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ON SEPTEMBER 03, 2019; THAT, IN THE PREPARATION OF THISIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, I RELIED UPON TITLE COMPANY OF THE ROCKIES AS AGENT FORCHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO. 0706046-C DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST16, 2019; THAT THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS,EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY ORON THE REAL PROPERTY AND MATTERS REFERENCED IN SAID TITLE COMMITMENT CAPABLEOF BEING SHOWN ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN, AND THAT THIS PLAT IS IN ACCORDANCE OF ANIMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT AS SET FORTH IN C.R.S. §38-51-102(9). DATED: SEPTEMBER 09, 2019 BY:___________________________________ JASON R. NEIL, P.L.S. NO. 37935 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PEAK SURVEYING, INC.COLO
R
A
DO LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LAND
SURVEYOR
JASO
N
R. NEIL3793548
920 EAST HYMAN AVE
11/4/2019HPC APPLICATION | SCALE: 1/4" = 1'
VICINITY MAP
49
DATE
Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
REVISIONS
Z4A
WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM
50% PERMIT 12.12.19Z4A
PERMIT PRE
APP 01.21.20Z4A
PERMIT 03.04.20Z4A
Y:\Shared\Data\_Z4 Projects\1924 920 East Hyman\Model\920 E Hyman.plnBY
A101
3/4/2020Plotted On:
3/4/2020
AS NOTED
EXISTING FAR
CALCULATION
S
ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS IS NOT LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY CHANGES TO THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION.c 2017 ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS, LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED920 EAST HYMAN920 East Hyman AvenueAspen, CO 81611City of Aspen, Pitkin County<5'-6" (EXEMPT)
A
B
C Dwindow well window well
E
F
H
J
G
1,244.79 sq ft
BEDROOMBEDROOM
CRAWL
MECH
LAUNDRY
I
BATHROOM
W.I.C.
BATHROOM
+/-89'-3" LOWER LEVEL
99' BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL+/-98'-9 7/8" BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL
+/-97'-3" BO STRUCTURE GARAGE
425.72 sq ft160 sq ft
138.69 sq ft
325.63 sq ft
ABC
90.67 sq ftW
RD
DS
DS
1,041.84 sq ft
448.69 sq ft
HISTORIC
LIVING RM
HISTORIC
DININGPDR
2-CAR GARAGE
KITCHENDINING
ROOF
DECK
stair
175.54 sq ft
822.51 sq ft
DECK
MASTER
BEDROOM
BED #2
BATH #2W.I.C.
W.I.C.
MASTER
BATHROOM
EXPOSED WALL SURFACE AREAEXPOSED WALL SURFACE AREA
BURIED WALL AREA
FAR
GARAGE AREA
DECK/PORCH AREA
AREA LEGEND
+/-89'-3" LOWER LEVEL
99' BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL+/-98'-9 7/8" BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL
+/-97'-3" BO STRUCTURE GARAGE
1.24 sq ft 4.65 sq ft
66.82 sq ft
2.49 sq ft
35.8 sq ft
14.19 sq ft 1.79 sq ft
25.73 sq ft
203.77 sq ft106.83 sq ft31.84 sq ft
2.23 sq ft
DEFHGIJ
32.06 sq ft
Floor Area Calculations
Allowable Floor Area 2,400.00
No easements have been
calculated for reductions in
Net Lot Area. TBD
Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations
Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq.Ft.) Exposed Wall Area (Sq.Ft.)
A 425.72 0
B 160 0
C 464.56 138.69
D 34.29 2.23
E 71.47 4.65
F 38.29 2.49
G 27.52 1.79
H 217.95 14.19
I 108.07 1.24
J 31.84 0
Overall Wall Areas (Sq.Ft.) 1,579.71
Exposed Wall Areas (Sq.Ft.)165.28
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed/Total) 10.46%
Existing Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,244.79
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 130.24 1,244.79 X 17.51% = 218.0
Existing Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,041.84
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,041.84
Existing Garage Area Calculations
Garage at Main Level 448.69 (Actual Area)
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 99.35
(448.69-250 = 198.69)
(198.69 X %50 = 99.35
Existing Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 822.51
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 822.51
Existing Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Deck/Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 266.21
360 Exempt (2,400 X %15 =
360)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 0.00
Total Existing Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 130.24
Main Level Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,041.84
Garage Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 99.35
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 822.51
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 0.00
Total 2,093.94 -306.06
-306.06
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 LOWER LEVEL WALL AREAS
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 UPPER LEVEL AREA PLAN
5 AREA SUMMARY
50
DATE
Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
REVISIONS
Z4A
WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM
50% PERMIT 12.12.19Z4A
PERMIT PRE
APP 01.21.20Z4A
PERMIT 03.04.20Z4A
Y:\Shared\Data\_Z4 Projects\1924 920 East Hyman\Model\920 E Hyman.plnBY
A102
3/4/2020Plotted On:
3/4/2020
AS NOTED
PROPOSED
FAR
CALCULATION
S
ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS IS NOT LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY CHANGES TO THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION.c 2017 ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS, LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED920 EAST HYMAN920 East Hyman AvenueAspen, CO 81611City of Aspen, Pitkin CountyA
B
C D
E
window well window well
F
G
H
I
J
1,583.58 sq ftMECH
LAUNDRY
BED 1
TV / MEDIA
BATH 1
BAR
POWDER BED 2
BED 3
BATH 2
BATH 3
+/-89'-3" LOWER LEVEL
99' BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL+/-98'-9 7/8" BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL
+/-97'-3" BO STRUCTURE GARAGE
19.22 sq ft
406.5 sq ft160 sq ft
107.89 sq ft
356.44 sq ft
BC A
90.67 sq ftW
RD
DS
DS
1,041.84 sq ft
448.69 sq ftGARAGE
KITCHEN
HISTORIC
PORCH
MUD
PDR
DINING
LIVING
PANTRY
stair
301
300
302
303
304
305
175.54 sq ft
820.83 sq ft
GUEST
BED
PRIMARY
BED
GUEST
BATHPRIMARY
BATH
PRIMARY
CLOSET
DECK
HALL
EXPOSED WALL SURFACE AREAEXPOSED WALL SURFACE AREA
BURIED WALL AREA
FAR
GARAGE AREA
DECK/PORCH AREA
AREA LEGEND
+/-89'-3" LOWER LEVEL
99' BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL+/-98'-9 7/8" BO STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL
+/-97'-3" BO STRUCTURE GARAGE
14.61 sq ft
209.86 sq ft
24.83 sq ft14.14 sq ft
178.75 sq ft
5.74 sq ft
57.93 sq ft
7.35 sq ft
194.56 sq ft
21.31 sq ft
10.53 sq ft
1.89 sq ft
DEFGHIJ
12.27 sq ft
27.14 sq ft
Floor Area Calculations
Allowable Floor Area 2,400.00
Proposed Lower Level Wall Calculations
Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq.Ft.) Exposed Wall Area (Sq.Ft.)
A 425.72 19.22
B 160 0
C 464.57 107.89
D 37.1 24.83
E 224.47 14.61
F 192.89 14.14
G 29.03 1.89
H 63.67 5.74
I 201.91 7.35
J 31.84 21.31
Overall Wall Areas (Sq.Ft.) 1,831.20
Exposed Wall Areas (Sq.Ft.)216.98
% of Exposed Wall (Exposed/Total) 11.85%
Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,583.58
Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 187.64 1,583.58 X 13.16% = 208.32
Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations
Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,041.84
Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,041.84
Proposed Garage Area Calculations
Garage at Main Level 448.69 (Actual Area)
Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 99.35
(448.69-250 = 198.69)
(198.69 X %50 = 99.35
Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations
Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 820.83
Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 820.83
Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations
Deck/Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 266.21
360 Exempt (2,400 X %15 =
360)
Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 0.00
Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Lower Level Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 187.64
Main Level Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 1,041.84
Garage Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 99.35
Upper Level Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 820.83
Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq.Ft.) 0.00
Total 2,149.66 -250.34
-250.34
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 LOWER LEVEL WALL AREAS
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 UPPER LEVEL AREA PLAN
5 AREA SUMMARY
51
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020
City Council
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner II
THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: June 1, 2020
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
RE: Resolution 26, Series of 2020 – Amendment of Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994
Continued from April 14, 2020
Applicants: Paulette Perkins and
Thomas Hext on behalf of the Lacet
Homeowners’ Association; 152 Haystack
Rd., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Representative: Sarah Oates, Oates,
Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly &
Morrow, P.C.; 533 E Hopkins Ave.,
Aspen, CO 81611
Location: Lots 1-8, Lacet Subdivision
Current Zoning: Affordable Housing
(AH), Planned Development Overlay
(PD)
Summary: The applicant requests an
amendment of Resolution 58, Series of
1994. Resolution 58 was approved by a
previous Council to clarify categories of
development allowed in a 25’ buffer
between the building envelope of Lots 1,
2, 3, and 7 and the Riverside Subdivision.
Section 1 of Resolution 58 prohibited all
development except for underground
utilities and landscaping. The applicant is
requesting this section be stricken from
the resolution, and City Council approve
a revised list of allowable development in
that buffer.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020, amending Resolution No.
58, Series of 1994 by removing Section 1, and allowing for
the types of development in the 25’ buffer outlined in this
memo and the attached draft resolution.
Figure 1: Subdivision Location
52
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 2 of 7
UPDATE SINCE THE APRIL 14 HEARING:
Summary:
The Applicant has changed their request from the previous hearing. The updated request and letter from
the applicant are in Exhibit D. The Applicant also provided a video tour of the lots subject to the 25’ buffer
showing existing conditions for context.
At the first hearing, Council provided direction to the Applicant that the request was inconsistent with the
intent of the restricted 25’ buffer. Council did not support the requested amendment to the Resolution by
lifting the restriction on the buffer, as that may increase development allowances and associated impacts.
In response to Council’s direction, the Applicant has revised their request. The Applicant would like to
amend Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 by eliminating the development restrictions currently in place
and request an increase in development activities allowed in the 25’ buffer, while eliminating the most
intensive or disruptive activities.
The Applicant proposes to replace the existing restrictions in Section 1 with language allowing the following
development allowances:
- Utilities,
- Landscaping,
- Artwork,
- Flagpoles,
- Below grade soil stabilization and structural infrastructure (i.e. foundation footers, soil nails, and
similar infrastructure),
- Architectural projections up to 18 inches, such as, building eves, bay windows, etc.,
- Lightwells that are the minimum size required for emergency egress by building code,
- Above grade emergency egress stairs as required by building code,
- Landscaping walls that do not exceed 20 inches above or below grade
- Stormwater infrastructure,
- Energy efficiency or renewable energy production systems,
- Fences,
- Non-permanent features (i.e. patio equipment).
This list is more restrictive than the original proposal and what is typically permitted in setback areas. It
eliminates hot tubs and pools, paving for driveways or parking areas, trash and recycling enclosures, and
mechanical equipment from development typically permitted in setbacks in the Land Use Code.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff supports any solution that provides clarity on the types of development allowed in this area. Staff
continues to support eliminating the additional restriction on development in this buffer because the
development restrictions are no longer supported by the neighbors it was intended to protect, the
development restriction creates unnecessary complexity for staff and property owners, and the restriction
is inconsistent with development allowances in the Land Use Code.
Staff understands Council’s concern to increase development allowances that are inconsistent with a
previous Council decision. Staff supports the new request since it is more consistent with development
allowances in the Land Use Code and responds to Council direction by eliminating the more intensive
types of development.
53
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 3 of 7
The 25’ buffer is a significantly larger buffer than is provided by the Land Use Code for similar types of
development in the City. The combination of a large buffer and more restrictive list of development activities
reduces the impacts of the Lacet Subdivision development on the Riverside neighbors.
If Council believes the development allowances remain too permissive but supports an amendment to the
buffer development allowances, staff recommends Council negotiate an agreeable alternative with the
Applicant. Staff is supportive on any outcome that creates clarity on the types of development allowed in
this area.
Draft Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 is written approving the requested amendment in accordance with
the list of permitted activities outlined above.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may choose not to approve Resolution 26, Series of 2020, which would leave
Resolution 58, Series of 1994 and the development prohibitions of the 25’ buffer in place. Council may
negotiate or add additional conditions to the approval.
Note: The memo below is from the original hearing and remains unchanged.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The applicants request Resolution 58, Series of 1994 be amended, removing
restrictions on all development in a 25’ buffer between Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and the Riverside Subdivision.
City Council is the final review authority.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEEDURE: The applicants request an amendment to a City
Council Resolution. This is one-step review by City Council. There are no Land Use Code criteria
associated with this request.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The Lacet Subdivision is comprised of eight (8) lots and is zoned
Affordable Housing with a Planned Development overlay (AH/PD). Ordinance 18, Series of 1993 granted
Subdivision and other various reviews resulting in seven (7) free market single family residences (Lots 1-
7) and thirteen (13) deed restricted townhome units on Lot 8.
54
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 4 of 7
Figure 2: Lacet Subdivision (25' Buffer Highlighted)
During the public hearings for the original approval, neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision expressed
concern with the impacts of the proposed free-market development (Lots 1-7). To address neighbor
concerns, a 25’ buffer between the building envelopes of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and the Riverside Subdivision
was agreed upon. This buffer was shown on the Plat and in the Subdivision Agreement, but the
development allowances or restrictions were not explicitly stated.
Shortly after, a land use application requesting clarifications on types of allowed development in the 25’
buffer was pursued and City Council approved Resolution 58, Series of 1994, providing clarification on
development allowances and restrictions. Resolution #58 contained the following language:
1. No permanent improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than underground utility lines, may be built,
constructed or placed in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes of Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 7 and Riverside Subdivision (all as shown on the Plat and the Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces
may not be paved or improved other than by landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types items be
allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered
porches, slabs, patios, walkways and steps, fences and walls.
55
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 5 of 7
2. All other spaces shown in the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat outside of the building envelopes shall be
subject to those restrictions applicable to setbacks under the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, except as
otherwise specifically indicated in the Subdivision Agreement or the Plat.
Since approval of Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 various improvements have been constructed in the
25’ buffer that are consistent with development typically allowed in setbacks, but not allowed per Resolution
No. 58. Many of these improvements received building permits, and include items like retaining walls,
patios, etc.
The applicant, on behalf of the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association, requests City Council amend
Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 and eliminate the prohibition on development in the 25’ buffer area.
DISCUSSION: Planning staff acknowledges the 25’ buffer is unique and creates complexity for the
subdivision. Typically, development allowances and limitations are specified in the Subdivision and
Planned Development (PD) approval documents. The Lacet Subdivision approval documents did not
provide any detail for restrictions on this area. Resolution No. 58 provided clarity on the intent of the buffer
area, but was not an amendment to the PD. That the restrictions in Resolution 58 were not memorialized
in the PD agreement for the subdivision creates confusions and a lack of clarity for property owners and
City staff as to the parameters for development activities within the subdivision. Given that, planning Staff,
in coordination with the City Attorney’s office, agree that amending Resolution 58 is the appropriate
response to the applicant’s request, not amending the PD.
The zoning of adjacent neighborhoods is Medium Density Residential (R-6) and Moderate Density
Residential (R-15). Generally, each of those zone districts have ten (10) foot side and rear yard setbacks.
The 25’ buffer is larger than comparable side and rear yard setbacks in the surrounding neighborhood and
similar residential development patterns in Aspen.
Figure 3: Riverside Subdivision Neighboring Properties (In Blue)
56
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 6 of 7
It’s clear in the minutes and documents from the original public hearings there were neighborhood
concerns over the impacts of the Lacet Subdivision. This concern is not shared by current owners of the
adjacent properties. All adjacent property owners from the Riverside Subdivision, including the owners of
1205, 1228, and 1230 Riverside Drive and 610 and 611 Fred Lane provided letters supporting applying
setback regulations to the 25’ buffer, the letters are included in Exhibit C.
Support from the current adjacent property owners is an important factor for Staff in considering the
proposed amendment. The restriction in Resolution 58 was a response to neighbor sentiment at that time.
Current sentiment of adjacent property owners, as expressed in the letters of support, is that if the 25’
setback remains, permitting development in the buffer that’s consistent with current setback regulations is
appropriate and would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Staff’s position is a 25’ setback provides adequate buffer between properties, limits impacts to adjacent
property owners, and development allowed in this setback would not have a negative impact on the
neighborhood. Section 26.575.020 allows the following types of development (subject to conditions) in
setbacks: utilities, artwork, foundation footers or below grade soil stabilization infrastructure, building eves,
bay windows, window sills and similar architectural projections, lightwells (minimum size meeting code
requirements), exterior mounted fire escapes (as required by code), patios and walkways (or similar
features that do not exceed six (6) inches above or below the ground), retaining walls (or similar structures
that do not exceed 30” above or below grade), drainage infrastructure, hot tubs or pools (subject to
additional restrictions), HVAC equipment, energy efficiency or renewable energy production systems,
fences, and other non-permanent features (i.e. patio equipment).
Staff supports the proposed amendment, with the condition that all pedestrian, ditch, and utility easements
in the subdivision are not affected by this amendment. If the 25’ buffer is treated as a standard setback,
that’s consistent with the previous City Council’s desire to create increased buffer between this subdivision
and the Riverside Subdivision. This is supported by current neighborhood sentiment and is consistent with
development restrictions throughout Aspen for residential development. If all areas outside of building
envelopes on all lots in the Lacet Subdivision are treated as setbacks, it creates more clarity for the owners
of these properties and allows for more consistent application of development regulations by the City of
Aspen.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may choose not to approve Resolution 26, Series of 2020, which would leave
Resolution 58, Series of 1994 and the development prohibitions of the 25’ buffer in place. Council may
add additional conditions to the approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 26, Series of 2020, with conditions.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
PROPOSED MOTION: The draft Resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the requested
amendment. If city Council agrees with staff’s recommendation and seeks to approve the requested land
use reviews, the following motion should be used:
“I move to approve Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020, amending Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 by
eliminating the prohibition on development in a 25’ buffer, instead treating all areas outside of the building
57
Resolution No. 26, Series of 2020 City Council – Resolution Amendment Page 7 of 7
envelopes as setbacks, subject to Section 26.575.020 of the Land Use Code, as amended from time to
time.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Resolution 58, Series of 1994
Exhibit B – Public Comment
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Public Noticing Affidavit
58
RESOLUTION NO. 26
(SERIES OF 2020)
AN RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING RESOLUTION 58,
SERIES 1994 ELIMINATING A PROHIBITION ON DEVELOPMENT IN A 25’
BUFFER FOR LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 7 OF THE LACET SUBDIVISION AND
CLARIFYING A REVISED LIST OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE 25’
BUFER, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-7 OF THE LACET SUBDIVISION, 403,
406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 LACET LANE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE LACET
SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Paulette Perkins and Thomas Hext on behalf of the Lacet Homeowners Association, 152
Haystack Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 to amend Resolution 58, Series of 1993; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993 granted Rezoning, Planned Development,
Subdivision, Growth Management Exemption, and Condominiumization approval for the eight lot
Lacet Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, a Planned Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement and
Subdivision Plat for the Lacet Subdivision was recorded in 1993 (Reception #359038), and;
WHEREAS, during the approval of the Subdivision in 1993 the developer agreed to a 25’
buffer between the building envelopes of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and the Riverside Subdivision and the
buffer was depicted on the recorded Final Plat for the Lacet Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution 58, Series of 1994 was approved by City Council clarifying the
types of development allowed in the 25’ buffer, limiting improvements to the installation of
underground utility lines and landscaping; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, permit records, and Resolution 58, Series of
1994, staff determined improvements prohibited by Resolution 58 have been constructed in the
area of restricted development; and,
WHEREAS, letters provided by current neighbors have demonstrated reduced concern for
the impacts of the Lacet Subdivision and support for applying the City of Aspen Land Use Code
Setback regulations to this area; and,
WHEREAS, The Community Development Director determined the presence of
Resolution 58, Series of 1994 in the official record creates a unique and atypical restriction on
the owners of the subject properties which the applicant seeks to rectify; and,
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on April 14, 2020, the Aspen City Council
opened and considered a requested amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 and
continued the hearing to June 9, 2020, the City Council approved Resolution No. 26, series of
59
2020 by a _____ to _____ ( __ - __ ) vote, approving an amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series
of 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the proposed Resolution is consistent
with the policies in the Aspen Area Community Plan and requirements of Title 26 of the City of
Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Amended Resolution No. 58, Series of 1993
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Section 1 of Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 is hereby deleted in its entirety.
Section 2: Regulations Applicable to the 25’ buffer between Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and the
Riverside Subdivision:
Section 1 of Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 is hereby replaced with the following language:
Development activities and improvements in all areas outside of building envelopes established in
the Subdivision Agreement and Plat including, but not limited to, the 25’ buffer between the
building envelopes of lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 in the Riverside Subdivision, shall limited to the following
unless specifically indicated in the Subdivision Agreement or the Plat:
A. Above or below ground utilities, including transformers and vaults, below-grade heating or
cooling conduit or infrastructure such as a ground-source heat pump system, below-grade
dry wells or other at-grade or below-grade drainage infrastructure.
B. Trees and vegetation.
C. Artwork, sculpture, seasonal displays.
D. Flagpoles, mailboxes, address markers.
E. Foundation footers, soil nails or below-grade tiebacks, and similar improvements necessary
for the structural integrity of buildings or other structures.
F. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate exterior mounted utility junctions,
meters, cable boxes, vent flues, standpipes, and similar apparatus and including any
protective structure as may be required by the utility provider.
G. Building eaves, bay windows, windowsills, and similar architectural projections up to
eighteen (18) inches as measured from the setback boundary.
60
H. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement
stairwells as required by adopted Building or Fire Codes as long as these features are
entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building
façade(s) closest to any Street(s).
If any portion of the feature projects into the setback, the entire feature may be no larger
than the minimum required.
Features required for adjacent subgrade interior spaces may be combined as long as the
combined feature represents the minimum projection into the setback. There is no vertical
depth limitation for these features, but any subgrade development may not exceed the
maximum depth requirements for basements in Section 26.575.020.
This exemption does not apply to Areaways. This exemption does not apply to light wells
and exterior basement stairwells which are not required by adopted Building or Fire Codes.
I. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate an exterior-mount fire escape to an
existing building, as may be required by adopted Building or Fire Codes.
J. Uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks and similar features, which do
not exceed six (6) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade for the
entire feature.
K. Landscape walls, berms, retaining walls, stairways and similar structures, which do not
exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the lower of natural or finished grade
Improvements may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below grade simultaneously, for up
to a sixty (60) inch total. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if
determined to be necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement. (See Figure 16).
Berms are prohibited in the front yard setback.
L. Drainage swales, stormwater retention areas, bio retention areas, rain collection systems,
and similar stormwater retention, filtration or infiltration devices or facilities are permitted
in setbacks as long as the finished grade of the top of the improvement does not exceed
thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade. Stormwater
improvements or portions thereof may be buried and exceed thirty (30) inches below grade
as long as the finished grade above the facility does not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically
above or below the surrounding finished grade. These features may be up to thirty (30)
inches above and below finished grade simultaneously.
M. The height and placement of energy efficiency or renewable energy production systems and
equipment which are located adjacent to or independent of a building shall be established by
the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Chapter
26.430—Special Review. These systems are discouraged between any lot line adjacent to a
street and any structure. For energy production systems and equipment located on top of a
structure, see Subsection (f)(4).
61
N. Fences and hedges less than forty-two (42) inches in height, as measured from finished
grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to six (6) feet in
height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas entirely recessed behind
the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the
Street. This restriction applies on all Street-facing facades of a parcel. (Also see Section
26.575.050—Supplementary Regulations for limitations on fence materials.)
O. Non-permanent features which are not affixed to the ground such as movable patio
furniture, outdoor seating or a picnic table, barbeque grills, children's play equipment, and
similar nonpermanent features which are not affixed to the ground. This exemption shall not
allow storage sheds or containers.
All other development improvements not explicitly stated above but typically allowed in a setback
as described in the Land Use Code are prohibited.
All existing easements in the Lacet Subdivision remain unaffected by this Resolution. The public
pedestrian access easement on Lots 1 and 7, providing public pedestrian access from Riverside
Drive to Lacet Lane shall remain in place and unobstructed allowing for continued pedestrian
access as intended and shown on the Approved Subdivision Plat recorded with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder in Book 35 Page 11.
Section 3: Development Allowances for all other areas outside established building envelopes
in the Lacet Subdivision:
All other areas outside of building envelopes, except for the 25’ buffer in Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7, as
established in the Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be subject to all restrictions applicable to
development in setbacks under Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as
amended from time to time, unless specifically indicated in the Subdivision Agreement or the Plat.
Section 4:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the Resolution s repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior Resolution s.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 6:
A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 9th day of June, 2020 at 5:00 PM
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a _____ to ______ (_____-____) vote on this 9th day
of June, 2020.
62
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney Torre, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
63
Y'.
e".
r~21~_'8 B--i~
c~~ F 68 1 07/15/'7'4 04.19P PG 1 OF 3
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
RESOLUTION NO. 53
Series of 1994
REC
15000
DOC
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
INTERPRETING THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND PLAT FOR THE LACET
SUBDIVISION (F/K/A EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION), LOTS 1-7 OF THE LACET
SUBDIVISION, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 BARB'S WAY, ASPEN, COLORADO,
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
WHEREAS, By Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, the City Council ofthe City of Aspen
approved the subdivision and rezoning of that certain real property (hereinafter referred to as
Lacet Subdivision") described in the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement for East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision), recorded at
Reception No. 359036, Book 718, Page 477 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County ("the Subdivision Agreement") and the recorded plat therefor ("the Plat"); and,
WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat indicate "building envelopes" on
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 which were intended by City Council to create a buffer space between the
Lacet Subdivision and the Riverside Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat do not state any intent or
restrictions regarding the uses permitted in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces outside of the
building envelopes; and,
WHEREAS, On June 27, 1994, after written notice to owners of affected real property
and published notice to the public, the City Council held a public hearing to consider whether
the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat required amendment or clarification to accurately reflect
the actual terms of approval granted by Ordinance No. 18; and,
WHEREAS, at that Public Hearing, the City Council reviewed videotaped portions of
the Public Hearing at which Ordinance No. 18 was approved, heard the testimony of affected
and interested landowners, and considered written comments submitted by interested parties;
and,
64
65
66
67
January 7, 2020
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of1994
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of and live at 611 Fred Lane, Aspen, CO and my property is affected by
Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 (“Resolution No. 58”), which prohibits certain improvements
within a twenty-five foot buffer on properties in the Lacet Subdivision (f/k/a East Cooper
Subdivision) which border lots in the Riverside Subdivision.
Resolution No. 58 prohibits improvements in the setback between the Lacet and
Riverside Subdivisions which would normally be allowed in setbacks on most other properties in
the City of Aspen. As the property owner of 611 Fred Lane, I support a modification to or
vacating Resolution No. 58 which would permit building eaves, architectural projections,
balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls and
other improvements which are permitted in setback for properties located in the City of Aspen.
Sincerely,
__________________________________
Ruth Stone on behalf of Fowler P. Stone III
Family Trust
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FCB2636-AB05-4722-80DE-10B147EFB25A
68
From:Gary A Wright gary@wrightlawaspen.com
Subject:RE: Riverside - Lacet
Date:January 27, 2020 at 3:42 PM
To :Sarah Oates smo@okglaw.com
Cc:Lennie Oates lmo@okglaw.com,Jena Wright jena@wrightlawaspen.com
Dear Sarah,
My client, 610 Fred, LLC, has informed me that subject to certain conditions, it does not
oppose the modification of the City of Aspen resolution that imposed a 25-foot buffer for
the lots in Lacet subdivision.
The conditions are: 1) A 5-foot setback be maintained for the Lacet subdivision lots and
that the setback have the same restrictions as the setback in the adjacent Riverside
subdivision. 2) Any development that is currently within the 5-foot setback (for Lacet
subdivision) is not approved unless a variance is obtained.
Let me know if you have questions. Thank you.
Gary
Gary A. Wright
Gary A. Wright, P.C.
Wright Law Aspen, LLP
715 West Main Street, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-5625
gary@wrightlawaspen.com
From: Sarah Oates <smo@okglaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Gary A Wright <gary@wrightlawaspen.com>
Cc: Lennie Oates <lmo@okglaw.com>; Jena Wright <jena@wrightlawaspen.com>
Subject: Re: Riverside - Lacet
Gary,
I confirmed with the City that the proposed amendment would be to permit improvements in the
setbacks of the Lacet Subdivision lots that are permiTed under the City Land Use Code for other
zone districts/subdivisions in the City. So, the same improvements that are permiTed on Fred
Lane in the setbacks and the rest of Riverside Subdivision would be permiTed in the setbacks for
the Lacet Subdivision lots if the amendment is approved.
Please let me know if you have ques[ons or if I can provide any addi[onal informa[on.
Thanks,
Sarah
69
1
Garrett Larimer
From:Sarah Oates <smo@okglaw.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 25, 2020 2:26 PM
To:Garrett Larimer
Subject:Fwd: Lacet Subdivision
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Garrett,
Please see Joe Whatley’s response below. Let me know if you need anything else and as we get closer let me know what
I need to do to “attend" the virtual meeting.
Best,
Sarah
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Joe R. Whatley Jr." <jwhatley@whatleykallas.com>
Subject: Re: Lacet Subdivision
Date: March 25, 2020 at 2:17:31 PM MDT
To: Sarah Oates <smo@okglaw.com>
Cc: Lennie Oates <lmo@okglaw.com>, "Edith M. Kallas" <EKallas@whatleykallas.com>
Sarah,
I apologize for not responding sooner. As you might expect, our lives as healthcare lawyers have been
crazy, but we are glad we are in Aspen.
We do not object to the amendment, and you can confirm that fact at the hearing.
Did you ever hear back from Ruth?
Joe and Edith
Joe R. Whatley Jr.
Aspen
1228 Riverside Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 1-970-300-2631
New York
152 West 57th Street
70
2
41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Direct: 1-212-447-7011
Birmingham
2001 Park Place North
1000 Park Place Tower
Birmingham, AL 35203
Direct: 1-205-488-1226
Facsimile: 1-800-922-4851
Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
Web: www.whatleykallas.com
This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This e-mail message and any files
transmitted with it are also subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, and contain confidential information intended
only for the person(s) to whom this e-mail message is addressed. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by telephone at (205) 488-1200 or by electronic mail (jwhatley@whatleykallas.com) and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.
On Mar 25, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Sarah Oates <smo@okglaw.com> wrote:
Joe,
I hope you are doing well under the circumstances.
I am following up from my email below regarding the amendment to the Lacet
Subdivision approvals to permit certain development (retaining walls, fences, etc.) in the
25’ setback from the Riverside Subdivision lots. We have a hearing coming up on April
14, 2020 and it would be great if we could get an acknowledgement from you that you
do not object to the amendment. Even an e‐mail response would be appreciated.
Best,
Sarah
On Feb 4, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Sarah Oates <smo@okglaw.com> wrote:
Joe,
Lennie asked that I contact you. I believe he has spoken to you about
the issue with the Lacet Subdivision lots and there being a restriction
that no improvements be located 25’ from the Riverside lots boarding
Lacet that has never been adhered to. We are going to submit an
application to the City and they have asked for letters from the
Riverside neighbors. Attached is a draft letter for you to review and sign
if acceptable ‐ I can also sent to you to sign via DocuSign.
I just put your name on the letter but can add Edith’s name as well if
you would prefer ‐ I don’t think it matters to the City. Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Sarah
Sarah Oates, Esq.
Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Avenue, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920‐1700
Direct: (970) 544‐1853
71
3
Fax: (970) 920‐1121
smo@okglaw.com
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to the
attorney-client and attorney work product privileges or as
otherwise provided by law. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and destroy
all electronic and hard copy versions of this message and all
attachments.
<Ltr re Reso 58‐1994 J Whatley.docx>
Sarah Oates, Esq.
Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Avenue, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920‐1700
Direct: (970) 544‐1853
Fax: (970) 920‐1121
smo@okglaw.com
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it
is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt
from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client and attorney work product
privileges or as otherwise provided by law. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and hard copy versions of this
message and all attachments.
Sarah Oates, Esq.
Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Avenue, Third Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 920‐1700
Direct: (970) 544‐1853
Fax: (970) 920‐1121
smo@okglaw.com 72
4
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client and
attorney work product privileges or as otherwise provided by law. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and hard copy versions of this message and all
attachments.
73
1
Garrett Larimer
From:captco@aol.com
Sent:Monday, April 6, 2020 10:00 AM
To:Garrett Larimer
Subject:Lacet Subdivision Public Hearing
Hi Garrett,
I would like to go on record as being opposed to this proposed change. If I remember correctly, the original terms of
allowing the Lacet to be subdivided insisted on that buffer zone.
I believe the proposal is an encroachment on the Riverside subdivision that will result in further harm to our privacy and
the environment.
The general trend in construction seems to be to clear-cut the lot, level it like a drilling pad, and to build right up to the
setbacks (see the house at Fred Lane and Riverside Dr.). The new houses have heat pumps that run 24/7 and are,
perversely, usually placed on the side of the house closest to the neighbors (again see the house at Fred Lane and
Riverside). It is terribly sad to have to live with this constant noise (which the City assures me is perfectly legal). At least
the 25' buffer zone will give those neighbors some of the protection from this that we all deserve.
Thank you.
Tim Murray
60 years on Riverside Dr.
74
1
Garrett Larimer
From:Paul Grenney <pgrenney@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:42 AM
To:Garrett Larimer
Subject:Lacet Subdivision; No, on elimination of 25' buffer zone
131 Midland, Aspen, CO 81611
Mr. Larimer
This responds to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Lacet Subdivision request to replace the 25' Buffer Zone with
the properties setback.
As owner of 131 Midland Avenue, I vote NO on replacing the buffer zone boundary with the Property Setback.
Please contact me if you have any questions
Bonnie Geary Grenney
bgrenney@gmail.com
March 31, 2020
75
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
WWW.OKGKM.NET
LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700
RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853
DAVID B. KELLY
MARIA MORROW
OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com
STEPHEN R. CONNOR
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
SARAH M. OATES
STEPHANIE HOLDER
February 12, 2020
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ben Anderson, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Request for Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, Interpreting the Subdivision Agreement and Plat for
the Lacet Subdivision, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 Barb’s Way, Aspen, Colorado,
according to the Recorded Plat thereof”
Dear Ben,
Enclosed please find a land use application regarding the above-described matter. Lacet
Homeowners’ Association (“Association”), and specifically the owners of Lot 1, Lacet Subdivision,
Thomas R. Hext and Paulette D. Perkins, (“Applicant”) are requesting that City Council Resolution No.
58, Series of 1994 (“Resolution 58”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, be amended such that Section 1 of
the Resolution, prohibiting development in a 25’ buffer zone on Lacet Subdivision lots adjacent to
Riverside Subdivision, is stricken and replaced with language which permits development consistent
with the City of Aspen’s setback regulations.
Lacet Subdivision was originally approved in 1993, as the East Cooper Subdivision. The
subdivision name was changed to Lacet Subdivision at the time of the recording of the plat for the
subdivision. Ordinance 18, Series of 1993 (“Ordinance 18”), attached hereto as Exhibit B, was the
original approval for subdivision and development of the project. Lacet Subdivision was approved with
thirteen (13) townhome/duplex affordable housing units, one (1) Resident Occupied single-family lot
and six (6) free market single-family lots (“Free Market Lots”). The Free Market are located on Lots 1-
3 and 5-7.
The neighbors residing in adjacent Riverside Subdivision attending the hearings during in the
original approval process and voiced concerns about the project – particularly pertaining to development
of the Free Market Lots including the density, house size and proximity to the Riverside Subdivision.
76
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY P.C.
Lacet Subdivision – Amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994
February 12, 2020
Page 2
Riverside Subdivision is located on Riverside Drive and Fred Lane, which is generally east and south of
Lacet Subdivision. As part of the 1993 approval, there were building envelopes (rather than setbacks)
established for each of the Free Market Lots. Additionally, the developer agreed to a 25’ buffer (“25’
Buffer”) on the Free Market lots bordering Riverside Subdivision lots on both Fred Lane and Riverside
Drive. See the City Planning & Zoning Commission meeting minutes dated March 2, 1993, attached
hereto as Exhibit C. The 25’ Buffer was not defined further in the subdivision approvals, nor is it a term
of art in the City of Aspen Land Use Code (“Land Use Code”). Additionally, typically building
envelopes are not used for smaller lots in the City – instead, setbacks are applied. Essentially, these
building envelopes indirectly established front, rear and side setbacks, with the rear and side yards being
adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision Lots. Both the building envelopes on smaller, denser lots and the
25’ Buffer are atypical for City lots. To my knowledge, the 25’ Buffer has not been used in any other
subdivision in the City. The neighboring lots in the Riverside Subdivision are zoned R-6 and R-15. In
the R-6 zone district, the rear setback is 10 feet and side-yard setback is 5 or 10 feet depending on the lot
size; in the R-15 zone district, the rear setback is 10 feet and the side-yard setback is also 10 feet. Thus,
the 25’ Buffer compares very favorably to the setbacks in the Riverside Subdivision.
The Final Plat of Lacet Subdivision (“Plat”), attached hereto as Exhibit D, shows the 25’ Buffer
on Lots 1-3 and Lot 7 (although it is not labeled as a buffer and is not defined on the Plat or any of the
other approvals). Lacet Subdivision Lots 1-3 & 7 border Riverside Subdivision Lots 3, 6, 7 and 11
(“Riverside Lots”). A map of the Riverside Lots is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Riverside Lot 7 is still
owned by the Stone Family, who owned the lot in 1993/1994 and who were involved in the public
review process for the Lacet Subdivision. Lot 11 is owned by Cherie G. Oates, whose husband Leonard
M. Oates, also appeared and spoke at public hearings regarding Lacet Subdivision in 1993 and 1994
during the discussion on the 25’ Buffer. The other two affected Riverside Lots have changed hands
since 1993/1994. All of the existing property owners of the Riverside Lots have provided letters
supporting amending Ordinance 58 and striking the language in Section 1. These letters are attached
hereto as Exhibit F.
When development commenced on the Lacet Subdivision Lots in 1994, the Riverside neighbors
approached the City, objecting to development in the 25’ Buffer of items such as window wells, on
grade patios, etc. City Council held a hearing on June 27, 1994, reviewed videotaped portions of the
public hearing approving Lacet Subdivision, took public testimony, etc. and concluded the intent of the
25’ Buffer was to have no development between the Lacet Subdivision houses and Riverside
Subdivision. Meeting memoranda and minutes for the June 27, 1994 meeting are attached hereto as
Exhibit G. City Council directed City staff to draft a resolution to memorialize its decision.
What resulted from the June 27, 1994 hearing was Resolution 58, which states: “No permanent
improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than underground utility lines, may be built, constructed or
placed in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 7 and
Riverside Subdivision (all as shown on the Plat and the Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces may
not be paved or improved other than by landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types (sic) items be
allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered
porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls.” Resolution 58 was recorded and is part of the
City’s records.
77
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY P.C.
Lacet Subdivision – Amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994
February 12, 2020
Page 3
Since the original approvals and Resolution 58, a number of improvements have been built and
permitted by the City in the 25’ Buffer area on several lots including window wells, landscape walls, a
hot tub, roof eaves, patios, utility boxes and fences. See attached Exhibit H for copies of surveys and a
list of improvements approved by the City. As Resolution 58 has not been applied by the City, and the
Riverside neighbors no longer object to these improvements, the Applicant is requesting that Section 1
of Resolution 58 be stricken, and replaced with language that would have the area within the 25’ Buffer
be consistent with setback requirements in the Land Use Code.
The setback requirements in the Land Use Code currently permit permanent improvements such
as building eaves, architectural projections, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and
steps, fences and walls that meet certain dimensional requirements. As the City’s Building Department
has already granted approval for many of these items on the affected Lacet Subdivision lots within the
25’ Buffer, and as the Riverside Lot neighbors support the proposed amendment to strike this 25’ Buffer
restriction, the best solution is for the City to repeal the prohibition language of Resolution 58, Series of
1994 and replace the 25’ Buffer with a 25-foot “setback” consistent with the City’s Land Use Code.
Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY &
MORROW, P.C.
By___________________________________________
Sarah M. Oates
Enclosures
78
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994
79
Y'.
e".
r~21~_'8 B--i~
c~~ F 68 1 07/15/'7'4 04.19P PG 1 OF 3
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
RESOLUTION NO. 53
Series of 1994
REC
15000
DOC
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
INTERPRETING THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND PLAT FOR THE LACET
SUBDIVISION (F/K/A EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION), LOTS 1-7 OF THE LACET
SUBDIVISION, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 BARB'S WAY, ASPEN, COLORADO,
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
WHEREAS, By Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, the City Council ofthe City of Aspen
approved the subdivision and rezoning of that certain real property (hereinafter referred to as
Lacet Subdivision") described in the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement
Agreement for East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision), recorded at
Reception No. 359036, Book 718, Page 477 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County ("the Subdivision Agreement") and the recorded plat therefor ("the Plat"); and,
WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat indicate "building envelopes" on
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 which were intended by City Council to create a buffer space between the
Lacet Subdivision and the Riverside Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat do not state any intent or
restrictions regarding the uses permitted in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces outside of the
building envelopes; and,
WHEREAS, On June 27, 1994, after written notice to owners of affected real property
and published notice to the public, the City Council held a public hearing to consider whether
the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat required amendment or clarification to accurately reflect
the actual terms of approval granted by Ordinance No. 18; and,
WHEREAS, at that Public Hearing, the City Council reviewed videotaped portions of
the Public Hearing at which Ordinance No. 18 was approved, heard the testimony of affected
and interested landowners, and considered written comments submitted by interested parties;
and,
80
81
82
e"......
e
5 "? ~:;~ 1 i/. ()
3 I L._ l,,J I (.~
Q "/' l-~ ~c; 'y_
1,'
L,ue "')
0.00
C'_._":".",::;:c::
L' ,,__-,,_,f. '". /, :~..; ..:.1. '_-' i J. ~.:,;!.' ').4
F~ [T! : I 1',1 CC:JU)\iT"
i).<'l ; :.~'~? i:::' F' Ci J.C)i~:' j.F~t::L'
j c UO
D (~I \/ I ':::~C:L.E~=F:~::: .,::.: F~r~=C:Uh:D[:F:;.:
QUIT CLAIM DEED
Lacet Limited Liability Company ("Grantor"), whose address is
P.O. Box 2152, Silverthorne, CO 80498, for Ten Dollars and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, hereby sells and quitclaims to East
Cooper Limited Liability Company, whose address is P.O. Box 2152,
Silverthorne, CO 80498, the following real property in pitkin
County Colorado:
Lot 8, East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision, according
to the Plat thereof recorded July 21, 1993 in Plat Book 32 at Page
15 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado and the Amended Plat
of the Lacet Subdivision recorded July~, 1994 in Plat Book ~,
at Page/JLL) of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado
together with all its appurtenances and all the estate, right,
title, and interest of Grantor.
Dated: July ___, 1994
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ~
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me I,
1994, by E.J. Olbright as manager of East Cooper Limited ia 'lity
Company. .
My commission expires 0l~'-//94
witness my hand and official seal.
No~/i/,L'~;
y,,)
o'Lbr,i ght\3qui tc lm_dee
I ,_ .
v'LI'i.J '.,1
J~) II ') "'")
C\
d)~~A O~ I)
u
83
EXHIBIT B
Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993
84
t,.
1&.".
to. ,,-'
356441 0~;/03/93 09 ~ 40 F,ec: $50.00 Bf< 710 F'G 980
C,"Lv,'. D.Vl'~ Pit~jn Clerk Doc $~OO
c:< Co... ...::!-, .. R '.,
ORDINANCE NO.18
SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM
R-15 (PUD) MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AH (PUD) AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR
FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND
FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND VEST!D RIGHTS
FOR THE EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION, AN 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 2.35
ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION,
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone
district was created to promote private sector development of deed
restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market
residential development within a project; and
WHEREAS, C&G Mustardseed, Ltd. (Applicant) submitted an
application (the "Plan") for rezoning of a 2.35 acre parcel on East
Cooper Avenue from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH
PUD (Affordable Housing) in conjunction with an application for
Conceptual PUD review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission recommended
approval of a conceptual PUD Plan for the subject parcel, with
conditions, on September 15, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the city Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and
the Planning and Zoning commission's recommendations, for rezoning
of the subject parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing and approved the
Conceptual Plan with conditions on November 9,1992; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an application for
Rezoning,SUbdivision,Final PUD Development Plan,Growth
Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and
for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special
1 85
lit',
tit
Ii;
356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec: $50.00 Bf< 710 F'G 981
Silvia Davis~ Pitkin Cnty ~lerk, Doc SnOO
Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, waiver of Park
Development Impact Fees, and waiver of the Waterline Extension
Moratorium for the development of 12 deed restricted affordable
townhome units, one deed restricted lot, and six free market lots
for single family residences; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission reviewed the
development proposal in accordance with those procedures set forth
at Section 24-6-205(A) (8) (c) of the Municipal Code and did conduct
a public hearing thereon on March 16, 1993; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the plan, agency and
public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained
in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 9 of Article
7 Planned unit Development),Division 10 of Article 7,
Subdivision), Division 4 of Article 7 (Special Review), Division
11 of Article 7 (Zoning Map Amendments), Section 8-104 (C) of
Article 8 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions by city
Council), the Planning and Zoning commission has recommended final
approval of the East Cooper Subdivision subject to conditions, to
the city Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted
Special Review approval for parking and open space in an AH zone
district; and
WHEREAS, prior to final consideration by City Council, the
Applicant increased the number of deed restricted townhomes from
12 to 13 in order to meet the deed restricted/free market
percentage requirements of the AH zone district; and
2 86
1,
l" "
c'..
j*::~~)6L1.1i.:I. 05/0:3/9:3 09,4.0 R,.c $50.00 13f< 710 PC, 982
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00
WHEREAS, the waterline extension moratorium was no longer in
effect at the time of final review by city council; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city council has reviewed and considered
the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein,considered thosereviewedandhas
recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning
commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the Plan meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
Plan, 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 public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903 B. of the Municipal Code,
and subject to those conditions off approval as specified
hereinafter, the City council finds as follows in regard to the
Plan's planned unit development component:
1. The Developer's final plan submission is complete and
sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval.
2. The Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
3. The Plan is consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
4. The Plan will not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
5.The Plan approval is being granted only to the extent to which
3 87
@.l
w."'" 6 ,'I 4 j (-)~/(-'-'\l9:'\ 09,40 Hec $0:;0" 00 B1<
i:I",)",) '1"'. _\oj N'... - -'
1 .1.' Doc
D- .'. r~'.l..'.kin Cnt.y C.er'",
Silvia dV1S, . ~ .-
710 PG 983
OO
GMQS allocation/exemptions are obtained by the applicant.
section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in section 1 above,
the City Council grants Final PUD development plan approval for the
East Cooper project subject to the following conditions:
l. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed
restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the
Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the
affordable housing component of the project. The amount of
th~ financial assurances shall be approved by the city
Engineer and city Planning Director.
A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added
to the plat.
Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s)
and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity
needs.
Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot
to Hwy.82: year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (state
in condo documents also.)
The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the
effect that the subdivision's residents will be responsible
for the expense of bringing the road up to current city
standards prior to dedication.
The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the
Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the
Applicant.
The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy.82 to
be installed by the Applicant.
The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy.82
and Barb's Way.
Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development
on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates.
The drainage plan must address how the Hwy.82 intersection is
handled.
Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer
registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and
must be maintainable.
Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance, of
the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement
which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent.
The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access
permit.
The applicant shall consult the city Engineer for design
considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits
are required from the Streets Department for any work,
including landscaping, within the right-of-way.
15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master
2.
3 .
4.
5.
6.
7.
8 .
9 .
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
tit,If,,4 88
f.i, ,
i~5,-,LI.iJ.:I 05/0:J/'?c, 09,'1-0 F;;ec $:':iO.OO ElK 710 F"C:) 984QIJv,a Davls, ~itkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00
Deed Restriction for the l3 deed restricted townhomes and one
deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the county Clerk.
Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall
execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction.
The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as
follows:
2 - one bedroom Category 3 units
1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit
2 - two bedroom Category 3 units
1 - two bedroom category 4 unit
4 - three bedroom Category 4 units
3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units
1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied
16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the
units/parcels within this development, for the first round. of
sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this
information to the Housing Office on an annual basis.
17. All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units mus.t be
qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental
occupancy.
18. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any
excavation or building permits. .
19. Language regarding the sanitation system within the
PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation
District prior to recordation.
20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any
excavation or building permits.
21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel,
the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat
shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to
record the documents within a period of one hundred and eig~ty
180) days following approval by the City council shall render
the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by
both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their
acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted
by City Council for a showing of good cause.
22. Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the
natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report,
as supported by the Acting Building Official.
23. In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary
and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are. to
be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with
adjacent property owners and with the subject utility
companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding.
24. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
25. If, prior to the issuance of certificates of Occupancy and
recordation of the individual deed restrictions for the
5 89
e
5:56441 05/03/'rj 09: 4.0 H,ec: $50.00 81< 710 Pi;) 'il~~
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $QOO
Resident occupied units or single family lot. the city has
adopted changes to the RO regulations, these new regulations
shall be incorporated into the individual deed restrictionS.
section 3: Pursuant to section 24-7-1004 C. of the Municipal Code,
and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein,
the city council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's
subdivision development component:
1. The proposed subdivision in consistent with .the Aspen Area
Community Plan and is, furthermore, consistent with the
Character of existing land uses in the adjoining areas.
2. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas and will be in substantial
compliance with all requirements of chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code.
3. The proposed subdivision is compatible and suitable with the
topography of the area and will not present of create a threat
to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents or
neighbors of the subdivision.
The proposed subdivision does not create spatial patterns that
cause inefficiencies , duplication, or premature extension of
public facilitates or unnecessary public costs.
section 4: Pursuant to section 24-8-104 C. of the Municipal Code,
the city Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer's
request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption
for affordable housing and free market dwelling units in the
Affordable Housing zone district.
4.
section 5: Pursuant to section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code,
the city Council finds as follows in regard to the zoning map
amendment component of the Plan:
1. The proposed zoning amendment as set forth in the Plan are not
in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the
surrounding zone districts and land uses.
3.The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely
traffic generation or road safety when taken
consideration with the other aspects of the Plan.
impact
into
4.The proposed zoning amendment will promote the public interest
6 90
ei,rZ".
tit."It
i,\.
356441 05/03/93 09:40 Rec $50.00 BK
Silvia Davis~ Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc
710 PG 986
000
and character of the city of Aspen.
Section 6: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 and 24-7-1103, and
Division 2 of Article 5 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and
findings set forth in Section 5 above, the City council does grant
the following amendment to the Official Zone District Map and does
designate the following zone district for the development subject
to the conditions as specified below:
1. Affordable Housing (AH) shall be applied to Lots 1-8 of the
East Cooper Subdivision.
Section 7: Pursuant to Section #24-7-1007 B. of the Municipal
Code, the city Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's
condominiumization component:
1. The 13 proposed townhomes to be condominiumized are not
currently leased on a long term basis.
2. six month minimum leases shall be required for the condominium
units.
3. The proposed condominiumization will not adversely affect the
availability of affordable housing.
section 8: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 7 above,
and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, ~he
City Council grants and awards condominiumization approval to ~he
Plan as follows, subject to the conditions as specified herein::
1. Thirteen proposed townhomes on Lot 8.
2. Affordable Housing Impact Fees shall not be required for these
deed restricted condominium units.
Section 9: The requested waiver of the Park Development Impact fee
shall not be granted for the East cooper Subdivision.
Section 10: All material representations and commitments made by
the developer pursuant to the Plan approvals as herein awarded,
whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the
Planning and zoning commission and 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
other specific conditions.
7 91
IeII,'" ,iJ;
Wj~)6441. 05/03/9:_~ 09: 40 Rec $50.00 BI< 710 PG 987
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00
section 11: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen,
Colorado, shall be and is. hereby amended to reflect the rezoning
action as set forth in section 6 above and such amendment shall be
promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with section
24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code.
section 12: Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal code,
the city council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for
the East Cooper Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows:
1.The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to; building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
2.
3.
4.
section 13:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
8 92
t\
WI'
1*::;56441 05/0:.)/93 09,40 Rec: '~C;O. 00 BI< 710 PG 98B
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc: $.00
under such prior ordinances.
section 14:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
section 15: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance
to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the
City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final
adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given 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 pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
section 16:
That 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 17:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the <=?,c::;;" (fay
Of~, 1993 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the city of Aspen.
9 93
l(
e'
356441 05/03/93 09'4~ Rec: .$50:00. B~
D ... Pi.tkin Cnty C.leF"l,., Doc:
Silvia av.l.S,
710 PG 989
00
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council
1993.
1.2.of the city of Aspen on the
Hf(II~,.
OF 4S"'"O~"""'-:'
A. ~tA t'}
1.
Katiiii''t)i~ :",,'Koch, city Clerk
1",
L t3~-
John Bennett, Mayor
adopted, passed and approved this ~y:
1993.
c__,,,.,.,.,
r''''''''.,,~
IHIII""", ~.
I,ll '!: ""
t c.. 11$ ,'1,/;".
t. ". '~.',n-.;:;....e . '. '.... -,,;.
Kathryn KGch, city Clerk
OCUli':,'" .,/
coop.fin.ord
t5~-
John Be nett, Mayor
10
day of
day of
94
EXHIBIT C
P&Z Minutes – March 2, 1993
95
PZM3 . 16. 93
David seconded the motion with all in favor.
GORDON CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION
SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Leslie: This is to be tabled. We are bringing it back to you onApril20. There is a change in the application so there is notneedtoopenthepublichearing. It has to be renoticed.
EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING, FINAL PUD
SUBDIVISION, REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
v-1Kimmadepresentationasattachedinrecord. p mr
i
Tom Stevens, applicant brought Commission up to date on theproject.
Michael Gassman, architect gave a description of the dwelling unitsintheproject.
Stevens: In terms of the actual site plan all access is now offHwy #82 . The conditions that CDOT put in access to the site is arightturnlane 'off Hwy 82 heading east out of town. That has beenincorporatedintotheplans. Once you are into the project theroadsareprivate. The main road that leads up to the free markethomesendsinacul-de-sac. We have reviewed the cul-de-sac withtheFireDept. It is in excess of their turning requirements.
The road which leads into the deed restricted portion accesses theparkingaswellasfireaccess.
Grading and drainage on the project really falls into 2 differentcategories. The free market lots will obviously be reviewed at thetimetheplansforhomesaresubmittedforbuildingpermit. OneoftheconditionsthattheEngineeringDeptwantedontheprojectwasthatthereisanoteontheplatthatalldrainagewithinthefreemarketlotsiscontainedonthatlot. We will comply withthat.
Within Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel all drainage is alsobeingselfcontained.
The landscaping for the project will obviously revolve mostly
2
96
PZM3 . 16.93
around Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel . There are a couple
of things we need to accommodate. In trying to minimize the
effects of Hwy 82 we went about it 2 different ways. One is we are
fencing along Hwy 82 as well as adding considerable evergreen
plants. We have a kid' s play area and the fence will provide some
level of safety for that play area as well as sound and visual to
the highway.
Within the project we have got shade trees planted just outside the
entries to the units. Then as we move out past the units we get
back to native vegetation and as we get closer to the ditch we get
more into riparian vegetation.
We really had to make a decision as to how we were going to handle
the ditch. Right now we are not comfortable with the ditch not
leaking. So we want to line the ditch. We have met with the
Riverside ditch representatives and cleared this with them. While
we are going to the expense of lining this thing, we are also going
to go to the expense of turning it into an amenity for the project.
We also met with the Parks Dept in terms of acquiring tree removal
permits when it comes to removal of trees. We will replace those
trees on a caliper per caliper inch trees. The areas directly
around the units are sod while as you move out beyond the units you
get into more native areas.
Easements on the property--all access and utility easements are
contained within the appropriate easements. That has been reviewed
with the Engineering Dept. The Parks Dept has requested a
pedestrian easement which gets from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy
82 . We are willing to grant that easement. We would just like for
them to say which of the 3 possibilities they prefer.
A pedestrian easement and a walk will be constructed along the
property line at Hwy 82 on our property but within the setback.
At conceptual submission it was requested that we provide easement.
At final it was requested that we actually build the walk. That
is fine. We will comply with that.
The setback along Hwy 82 has been increased to 12 and 1/2 feet per
the Engineering Dept. Utilities to service the project--all the
utilities are directly adjacent. We will be utilizing Aspen Water
Consolidated San and one of the advantages of this project is
that the water line that services the Riverside Subdivision is a
dead end line and ends in the cul-de-sac directly adjacent to this
project. As part of the construction of his project we propose to
loop that line, connect from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy 82
resulting in a loop from Riverside and improving their service.
One of the issues that came up at the last meeting was Homeowner' s
3
97
PZM3 . 16. 93
Association. We have taken a look a that. The deed restricted
portion for the project units #1 through #12 will be in a separate
association. Their responsibility will include exterior buildingmaintenance, court maintenance and snow removal, common area
maintenance and taxes.
The free market lots including the resident occupied lot #4 will
be in a separate association from the deed restricted units and
their responsibility will revolve around maintenance and snow
removal.
Regarding the issues that were brought up at the last meeting:First is density. This project received unanimous approval on a
16 and 7 program. 16 deed restricted and 7 free market. We are
now at 13 and 6--Lot #8 to be deed restricted parcel is within the
allowed FAR for the AH zone district. The AH zone district allows
by special review for this FAR to be varied up. We are not askingforthat.
Lots #1 through #7 are significantly larger than required by theAHzonewhichrequiresaminimumof3 , 000sgft. We have for thefreemarketportion9,700sgft and the RO lot is 6, 600sgft. So all
aspects of this project propose less density than what is allowed.
In order to look at FAR we really need to compare what is allowed
vs what is allowble--not what is allowed on this project vs whatisinRiversideSubdivision. I think that we have all come to the
realization that at some point in time Riverside Subdivision will
probably expand to it's maximum allowed FARs.
For this reason we think it would be poor planning to voluntarilyreducetheFARonthisprojectwhilenotlookingatasimilar
situation on Riverside Subdivision. Essentially all we would do
is in the future years create an enclave of small and perceptuallysubstandardhomes. We don't want to do that. We want to make this
compatible--not segregated.
The other issue that came up was the 70/30 ratio of deed restricted
vs free market. We are currently at 68 and 28. We are not sure
at this point whether Council has the ability to vary it down to68% or not. What it really comes down to is whether or not we have
a 3-bedroom unit or we replace that 3-bedroom unit with 2 units and
any other 2-bedroom configuration mumble What that does it
gives us the same number of bedrooms so we house the same number
of people. It will get us to the 70/30 split. Our concern is that
it gets us away from what has consistently been told to us is the
requirements for housing and that is family housing.
We are willing to do either one. And we will rely on your
recommendation and Council 's final judgement on this. It is our
4
98
f
j
PZM3 . 16.93
preference to house in 3-bedroom configuration because we think
that that is what the community needs. But physically the change
from that 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom or 1-bedroom above can be
handled within the current building footprint and parking
footprint. So it is not a big deal.
This project has gone above and beyond the requirements of the
approval process and the specific zone district. I think we have
demonstrated that throughout the course of this project. Meetings
and discussions were held with the neighbors and it has produced
a significantly changed plan for revisions to access, revisions to
density, additions of open space. This project not only fits the
intent of the AH zone district but it fits the dimensional
requirements of the zone district. But more importantly it fits
within the goals of the community. It fits the goals of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan exactly. It keeps density within the metro
area. It keeps it along the established transit route, has minimal
impacts to the community based on it's location.
When looked at in terms of community good this project fits. The
bottom line is that this project will realize no increase in free
market lots. We have an allowed use by right of 6 lots on this
piece of property via the current zoning. All that is being
afforded by the rezoning on this project is deed restricted
housing. That is a clear community asset.
Bruce: Can you show me exactly where the Riverside Subdivision
ends and begins in relation to your project. I know the Cresta
Haus is on the bottom side.
The applicants showed on drawings locations of these properties.
Bruce: So east of your subdivision is all Cresta Haus, south and
west is Riverside. What are these small lots right here?
Tom: That is Buckwheat.
Kim: Since we found that the ratio didn't quite meet the 70/30 I
have had talks with Tom Baker about it. And he feels that the
really close number to be making a call that the code establishes
the minimum ratio and that the applicant is bound to meet those
ratios as part of this project. And there are a couple of options
available including breaking down one of the units into 2 units.
It looks as though the density can be met by doing that a studio
unit rather than 1-bedroom. But we should get together and double
check my numbers. I think at this point so that we can get forward
on this that we really can't be discussing 2% one way or the other.
Tom: That' s fine. We are going to make that conversion very easily.
5
99
PZM3 . 16. 93
Tim: Because of what I understand about RO. It seems to me that
they are not as restricted as say a category #3 would be. Or a
category #4 3-bedroom. And it might be a proposal that, and I am
for the restrictions, I am for having it as employee oriented as
possible. Having the resale value restricted as much as possible.
It may be instead of having resident occupied condominiums in the
complex we ask them to change from RO designation which we really
don't have a handle on, to the well-defined category #3 or category
4 3-bedroom, 3-baths. And that might be some way for us to
restrict the project even more to keep the cost to potential buyers
down even more, to keep qualified families focused on having the
ability to have 3 bedrooms so that they can have kids or they can
have whatever kind of space they need.
This might be something we can propose in order to keep the 3
bedrooms which I think are more valuable in this project than
studios or 1 bedrooms.
To take an RO unit and make it a category #3 I think is going to
make it more available to people who have less income or less
assets or fit a lower income stereo type and make this available
to a more unfunded buyer.
Richard: I raised the trial balloon of further reducing your FAR
caps and I think Michael Gassman raised the point "Well we will
reduce it if Riverside will reduce it" . And I haven't seen a
response from Riverside. They just keep asking for more without
offering anything. And that debate is really outside of our
purview. We were kind of involved in it just to try to keep
everybody happy.
Larry Fredericks point of the sidewalk--I think any improvement
along the street there is helpful and if you do have to go out by
the wall at the Cresta Haus--I walk up there or ride my bike up
there frequently and just having another couple of hundred feet of
sidewalk would be a major help. I hope we can continue improve-
ments along Cooper Street as soon as possible.
And the issue of the fence--I think you should do at least a
thumbnail shading study to see if it would shade the sidewalk and
you leave ice there. Look at the height and the setback of the
fence and the materials you use so that it works to keep the kids
in but doesn't block any more sunlight than necessary on the
sidewalk.
Tim: I am in favor of the AH zone. I think this is a good
application of it. The debate between Riverside and this project
I just don't see. The weight of the opinion from Riverside that
it should be less dense--I think it balances for me. It has a
basic compatibility for me. And I think with the other things that
6 100
Y
PZM3 . 16.93
are in the neighborhood I live in that area this is very
compatible. I think it is a great opportunity for the City to take
advantage of the adventure of an investor to provide opportunities
for people to have the ladder of affordable housing to climb. I
think it is a good project. It fits. I think the houses that are
in the free market side are going to be restricted in who lives
there and how much they are worth because it is part of this
project. I think those people are going to be local people and I
think that helps balance it out. I like the project.
Sara: I am so happy to see private parties come in and offer
something like this instead of building Godfather estate homes.
You are answering a community need. You are not ghettoizing
employee housing. It is in with a mixed community in there and I
think that is wonderful. It is going to be lively there.
Jasmine: I agree with the members of the Commission. I think this
is a very good project and I think this is the kind of project we
were hoping to see when the idea of the AH zone was first proposed.
I think the density is appropriate because of the location close
to downtown. Part of the thing that is going to make it possible
for local residents to be able to live near the City and be able
to raise families near the City is to have greater density near bus
routes so that people with children can still have their kids be
adjacent to the City environment but also be a protected play area.
I think the size of the units are built on a larger scale with
greater width, greater liveability is certainly a wonderful thing.
I think your responses to the concerns of the people who live in
the Riverside Subdivision is very commendable. By increasing the
setbacks on the Riverside Subdivision side and the fact that you
have a completely different access. While you are adjacent they
are really very much separated as far as the 2 communities are
concerned. I think the applicant has addressed a great deal of the
concerns of the neighborhood. I think this is a project that the
neighborhood can live with and the community can be happy with too.
I am very enthusiastic about it.
Bruce: What is the square footage size cap for the homes in the
free market?
Tom: We haven't calculated them.
There was some discussion on this.
Bruce: So 3 , 660 is the outside cap. There is no guarantee that
the homes that will be built will be that size. They could be
2 , 000. They could be 2 , 500. The price of the lot is going to be -.
a function of what is going to determine the size of the house.
7
101
PZM3 . 16. 93
Tom: The 3 , 660 absolutely cap to the sliding scale.
mumble So while this project is subject to that ---
Leslie: Then you go up to 9, 000 and then that is it. But the road
easement comes out of the lot size for allowable floor area and any
other except the pedestrian easement.
Bruce: So it is unlikely that there is going to be a 3 , 600sqft
house.
Jasmine: So all representations made by the applicant shall be
considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stated.
All material representation made by the applicant in the
application and during the public meetings with Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other
conditions" . So that is Condition #23 .
MOTION
Richard: I make a motion to rezone the subject parcel from R-15
moderate density/residential PUD to AH Affordable Housing PUD.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Richard: I make a motion to recommend approval of the East Cooper
Affordable Housing Project final PUD development plan, Special
Review for Open Space and Parking in the AH zone and GMQS Exemption
for the 6 free market lots, 12 affordable town homes and one RO
affordable lot as deed restricted per Housing Office's approval
with the 23 conditions included in Planning Office memo dated March
2 and March 16, 1993 .
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL SPA MASTER PLAN ADOPTION
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
What we are going to be asking Council to do--we are asking for
your recommendation to Council on this is to extend that deadline
in the code that says conceptual plan only lasts for 2 years unless
you do a final plan.
And if you think about some of the uses that are being proposed for
this site--the valley-wide rail, the trolley--will not take place
in another 2 years. And I would hate to see all this Work that we
8 102
e
PZM3 . 2 . 93
EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FINAL PUD, SUBDIVISION
REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
David stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict
of interest.
Kim: There was an error in the public notice requirement. So this
is not a bonified public hearing. What we are going to do tonight
is have a brief introduction by the applicant and then try and get
through the growth management exemption for affordable and free
market housing and special reviews for open space and parking
because those are aspects of this project that are not bound to
public hearings.
Tom Stevens: Based on the previous approval of 16 deed-restricted
units and 7 free-market lots there was also a condition that we
look at any means available to us to reduce the density on the
site. What really worked best was actually reduce the numbers on
the project. We got rid of an expensive parking garage but at the
same time we started to get more of a site opening up and usable
as open space. We started to get units pulling back off of Hwy 82 .
The plan as proposed right now deals with 13 deed restricted units
and 6 free market units. Of those 13 deed restricted units 12 are
townhomes and 1 is a lot. Access to the project was approved by
this Commission at that conceptual--coming off Hwy 82 .
demonstrated on drawings)
As we started to go through this what happened is that building
these units into the hillside and taking advantage of that grade
change worked really well. By reducing the numbers we were able
to pull it completely off the Hwy.
In addition to the parking garage and storage in what is
essentially a basement there is also parking and it is oversized
parking tandem behind on the road level. At conceptual this
parking was really tight and began to infringe on the fire lane.
With the reduction of units that has all been able to spread out.
Now the units are loft by 25ft which is really generous for a
parking space.
As we did with the conceptual submission fire access can move
through here with a gate with what is called a knox box which the
Fire Dept has a special locking mechanism that only they can get
out. This can only be used in emergency situations. It cannot be
used for day-to-day traffic.
2
103
r. 0..•
PZM3 . 2 .93
The access still comes up from Hwy 82. What we have done though
is loosened all of this up from the 7 lots which are now 6. We
have a deed restricted lot now which has moved down to the lower
bench. This lot is 6, 600sgft where these average over 9,000.
In addition to loosening the density up on these lots we have also
provided a 25ft bumper that is identified by prescribed building
envelopes that provides a bumper along the Riverside Subdivision.
In order to accommodate this we need to relocate the ditch. We
talked to the Riverside people. That is fine with them. We have
coordinated construction schedules with them.
We are going to turn the ditch into an amenity. These units all
back out onto this as well as this home, this home and this home.
And if done right really can be an amenity to the project.
One point that I do want to make is that without the deed
restricted component on this thing--this is 2 . 35 acres. At
15, 000sgft lots the zoning allows for 6.8 units. We are asking for
6. The rest of the project is deed restricted. Within the AH
parameters these are significantly larger than need be. The AH
specifies a 3 , 000sgft lot at minimum. These are over 9, 000ft.
But we have had to try and match densities with the Riverside
Subdivision as best as possible. They would like to see less up
there. We can't do less up there. It is that simple. We are not
asking for an increase in free market density. What we are asking
for is an increase in deed restricted density.
For us to go beyond the numbers that we have right here it means-
right now lot and home, we are going to come on the market for
657 , 000 and that is considerably less than a million two. And the
crowd that that has attracted are all locals. They are local
working people. If the cost of the lot goes up via the number of
I-/ - lots going down, that crowd disappears and we get in second home
Wm/
e
4 buyers. And from day one that is just not something we are
X` interested in doing.
l7" r If you go down below the 6 lots it becomes much larger homes.
if you are going to put a 3 , 600sgft house on a 20, 000sgft lot
i , it is getting away from what the Affordable Housing Zone District
was created for.
Roger: I much like how this has evolved. I think you have been
relatively sensitive to what we have had to deal with there. I
like the project now whereas I had some real qualms about it
before.
3
104
PZM3 . 2 .93
Jasmine: The 25 foot setback from Riverside Subdivision is
something I am sure the neighborhood will be very happy about. You
have proposed building envelopes for the free market houses. I
assume there is going to be some mechanism for actually enforcing
that to see that they are not exceeded.
Tom: As a matter of procedure that building envelope goes on the
plat and then the plat is reviewed against the drawings that are
submitted to the Building Dept with the plans. So once this
project is approved those building envelopes get platted and that n
is it.ef& , 6
Jasmine then asked for public comment.
6
hem
Doug McCullough: I am a resident of Riverside Drive. I grew up
on Riverside Drive. First of all I would like to say I appreciate
the efforts the developers have made in trying to reduce the
density here. It has been our past argument of our concern to the
size of the density. Unfortunately we are dealing with the
difference between a 9, 000ft lot and a 2 ,500sgft house as compared
to a 15, 000sgft lot and a 2 , 5005; ft house as compared to a
9, 000sgft lot and a 3, 50osgft house. And my concern is where does
the house go. It doesn't go out. We are not talking about
3 , 500sgft single story dwelling here.
I think this is going to be similar to what has happened at 1010
Ute. And another thing I think would be the best interest of the
Housing Authority would be to take into consideration the unit that
was just built on the back of the Cresta Haus. It is a 2 ,700sgft
unit. It is an employee housing unit and multiply that by 1/3rd
and then put 6 of those units up in that area. I just think it is
going to be a huge development.
I know that we talked in the interest of 5 units up there in that
area which would expand the size of the lots and give a bigger
envelope it might increase the height size.
Lennie Oates: I am the owner of Lot #11 and some adjacent
property. I agree with Doug. I would like to see you, between now
and the real public hearing, go up and take a look at the free
standing unit that was built up there as part of the Cresta Haus.
He said multiply it by a third and I say multiply it by 1 and 1/3
and get the scale instead of going down to get the true perspective
on it and then visualize--or 6 units going in there.
From the standpoint of the neighbors I want to remind you that
neither at the P&Z level or at the City Council level that we
object to the size of the employee housing or the affordable
housing aspect of this. They have cut back on that area. That has
been their own choice. That is not what we have complained about.
4 105
m%
PZM3 . 2 .93
It was the number of lots that were the free market lots. They
have remained the same. There are 7 whether you call one resident
occupied or not. The only restriction on a resident occupied is
it requires a resident to live there. And that is the deed
restriction and that is it pure and simple.
They haven't changed the configuration to less than 7 . Also I
think given the relative scale and the size of their lots which
incidentally if you take the lots they include the road and the
cul-de-sac. They are not out of it. So their roads in the cul-
de-sac are parented in. You go back and look at Riverside,
Riverside' s aren't included in. If you add them into the Riverside
properties there is a hypothetical, you get a tremendous disparity.
Leslie: Any roads or easements--surface easements come out of your
allowable lot area for floor area purposes.
Oates: I am saying for comparison sake with Riverside--you could
make the other argument and say look at Riverside. Each one of
these lots has an addition of area that they have shown on the map
the area which counts for roads.
Pete Stone: I live in Riverside. I think the changes that you
have made in the affordable housing portion of the project are
terrific. But I have come to a couple of other meetings and have
some concerns too about the free market units. I feel very
uncomfortable when I hear the developer say that the bottom line
is now 6 free market lots, 1 RO lot and 12 units and that is the
least that we can go or we are going to go broke.
I don't if that is the case or not. But I think that that is
putting pressure on you to tend to pass or recommend something that
ought to really stand on it' s own. And I think that is what you
have got to do. I think you have to take a hard look at that. I
thought that the object of affordable housing was to create more
affordable housing. And my objections have been over the free
market portions. I feel like what is happening right now is that
we have reduced the affordable housing which is exactly what the
whole point of this was to develop. And we haven't met really at
all on the free market portion.
I don't think that when P&Z and City Council talked about reducing
density in both the free market and affordable housing I don't
think that has happened as much as perhaps it should.
7 I am actually one of the applicants. I would like to address
A,f M""' some of the remarks. The model of our development has 2-story
iWd free- market units built at the maximum allowable. And if you take
a look at the upward visual impact it does not seem any greater
than what is already in the neighborhood. I think addressing the
5
106
PZM3 .2 .93
density issue we have reduced voluntarily the FAR on the lots and
what is allowed.
We have opened up open space by putting 25 foot setbacks when we
didn't have to but that again helps the project. I just think that
visually when you look at this it does not seem like an impact like
a 1010 Ute. I think that is an over-exaggeration. I think there
is also 6, 000 and an 8, 000sqft lot in the Riverside neighborhood
also. And across the street there are some very small lots.
Jasmine: I think all of us on the Commission are aware of the fact
that most of the homes in development of Riverside Subdivision
occurred in days when people used to have smaller houses on larger
lots. And that is the way people like to live. Especially people
who lived here and had children and families. The trend as we all
know now is to have the maximum size house on as small as possible
lot with very little stuff around the edges so that you can have
media rooms and things like that.
So we know that that is the case. There are not people who are
going to build the way they built Riverside anymore. That is just
not the style. I think we have to try to see how this particular
project is going to be less like 1010 Ute--everyone's favorite
subdivision. It' s done a lot of good things for other developers
because they can always point to 1010 Ute and say "See it is not
as bad as that" .
It would be interesting to see how this does tend to fit in with
the other buildings in the neighborhood. Admittedly you are not
going to get the same kind of ratio of building size to lot size
that you did have and you still have in Riverside Subdivision.
Tom: What we need to look at is allowed FAR vs allowed FAR--not
allowed FAR vs what is right now. As soon as someone sells out
here this could go to maximum FAR. And if history is any lesson
it will go to maximum FAR.Maximum FAR in Riverside is
considerably more than maximum FAR in here. So to talk about
houses dwarfing houses I don't think is necessarily accurate.
This map shows 1010 Ute. So rather than speculate as to how this
project relates in terms of design and density to 1010 Ute you can
see it. And right off the bat you can see it is nowhere close.
So that ought to be a fairly easy reference.
We didn't bring up economics because we don't want to talk about
economics. We don't want economics to be a pressure in this thing.
Everybody understands development is driven by economics. And we
would rather not review this project based on economics. I don't
think it is a viable tool in the evaluation of this.
6 107
PZM3 .2 . 93
Jasmine: We have heard this kind of thing before and we have
always just put that aside in our deliberations. Economics is
something that we just cannot consider. Whether the developer
makes a profit or does not make a profit is not something that we
have any determination in one way or the other.
I live in Riverside too and I am not particularly passionate
about the individual issues here. My comments are more an
observation on the process that I have seen. I would like to
nominate that we name the street Loophole Lane. The reason I would
like to do that is it seems to me that he just made the comment
The rules allow. The rules allow" . Well we have a community
plan. We have a GMP. We have exemptions. We have a petition here
to rezone. And clearly frankly the pawn in this little chess game,
to my observation, we are going to use the pawn of employee housing
to get what we want to get.
Now you can develop this property and the current rules that exist
subject to the growth management quotas and all the things that go
on. But we are asked that we should bend those rules and rezone
this and frankly all I have seen and all I have heard and it has
been 6 or 8 months is "We will do this and we will do that but we
will play the game of using this pawn of affordable housing to get
the development that we want" . My observation is that this thing
has been cut up and cut down. It has been billed as something good
for the community. The fact is that we have a group of people that
want to build houses on lots. The lots are there. They are zoned.
They want to get rezoned. They want favorable treatment. And
presumably it is to provide affordable housing. I, for one, am not
convinced.
Tom: I think we can eliminate all the affordable housing and stick
with 6 lots. It is zoned for that right now. The loophole, if you
want to call it that, is that the AH provides, if you do affordable
housing you are exempt from GMQS. We have followed the rules on
this thing from day one to the letter. We are not asking for
anything special. Again this site is zoned right now, today, for
6. 8 lots. So we are asking for the 6 that are currently available
on the site. We are going through the process that is designated
for this thing. We are not asking for anything. The benefit to
this community is only affordable housing because 6 lots are
allowed there anyway.
Jasmine asked if there were any further comments from the public.
There were none.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Sara: Did you try to build the model of the private home within
the building envelope?
7
108
PZM3 . 2 .93
Tom: Yes, they are within the building envelope and they represent
maximum square footage. They are all 2-story construction and
conform with the height limit of the AH zone district. That is 25
feet available to 30 by special review. We have not asked for
special review.
Richard: FAR ratios what is the ratio of allowable FAR to the lot
size compared to what you are doing over here?
Leslie: On a 15, 000sgft lot in the R-15 zone district you can go
4 , 500sgft of floor area plus a 500sgft garage. Anything below
grade doesn't count.
Richard: And you are restricted to 35 here?
Tom: A little less.
Richard: So it is a little larger ratio than--
Tom: Yes. We are at about 38%. The resulting home will be a
little less than 1, 000sgft less than allowable area.
Richard: The AH zone does allow a little larger FAR ratio than the
R-15. My main concern with this--within limits you have volun-
tarily reduced it but it still creates a little more bulk for the
given area than the adjoining neighborhood.
Tom: We propose this right now is in accordance with the AH zone
which allows a 38% compared with 33% that is allowed in R-15.
Leslie: It is based upon the size of the lot. It is sliding scale.
Tom: And again some of the lots in Riverside are not 15, 000ft.
So the maximum allowed FAR on those lots is less than 45. So that
is not something we want to try and represent. Some of the lots
are bigger than 15, 000ft and can expand beyond 45.
Tim: Is there a lot in Riverside that is for sale? And what is
it listed for?
There are no lots in Riverside for sale at this point. I would
say that if there was a lot available in Riverside, 14 , 000sgft,
would sell for more than these lots just because it is a larger lot
and you are permitted larger FAR. Eventually you are going to see
those lots selling for lot value, people are going to be tearing
down their houses and building bigger houses. That is inevitable.
Tim: I think there is some comparison to the relative value--a
lot or a house in Riverside and a finished completed house on a lot
8
109
I
PZM3 . 2 . 93
in East Cooper free market. I am trying to look for if this is
going to distort your property values immediately and create a
margin where there is going to be suffering on the part of
Riverside homeowners and real estate owners, I don't know if I can
figure that out.
I see it the other way around. I think it is going to help the
value of Riverside.
Tim: One of my ideas about restricted covenants is that homeowners
may want to consider the word that we throw around a lot is "mass" .
And do you want very contemporary high-ceiling houses. What we all
feel is disturbing us in the west end are some of the "Steve Marcus
development houses" . They are very ill-created for the
compatibility of the neighborhood. But are simply totally created
for resale value. I would like to see the mass of the houses kept
under control .
Tom: The Steve Marcus house can't be built anymore because the
City changed it's building codes. Something to keep in mind is
that the majority of buyers in here are people who are going to
live here. And as a result we are very concerned with not having
the visual density of a 1010 Ute. I think that is a very important
fact and we will address mass. It will be done.
Tim: We want to do it. I think as a Commission we want to do it.
So if you guys are going to do an RO--that's never been done. If
you are going to try and do this project as uniquely as you say
maybe that is something you can tackle for us also. I can tell you
that when I first saw this I went out and immediately ran the
numbers on it. And there is obviously profit here. There is
obviously risk. So I don't know how to balance that out either.
I am very aware of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that can
be made in a project like this but I am also aware of the time, the
effort, the capitol investment that has to come about in order to
conceptualize the thing and really bring it up to what we see now.
And I frankly think that venture capitalists should be rewarded for
trying to do things like this in this community.
With going through GMQS I am not an exemption person. I am a
fairly exacting person. I think everybody should march by the
rules here. Leslie, if it goes through GMQS it is going to have
Ord. #1 restriction so if the affordable housing is eliminated--
Leslie: If it went through GMQS GMP competition they would be
required to mitigate 35% of their employees generated. We figure
that through GMP we get a 50/50 split in numbers of units. 50%
free market units and 50% deed restricted units. That is one of
the reasons why the AH zone is 70/30 because our feeling is that
we get more deed restricted units for AH than we would if someone
9
110
PZM3 . 2 . 93
went throughout the GMP process.
The second element about GMP is that this project meets threshold.
You cannot say you have to reduce your numbers of units because we
don't like how it looks on the site at threshold. And we haven't
had a project in 4 years that has not met threshold.
Tim: My point is I don't think we would be creating as comfortable
and affordable living space if we required them to mitigate or them
to do Ord #1. I think that the size of the spaces, the 3 bedroom
configurations are going to give people a place to grow with
families in the community. I think that the parking is better than
having an ADU tacked onto the back of somebody' s house and that AdU
having a party one night and 10 cars being there.
I think this organizes it better. I think it gives a much more
progressive scale of life improvement for people who want to grow
in the community. I think that that is our reward for allowing
these guys to take the risk.
I think that this is a dangerous intersection and I really think
that that landscaping is going to have to be unique here. It is
a steep hill. People are turning as they come down the hill. I
am always trying to creep out of Park Ave. I think that whatever
happens in this open space should be very focused on the intensity
of the traffic coming down the hill .
Bruce: I am trying to get a handle on how to work this project
through. I think all of us have similar kinds of goals. The folks
who live in Riverside want their neighborhood to stay as nice as
it possibly can be. You guys want to develop a nice project that
will hopefully get some employee housing.
I asked the hard question a while ago--"Is this the bottom line?
Is there any more slack to be cut?" I want to ask the Riverside
folks a similar kind of question. What is it going to take to get
you guys to buy into this project?
The reason I ask that question--back early on when we began
reviewing this project and we all went on the site visit, I heard
very little concern from the Riverside folks about density. The
concerns I heard at that time were "We don't want the access
through here. We don't want our kids getting run over" .
And I feel like the developer has responded. So I ask you guys the
hard question. What is it going to take to get you guys to buy
into this project.
Lennie Oates: I don't think that the density issue is a new issue
from our standpoint. I think we expressed it to both P&Z and to
10
111
0..
PZM3 . 2 .93
the City Council. The City Council in their approving resolution
asked the developer to go back and look at his density. I don't
think we had a concern about the affordable housing density. The
concern that we had was the density on the free market which was
then 7 and I still say it is 7 even with the resident occupied.
There are some things that we would like to ask them to do. They
don't want to bring up tonight things like a vegetary screening and
some of the utility concepts and things like that.
What would make us happy would be to see this--the 6 lots up above
be reduced to some lower number that still allows them to go
forward with their project.
Bruce: Do you have a number? Is it 4 or--
Oates: Yea, 4 .
Bruce: So the money we are talking about is--I know we are not
supposed to talk economics. But it is a reality. It is a fact of
life here. Instead of 6 lots at $400, 000 each, we are talking
about 4 lots at $600, 000 each. And the applicant is saying that
changes the mix of the potential buyers. But 4 is the number that
makes the Riverside folks happy?
I feel a little different about that. My biggest concern was
the access and I genuinely appreciate your having solved the access
problem. And I say let them develop the property. I am a little
bit apart from the neighborhood. I do not have as much a concern
about the density as regards our neighborhood. I really think they
showed deep concerns for the neighborhood when they solved the
access problem and I am happy with that.
I would leave the question of density on a more global scale of
what is appropriate to the community. I may not agree with all my
neighbors. I am not so adamant about the density. I counted on
the process. I observe what is going on here--just how little
employee housing can we build to get away with this deal. And I
would want to make that as an observation. But on the density
subject I think that the community scale should dictate the density
and not the neighborhood scale. The neighborhood was saved in my
opinion when they solved the access problem.
Dottie Kelleher: I live in Riverside Subdivision and my comment
actually goes back a little way. When I heard an awful lot of
locking barns after horses were gone and what terrible things Steve
Marcus did but he doesn't do them anymore. And how awful 1010 Ute
is but we are not going to let that happen again. And my concern
is just that you think this through very carefully before it gets
approved and don't go driving up Hwy 82 a couple years from now and
11
112
PZM3 . 2 . 93
say "Oh my God, look at that! " . There is an awful lot of 20/20
hindsight type of thinking going on.
Leslie: First off 1010 Ute was growth management project. It
received the highest score of any growth management residential
project. Secondly it had a PUD overlay. So because of the PUD
overlay at the time it allowed them to trade their open space out
of where the development is across the street to the park that is
right across from the entrance there. So that is why you don't see
a lot of open space in the 1010 Ute subdivision. It is all on the
other side of the street. And the PUD allowed them--they have 5ft
setbacks. There is 10feet in between each of those buildings and
5ft rear yard setback which looks bigger because there is the City
property that goes down to the river.
Those are 3 things that happened with 1010 Ute. So that is really
different than the kind of setbacks you are seeing on this proposal
and the open space that is required in the AH zone is integrated
into this project.
Roger: I have a problem with reducing the density of the lot
assuming our gain here is to try to get more of the locals to
purchase free market property. If we reduce the number of the lots
and get it out of the affordability of the locals that is not
accomplishing our mission. If we have 4 lots, think of the bulk
of the individual units on those 4 lots. Then look at it from the
other direction. If there were 1 or 2 more lots added there
reducing the square footage of the lots that does necessitate
reducing the bulk of the individual building. However the bulk of
the whole project would probably increase. But the buildings would
become smaller in that project. The smaller lots would probably
be affordable by locals. So there is this balancing act we are
playing with here. And now that access is no longer in Riverside.
It borders on Riverside but it is not a social connection to
Riverside. It is a different project than Riverside.
I wouldn't have a problem with adding another RO lot in that upper
section reducing the size of the rest of the lots so that it stays
farther out of the realm of the second homeowner thereby achieving
the goal of finding more residents to be able to live up here.
Jasmine: I have been very impressed throughout this process that
the Riverside neighbors have not been nearly as concerned with the
affordable housing component. And have not started the not-in-
my-back-yard, no-employee-housing-near-me thing. This has been very
gratifying to this Commission.Their criticisms have been
restricted to the free market units.
What I have heard tonight is that the Riverside neighborhood has
been appreciative of the additional buffering and the change of
12 113
PZM3 . 2 .93
access which really does tend to remove this project from being
such an impact on the Riverside Subdivision.
The size of the free market lots would seem to be the big issue.
Or that the Commission should consider in terms of the community
in general as well as the Riverside Subdivision. I think to that
extent Roger's comments about the kind of development that you are
likely to get are larger lots as opposed to smaller lots is
something that we might want to have some more discussion on.
This is not only an affordable housing district with many
people in this valley who have lived here and worked here for a
long time wanting to be a part of these units being developed up
front. But the people who are buying the perspective lots in back
are all people who live in this valley and work in this valley.
They are opening up their units, which are not second homes either,
to other people in this valley. So in essence we are creating 6
free market homes for residents and those 6 free-market homes or
apartments that they are renting are now available to other people
in this town who can afford it.
I would add that for someone who wants to live there as far as
affordable housing goes it is probably one of the nicest projects
I have ever seen here. So for someone who can't afford to move
into a full house it provides very comfortable living at an
affordable price.
Tim: I think that the homeowner's association should be focused
on the long-term maintenance of what the employee or the affordable
section of the development really looks like.
Kim: As part of the condominiumization approval that will occur
at the Council the applicant could propose any specific line items
that their condo declarations will eventually establish.
Richard: While I would really like to see more affordable housing
that building backing onto #82 is really crammed in there. And on
the free market lots I would like you to look at reducing the FAR
cap to 3 , 000. You are looking for 6 locals to buy the lots. You
probably aren't going to build them to the maximum so that if it
were restricted to a slightly smaller FAR I think it would satisfy
my concerns about neighborhood compatibility and be more in scale
with the kind of community we want to maintain here.
Sara: I think it is much improved. I am amazed at the size of the
deed restricted apartments. I hear what Roger is saying. I also
understand what Riverside is saying about the number of lots. But
unless FAR were completely changed there is no way we wouldn't have
very huge houses on 4 lots. That is the economics of the cost of
building and the cost of land these days.
13
114
PZM3 . 2 .93
Tom: One thing that is happening on this thing is when you get out
of the second home-buyer market and you get into local 's buyer
market all of a sudden you are in a buyer's market who is on a
budget and is going to be looking at a mortgage on these things.
Our conceptual architectural plans have been kicked around already
by people that are interested in the lots to see how they could
figure homes on the lot that they are interested in. And they are
all coming in at about 22 to 25 hundred square feet because that
is what their budgets are.
That is something that you don't see in a second home market. A
second home market is how much can they get on. In this market it
is how much can we afford.
Sara: On an RO can the RO restriction goes with the deed forever?
Leslie: It goes with the land.
Kim: The Housing Office is still having on-going discussions about
RO restrictions because they are so new. Tomorrow they are going
to meet on RO restrictions. Some of the things they are kicking
around are size limits to any RO structure, a yearly inflation
count which could affect eventual levels of increased value.
Pete: Bruce asked us about how to get the neighbors to buy in.
I think the Riverside access was a big issue and we really
appreciate everything that these people have done in that respect.
I think the idea that a 3 ,000ft cap, the FAR, I think that that is
a giant step. The last question is whether or not according to
these October 13 minutes when Council persons Peters, Richards and
Reno and also Mayor Bennett all stressed the idea of reducing
density. And they weren't just talking affordable housing. I
think they were talking about the free market portion of it. I
think that is all it takes certainly for me.
Gassman: I just want to expand about the housing categories. To
get a category #1 or #2 takes a big public subsidy. I think on
West Hopkins on the order $100, 000 a unit. So there is a big
difference. You are getting affordable housing with no subsidy
with this project.
Oates: Basically we would like to see a commitment of no other
structures like accessory buildings outside of the building
envelopes. We would like to see a restriction against dogs in the
affordable housing portion of the project--not the free market but
the bigger buildings and a 25 foot setback should be revegetated.
We would like to see some sort of landscaping plan since this is
the last time everybody is going to get a chance to look at it and
an opportunity to comment on that.
14 115
f PZM3 .2 .93
t
I would like to see an explanation of why you would bury utilities
which you propose to do right next to overhead power lines which
you intend to leave there.
Bruce: I don't have any direction to give the developer except to
say to the developer and the neighboring homeowners that the rolY -
that I feel I fill at this table is to try to get the best project.
One of the residents actually said it himself--is try to get the
best project we can for this community to meet all of our common
goals.
It looks like a great project. And it has come a long way from
when we were talking about coming in on Riverside Drive. I think
you have made a lot of improvements. Pulling it back off of #82
is a great improvement. Tim expressed a really good concern about
the access off of #82 and making sure that that is safe.
I like the project but I am not ready to buy off on it right now.
One thing I do object to is your calling those free market lots
because it doesn't sound like to me there is a free market. The
market is already set and the prices already seem to be set. And
they are not really free market.
Tom: Non deed-restricted.
Bruce: But they are not going on the market as it sounds to me.
Jasmine: Well, free market is kind of an illusion anyway.
Sara: I see that you have applied to CDOT for access but they
haven't responded yet.
Fo 7 : The answer is yes. We have a plan that they have signed off
on for access on Hwy #82 .
Tom: We do have to install a right turn lane coming from town east
because that is where they consider the majority of traffic to be
coming from.
Jasmine: Some of my questions have more to do with what I need to
ask the Housing Authority. I am beginning to think that the
explanation is more appropriate that this location is more
appropriate to have the higher categories. It is more compatible
with the rest of the neighborhood and it will blend in better.
I think you have made tremendous improvements in your site design.
I thank the applicants for being very responsive. It has made this
whole project a lot less acrimonious than it could have been. And
15
116
PZM3 . 2 . 93
I think we will get a better project out of it for everybody.
TRELLISES
Tim: I think that in letter K--this is my pet peeve through the
whole thing--"Such approved structures shall not be considered
additional floor area ratio" . I think in certain situations in the
commercial core specifically for a restaurant it can be considered
an asset to their floor area ratio. It is going to enhance their
gross, their traffic, their ability to do business, their numbers
of staff.
Kim: Are you talking about existing restaurants outside or
proposed restaurants outside.
Tim: Both. Anybody who wants to restructure their patio with
overhead structure to me they are creating a building site. They
are enclosing it so that it is more compatible with their interior
space. And I think it enhances their ability to merchandise their
commercial venture.
Kim: I don't really agree with that. If they can have a
restaurant outside now currently and mitigated or pre-dated the
mitigation requirements having an overhead structure isn't in any
perceptible way that I could estimate increase growth--is that the
basis to start calling something complete floor area.
Leslie: The question is it considered net leasable. And if we
start terming it net leasable shall we start requiring mitigation
for their increased size as a restaurant which is an issue that
when we start discussing growth management and exemptions in growth
management process and what we define net leasable you look at the
definition of net leasable in the code it is interior space. It
is floor area in a structure that is completely enclosed. So this
is not considered net leasable.
Tim: This is basically enclosed on 3 sides.
Kim: All we are talking about is an overhead structure.
Sara: I am concerned too. I just think lawyers would have a field
day. We would completely have to redefine floor area ratio. A
lawyer would take that in and say "There is no way a trellis can
be called a substantial building" . And a floor area ratio applies
to substantial buildings. And there is where a lawyer would grab
us and say "You can't do that" .
David: I think you can easily do it by adding it to a definition
of net leasable so that it describes seating outdoors. The Cantina
does have a not very sizeable outdoor area but at least it is used.
16
117
EXHIBIT D
Final Plat of Lacet Subdivision
118
119
120
EXHIBIT E
Map of Neighborhood
121
Blue Lots: Riverside Lots
Red Lots: Lacet Subdivision Lots
1,128
188.1
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet0188.194.04
Notes
Lacet/Riverside Neighborhood
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
Map Created on 9:32 AM 02/04/20 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
State Highway
Road Centerline 4K
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Service Road
Full Address
Parcel Boundary
Rivers and Creeks
Continuous
Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
Town Boundary
Federal Land Boundary
BLM
State of Colorado
USFS
122
EXHIBIT F
Riverside Neighbor Letters
123
124
January 7, 2020
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of1994
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of and live at 611 Fred Lane, Aspen, CO and my property is affected by
Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 (“Resolution No. 58”), which prohibits certain improvements
within a twenty-five foot buffer on properties in the Lacet Subdivision (f/k/a East Cooper
Subdivision) which border lots in the Riverside Subdivision.
Resolution No. 58 prohibits improvements in the setback between the Lacet and
Riverside Subdivisions which would normally be allowed in setbacks on most other properties in
the City of Aspen. As the property owner of 611 Fred Lane, I support a modification to or
vacating Resolution No. 58 which would permit building eaves, architectural projections,
balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls and
other improvements which are permitted in setback for properties located in the City of Aspen.
Sincerely,
__________________________________
Ruth Stone on behalf of Fowler P. Stone III
Family Trust
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3FCB2636-AB05-4722-80DE-10B147EFB25A
125
From:Gary A Wright gary@wrightlawaspen.com
Subject:RE: Riverside - Lacet
Date:January 27, 2020 at 3:42 PM
To :Sarah Oates smo@okglaw.com
Cc:Lennie Oates lmo@okglaw.com,Jena Wright jena@wrightlawaspen.com
Dear Sarah,
My client, 610 Fred, LLC, has informed me that subject to certain conditions, it does not
oppose the modification of the City of Aspen resolution that imposed a 25-foot buffer for
the lots in Lacet subdivision.
The conditions are: 1) A 5-foot setback be maintained for the Lacet subdivision lots and
that the setback have the same restrictions as the setback in the adjacent Riverside
subdivision. 2) Any development that is currently within the 5-foot setback (for Lacet
subdivision) is not approved unless a variance is obtained.
Let me know if you have questions. Thank you.
Gary
Gary A. Wright
Gary A. Wright, P.C.
Wright Law Aspen, LLP
715 West Main Street, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 925-5625
gary@wrightlawaspen.com
From: Sarah Oates <smo@okglaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Gary A Wright <gary@wrightlawaspen.com>
Cc: Lennie Oates <lmo@okglaw.com>; Jena Wright <jena@wrightlawaspen.com>
Subject: Re: Riverside - Lacet
Gary,
I confirmed with the City that the proposed amendment would be to permit improvements in the
setbacks of the Lacet Subdivision lots that are permiTed under the City Land Use Code for other
zone districts/subdivisions in the City. So, the same improvements that are permiTed on Fred
Lane in the setbacks and the rest of Riverside Subdivision would be permiTed in the setbacks for
the Lacet Subdivision lots if the amendment is approved.
Please let me know if you have ques[ons or if I can provide any addi[onal informa[on.
Thanks,
Sarah
126
January 7, 2020
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Amendment to Resolution No. 58, Series of1994
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the co-owner of and live at 1228 and 1230 Riverside Dr., Aspen, CO and my
property is affected by Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 (“Resolution No. 58”), which prohibits
certain improvements within a twenty-five foot buffer on properties in the Lacet Subdivision
(f/k/a East Cooper Subdivision) which border lots in the Riverside Subdivision.
Resolution No. 58 prohibits improvements in the setback between the Lacet and
Riverside Subdivisions which would normally be allowed in setbacks on most other properties in
the City of Aspen. As the property owner of 1228 and 1230 Riverside Dr., Aspen, CO, I support
a modification to or vacating Resolution No. 58 which would permit building eaves, architectural
projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and
walls and other improvements which are permitted in setback for properties located in the City of
Aspen.
Sincerely,
__________________________________
Joe Whatley
A SIGNED LETTER WILL BE PROVIDED ONCE IT IS RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT
127
EXHIBIT G
Documents of June 24, 1994 Hearing
128
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOHN WORCESTER
DATE: JULY 5, 1994
RE: LACET SUBDIVISION (EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION) BUFFER SPACES
Attached is a proposed resolution intended to embody the
findings made by Council at its June 27, 1994 public hearing
regarding the scope of activities and construction permitted in
the 25 foot "buffer spaces" outside of the building envelopes
shown on the plat for the Lacet Subdivision. The resolution
prohibits construction of any permanent improvements in the
buffer space. It also prohibits intrusions normally allowed in
setbacks" , such as balconies and fire exits.
If the resolution is adopted, it will be recorded with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to provide record notice to
present and future owners of the property.
129
IL 6)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Directo, ,
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Lacet Subdivision (F. K.A. East Cooper Affordable Housing
Subdivision) Clarification of Yard Areas in Single Family
Lots - Public Hearing
DATE: June 27 , 1994
Staff is bringing this issue back to City Council to interpret the
scope of restrictions or activities and structures permitted
outside the building envelopes shown for the single family lots on
the Lacet Subdivision Plat . This issue came back to Council ' s
attention because neighbors in the adjacent Riverside Subdivision
are not in agreement with Planning and Zoning staff ' s determination
that the building envelope lines on the subdivision plat are
setbacks as defined by the land use regulations . The neighbors
believe that the building envelope lines represent an impenetrable
area of no development, to the extent that decks, patios, pools or
other common yard amenities as allowed by the code could not
intrude into this area.
During the original review of the subdivision, Planning staff made
no determination that the area between the property lines and the
building envelope lines as proposed would be anything above or
beyond that which is common to any other residential lots in the
City such as setbacks defined in the Code. If staff understood
that Council had intended at that time to restrict the activities
or amenities of the new lots, staff may have objected on the basis
that it would not be fair or equitable to treat one single family
lot different from its adjoining neighbors . Alternatively, staff
would have better defined the 25 ft. "buffer" as a prohibition
against any development and labeled it so with notes on the
subdivision plat and within the subdivision agreement thus making
it very clear for potential property owners.
Staff believes that the City ' s setback requirements are specific
enough to protect, in a reasonable manner, a neighbor ' s rights to
privacy as well as common usage of one ' s own property. As defined
in the land use code, Section 24-3-101 - "Setback means an open
space at grade between a structure and the property line of the lot
on which the structure is located. The setback shall be unoccupied
and unobstructed from the ground upward, except for fences or as
1
de
130
otherwise provided in this chapter. In measuring a setback, the
horizontal distance between the lot line and the closest projection
of the principal or accessory building shall be used. "
For guidance as to what is permitted in a rear, side or front yard
setback the definition of a Yard is used. Section 24-3-101 defines
Yard as "an open space which is not wholly or partially enclosed
by buildings, not in an alley or street, unoccupied and
unobstructed from the ground skyward, except as otherwise provided
in this chapter, provided it meets the following requirements:
A. Projections into required yards. Yards shall be
unobstructed from the ground to the sky except for the
following allowed projections:
1. Building eaves-Eighteen (18) inches;
2 . Architectural projections-Twelve (12) inches;
3 . Individual balconies not utilized as a passageway
provided they do not project more than one-third
1/3) the distance from the exterior wall to the
property line) -Four (4 ) feet;
4 . Fire escapes required by the Uniform Building Code-
Four (4) feet;
5 . Uncovered porches , slabs, patios , walks and steps,
which do not exceed thirty (30) inches above or
below natural grade shall be permitted to project
into the yard without restriction. Projections may
exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if determined
to be required by the chief building official for
window egress;
6. Fences, hedges and walls less than six (6) feet in
height-No restriction on location. "
Attached is a memo previously distributed by Assistant City
Attorney Dave Bellack as an information item to City Council . In
addition to reviewing this memorandum, staff will ask Council to
view a couple of minutes of a videotape of the final subdivision
hearing before City Council so everyone may see the exact
representations made by the development team.
If it is Council ' s wish to establish a list of allowed or
prohibited uses or structures for the yard areas outside of the
building envelopes on the single family lots, it must be very
specific. Something to consider would be which yard areas are
affected (sides , rear, front) and on which particular lots.
Recommendation: Planning staff recommends that the Council find
that the City ' s setback regulations shall dictate what allowed uses
and structures (ie. patios, decks, pools) may be located between
the platted building envelope lines and the property lines on the
single family lots in the Lacet Subdivision.
2 131
Attachments:
Memo from Dave Bellack
Public Notice
Public Notice Affidavit of Mailing
coop. 6 . 27
3 132
21
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
FROM: DAVE BELLACK, ASST. CITY ATTORNE
CC: BILL EFTING, JOHN WORCESTER, ea, LESLIE LAMONT
DATE: MAY 26, 1994
RE: EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION
SUMMARY The PUD approval documents for the East Cooper Project
are ambiguous regarding limitations on the uses allowed in the 25
foot spaces between the project and the Riverside Subdivision.
We had initially anticipated that the Planning & Zoning
Commission could perform an interpretation of the PUD approval
documents to resolve these issues. The Municipal Code does not
grant P & Z authority to perform such a function, requiring City
Council to interpret the documents. We will schedule a City
Council hearing on the subject as soon as public notice
requirements allow, which will probably be June 27, 1994 .
INTRODUCTION In response to concerns raised by neighbors in the
Riverside Subdivision, I reviewed the Planning Dept. files on the
East Cooper Project. The review focused primarily on two issues
raised by the neighbors: 1) Limitations on the use of Riverside
Drive for access to the project; and, 2) Limitations on the use
of the 25 foot space outside the "building envelopes" shown on
the recorded plat. Also discussed below are the procedures
available under the Municipal Code for interpreting any ambiguous
provisions of the recorded plat or subdivision agreement.
1. Limitations on the use of Riverside Drive for project access.
The final recorded plat shows permanent access to all of the
units in the project (free market & AH) from a private road
connecting to Highway 82 . The ordinance approving the final
submission for the project [Ordinance No. 18 , Series of 1993]
requires that the site plan for the project must show a
pedestrian easement to Riverside Drive. That easement appears
only on the full size recorded plat, and not on the reduced plat
attached to the recorded subdivision agreement.
Neither the plat nor the subdivision agreement contain any
mention of any prohibition against use of Riverside Drive during
construction. The Subdivision Agreement, paragraph 23 , requires
the project owner, and his successors, to be bound by "all
material representations made by the Owner on the record to the
City. " At a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning
Commission, Tom Stevens, the designated project manager for the 133
applicant, made the following representation: "In terms of the
actual site plan all access is now off Highway 82 . " This
representation is reflected in the findings of the City Council
supporting the resolution approving the conceptual PUD for the
project:
In consideration of the application and the concerns of the
public, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that
Riverside Drive should not be used as access into any
portion of the proposed development.
Resolution No. 55 (Series of 1992) . The verbal representations
of Mr. Stevens, and the implied representation arising out of the
recorded plat (showing access only from Hwy 82) can be fairly
characterized as "material" under the terms of the subdivision
agreement. These material representations provide a basis for
prohibiting access to the property from Riverside Drive, except
for the pedestrian access expressly required by the approving
ordinance.
2 . Limitations on the use of the space outside of the 25 foot
building envelopes.
The recorded plat shows "building envelopes" on each of the
approved lots. The space outside the envelopes is not labelled
on the plat. Nothing in the subdivision agreement or any of the
resolutions approving the final PUD discuss what uses are allowed
in the space outside the building envelopes. "Building envelope"
is not a defined term in the Aspen Municipal Code.
During the approval process, the areas outside the building
envelopes were variously referred to as "setbacks" or "buffers" .
Nowhere in the record do either the developer or city staff make
any statements regarding what, if any, improvements are allowable
outside the building envelopes. In describing the "buffers" to
the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr. Stevens made the following
comments:
In addition to loosening up the density on these lots, we
have provided a 25 foot buffer that is identified by
prescribed building envelopes that provide a buffer along
the Riverside Subdivision.
At the same hearing, Mr. Leonard Oates made the following
comments:
Basically, we would like to see a commitment of no other
structures like accessory buildings outside of the building
envelopes. . . and a 25 foot setback should be revegetated.
We would like to see some sort of landscaping plan.
No commitment prohibiting structures outside the building
envelope appears in the record. The East Cooper Final Submission
states the following: "A 25 foot buffer has been provided 134
between the free market lots and the Riverside Subdivision",
without any explanation of any restrictions applicable to the
buffer. " Final Submission, p. 23 . The Final Submission does
provide that all areas disturbed by construction will be
revegetated. It also contains a landscaping plan covering only
the AH portion of the project.
Based on the multiple, undefined terms used to describe the
same 25 foot spaces, ambiguity exists as to what was intended by
the developer and City Council in the approval process for the
subdivision.
3. Interpretation of the PUD approvals.
There are no specific provisions of the Municipal Code which
address interpretation of PUD approvals and related plats and
subdivision agreements. Section 4-101 of the land use section of
the Municipal Code reserves to City Council power:
To take such other actions not delegated to the [Planning &
Zoning] commission, the historic preservation committee, the
board of adjustment, or the planning director, as the city
council may deem desirable and necessary to implement the
provisions of this chapter.
Under this section the City Council could conduct a hearing to
resolve the uncertainty regarding the intended impacts of the
building envelopes" and "buffers" identified in the approval.
process for the East Cooper project. Such action would not be
inconsistent with the "vested rights" provisions of the Municipal
Code and Colorado state statutes. Both allow subsequent reviews
to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the
original approval, if such subsequent review is not inconsistent
with the original approval. Here, the subsequent review is
solely for the purpose of determining the intended meaning of
undefined terms in the project approval documents.
Any formal action by the City Council on these subjects
should be conducted in careful compliance with prior council
resolutions establishing procedures for quasi-judicial
proceedings.
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
eoKiv,tbs:
t i
Dot\p\v,..flerEl (J kv, (A.:71J 0--tqc, ere' (j C rtaJ : cc( ) rP
LiMilicsiti rOffre S
z•-tigiff "7
1 t
I f"
1 '' 6,71::1 •2 ILitlt. -Pc i2ger-gLyv\
r 4_
e
1144M.A.0 /11 0 Ltr")-1.C.I -- 5 est.t?eil) /27,14,-cHt.
cr.:2 rj
kele oNlc -ire/. 1 pro b/ern
i-_—
k-,•.) , de
i • ,.. , . c „
at s•-61,6 -1 .144}1- is Npt--3a 2 LILA ci4 6.,;(3,5. exi4,,,,,kr,\ Sialicti
cleaLtti 1,0^ c,t. - 0,-. 1errk C $ Lc %ie. 0-1774 kie4-t— A;
realee
iatinat-#'
C
elf"i''t( iii-zi
el * A i 1 c r' ;tt.,(:......: lip(:t. L .(t,, 4-Y•4-- -hot 1,A.,,••c!co.! L,', .a.,-,kerif:
1„
tra>. /1r,c iffe' (Ate 6.44{t-tiv 7 I,( 77,..! ,..,:14,,,dc;;,,„
1„,-Li6( 4f. b
4, kriat afelti— k4Ac tip rid hel4.:
17
7lie 44.6.tit: r
i v ,iirs,o /Pp 0, :,"• ;:), .,i, -, k CLX; it..' V 1
Am €422. .„, ----v(rit;
frr '3/4..41.,,re '' — ‘-,, 1-.,I herti:ttx t c"7 k4 / /1';f aSt I
I
2
A 7
At( (6';_t7tALe,c,e(
f i
Pe rel. ,..c.•a c -/-6.c
1...
7f;) 90
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
EXHIBIT H
Surveys/Site Plans of Lacet Subdivision Lots
208
209
210
APPLICATION MATERIALS
Pre-Application Conference Summary,
Fee Agreement,
Application,
Title Opinion Letters,
Authorization Letter from HOA
211
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Ben Anderson, 970.429.2765 DATE: January 20, 2020
PROJECT: Lacet Subdivision
REPRESENTATIVE: Sarah Oates
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Amendment to a Resolution
DESCRIPTION: The Lacet Subdivision, previously known as East Cooper Affordable Housing
Development, received subdivision and rezoning approval from Aspen City Council through
Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993. As part of the subdivision, the free-market lots were subject to a
building envelope that were notably defined by a 25-foot buffer on the rear and side lots that abutted
neighboring lots in the Riverside Subdivision. This concession, not required by Aspen’s setback
regulations at the time, seemed to be in direct response to neighbor concerns about the impacts of
the new subdivision. Beyond the dimension of this buffer, there were no other requirements spelled
out in the ordinance. The subdivision was further defined by a subdivision improvement agreement
(Reception No. 359036). No detail on the buffer was provide in this document either.
Resolution No. 58, Series of 1994 was approved to given definition to the buffer on Lots 1, 2, 3, and
7. Again – this was in response to the concerns of neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision. The
following language was included in the resolution (Section 1) to provide definition:
“No permanent improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than utility lines, may be built, constructed or placed
in the 25-foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Riverside Subdivision, (all as
shown on the Plat and Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces may not be paved or improved other than by
landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types items be allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural
projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls.”
Since 1994, improvements, including some of those specifically prohibited by Resolution No. 58,
have been built within the buffer area. It is unknown to staff to what degree these improvements
received building permits or not, but the reality on the ground is that things have been established in
this area. Staff’s understanding however, is that most or all of the improvements that have been
established are consistent with the Land Use Code’s limitations on improvements in the setback. In
short, the improvements on the properties are generally consistent with the Land Use Code
requirements, but not to the significantly more restrictive nature of the language cited above from the
Resolution.
The potential applicant proposes to amend Resolution No. 58, striking Section 1 (Included above),
and replacing with language that would have the area within the buffer zone be consistent with
setback requirements in the Land Use Code. Since Council approved the resolution, and due to the
relationship of the issue to adjoining neighbors, this review will be considered by Council in a public
hearing.
Below is a link to the Land Use Application Form for your convenience:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code
The City of Aspen Land Use Code can be accessed at:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1835/Land-Use-Application-Packet-2017 212
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common development review procedures
Review by: Staff for application completeness
City Council for review of amendment
Public Hearing: Yes, applicant will work with Planning Staff to meet notice requirements
Planning Fees: $3,250 planning deposit for up to 10 billable hours. Additional/lesser hours
billed/refunded at $325 per hour.
Referral Fees: Parks ($975, flat fee) and Engineering (Deposit of $325. Additional hours
are billed at $325) – these referrals are necessary to evaluate any possible
concerns with existing trees, utilities, etc. that are present in the buffer area.
Total Deposit: $ 4,550
To apply, submit one complete copy of the following information:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcels on which development is proposed to
occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance
company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the
State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and
demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that
states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on
behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (attached to the Land Use Application).
Letter from Lacet Subdivision showing support for the application.
Staff highly recommends letters from the neighboring property owners in the Riverside
Subdivision (and perhaps from the Riverside HOA) – providing support for the amendment
Copies of Ordinance No. 18 (1993), Resolution No. 58 (1993), Lacet Subdivison Plat
Summary of the public concerns/comments considered in the approval of Resolution No.
58 – this may include minutes from July 11, 1994
Brief Narrative of the amendment – including a description of the known improvements in
the buffer zone and the purposes for the amendment 213
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be
submitted:
Total deposit for review of the application.
A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary
is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or
vested right.
214
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and
payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property
owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$.___________flat fee for __________________. $.____________ flat fee for _____________________________
$.___________ flat fee for __________________. $._____________ flat fee for _____________________________
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that addit ional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated.
$________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen:
________________________________
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
Signature: _________________________________________
PRINT Name: _______________________________________
Title: ______________________________________________City Use:
Fees Due: $_______Received $_______
Case #___________________________
Please type or print in all caps
Address of Property: ______________________________________________
Property Owner Name: __________________________ Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)_______________________
Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact info for billing: e-mail: _______________________________________ Phone: __________________________
1$325.00
Parks Dept.975
103250.00
tomandpolly@me.com
152 Haystack Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Sarah Oates
& Lacet Homeowners Association
Paulette Perkins, Thomas Hext
415 Lacet Lane & Lacet Subdivision
DocuSign Envelope ID: B1937645-C95C-4FEA-9CF4-08BFA4AE75B6
Property Owner
Paulette Perkins and Thomas Hext
215
November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE APPLICATION
Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________
APPLICANT:
Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______
Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________
216
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project and Location ____________________________________________________________________
Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________________
Gross Lot Area: __________Zone Zone District: _______ Net Lot Area: __________
Please fill out all relevant dimensions
Single Family and Duplex Residential
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) Floor Area (square feet)
2) Maximum Height
3) Front Setback
4) Rear Setback
5) Side Setbacks
6) Combined Side Setbacks
7) % Site Coverage
8) Minimum distance between buildings
Proposed % of demolition ______
Commercial
Proposed Use(s)____________________
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Off-Street Parking Spaces
5) Second Tier (square feet)
6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition ______
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area
Multi-family Residential
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) Number of Units
2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)
3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
4) Floor Area (square feet)
4) Maximum Height
5) Front Setback
6) Rear Setback
7) Side Setbacks
Proposed % of demolition ______
Lodge
Additional Use(s)____________________
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2)Floor Area (square feet)
3)Maximum Height
4) Free Market Residential(square feet)
4) Front setback
5) Rear setback
6) Side setbacks
7) Off-Street Parking Spaces
8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition ______
Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist
217
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
November 2017 City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena St. | (970) 920-5090
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.
Property
Owner (“I”):
Name:
Email: Phone No.:
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
I certify as follows: (pick one)
□This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
□This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements
proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
□This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements
proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this document is a public document.
Owner signature: _________________________ date:___________
Owner printed name: _________________________
or,
Attorney signature: _________________________ date:___________
Attorney printed name: _________________________
218
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
WWW.OKGKLAW.COM
LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700
RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853
DAVID B. KELLY
MARIA MORROW
OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com
STEPHEN R. CONNOR
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
SARAH M. OATES
STEPHANIE M. HOLDER
ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE
By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice
law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following:
1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 3, Lacet Subdivision, according to the Plat
recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10 (“Plat”), with a street address of 407 Lacet
Lane, Aspen, CO (“Property”) is Tarna Family Trust (“Owner”);
2. The ownership interest of the Owner is fee simple;
3. The Owner purchased the Property from Lacet No. 3 Inc., on March 23, 1998, as evidenced by a
Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 414773;
4. Other than those items shown on the Plat, there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easement,
contracts or agreements affecting the Property;
5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto;
6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association;
7. The Owner paid property taxes for the Property since 1998;
8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owner made
with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals
for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose.
219
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
Attorney’s Title Certificate – 407 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO
February 12, 2020
Page 2
Dated: February __, 2020.
Very truly yours
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ,
KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
/s/ Sarah M. Oates
By:________________________________
Sarah M. Oates
220
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
WWW.OKGKLAW.COM
LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700
RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853
DAVID B. KELLY
MARIA MORROW
OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com
STEPHEN R. CONNOR
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
SARAH M. OATES
STEPHANIE M. HOLDER
ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE
By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice
law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following:
1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 2, Lacet Subdivision, according to the Plat
recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10 (“Plat”), with a street address of 411 Lacet
Lane, Aspen, CO (“Property”) is the Harley K. Sefton Trust (“Owner”);
2. The ownership interest of the Owner is fee simple;
3. The Owner purchased the Property from Scott Samborski, on September 18, 1998, as evidenced
by a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 422169;
4. Other than those items shown on the Plat, there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easement,
contracts or agreements affecting the Property nor are there any outstanding mineral interests
with respect to the Property;
5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto;
6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association;
7. The Owner has paid property taxes for the Property since 1998;
8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owner made
with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals
for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose.
221
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
Attorney’s Title Certificate – 411 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO
February 12, 2020
Page 2
Dated: February __, 2020.
Very truly yours
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ,
KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
/s/ Sarah M. Oates
By:________________________________
Sarah M. Oates
222
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
WWW.OKGKLAW.COM
LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700
RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853
DAVID B. KELLY
MARIA MORROW
OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com
STEPHEN R. CONNOR
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
SARAH M. OATES
STEPHANIE M. HOLDER
ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE
By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice
law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following:
1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 7, Lacet Subdivision, according to the Plat
recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10, with a street address of 411 Lacet Lane,
Aspen, CO (“Property”) is the Sarten Investments LLC (“Owner”);
2. The ownership interest of the Owner is fee simple;
3. The Owner purchased the Property from Pole Position Limited, on June 5, 2014, as evidenced by
a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 611235;
4. There is a Deed of Trust on the Property benefitting JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. in the original
amount of $3,390,000 recorded on August 29, 2014 as Reception No.612991. Other than those
items shown on the Plat, there are no other mortgages, judgments, liens, easement, contracts or
agreements affecting the Property nor are there any outstanding mineral interests with respect to
the Property;
5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto;
6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association;
7. The Owner has paid property taxes for the Property since 2014;
8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owner made
with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals
for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose.
223
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
Attorney’s Title Certificate – 411 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO
February 12, 2020
Page 2
Dated: February __, 2020.
Very truly yours
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ,
KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
/s/ Sarah M. Oates
By:________________________________
Sarah M. Oates
224
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
WWW.OKGKLAW.COM
LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700
RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853
DAVID B. KELLY
MARIA MORROW
OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com
STEPHEN R. CONNOR
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
SARAH M. OATES
STEPHANIE M. HOLDER
ATTORNEY’S TITLE CERTIFICATE
By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, Atty No. 41647, an attorney licensed to practice
law in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following:
1. The owner of the real property described as Lot 1, Lacet Subdivison, according to the Plat
recorded July 15, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 10 (“Plat”), with a street address of 415 Lacet
Lane, Aspen, CO (“Property”) is Thomas R. Hext and Paulette D. Perkins (“Owners”);
2. The ownership interest of the Owners is fee simple;
3. The Owners purchased the Property from Charles F. Walker, on May 12, 2004, as evidenced by
a Special Warranty Deed recorded in the records of Pitkin County as Reception No. 497652;
4. Other than those items shown on the Plat, there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easement,
contracts or agreements affecting the Property nor are there any outstanding mineral interests
with respect to the Property;
5. Access to the Property is via Lacet Lane which abuts and is adjacent thereto;
6. Lacet Lane is maintained by the Lacet Subdivision Homeowners Association;
7. The Owners have paid property taxes for the Property since 2004;
8. This Certificate is given solely for the purposes of the land use application for the Owners made
with the City of Aspen Community Development Department to obtain development approvals
for the Property; and, may not be relied on for any other purpose.
225
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
Attorney’s Title Certificate – 415 Lacet Lane, Aspen, CO
February 12, 2020
Page 2
Dated: February __, 2020.
Very truly yours
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ,
KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
/s/ Sarah M. Oates
By:________________________________
Sarah M. Oates
226
January 29, 2020
Ben Anderson, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Land Use Application – Amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994 for
Lacet Subdivision
Dear Mr. Anderson:
On behalf of the Lacet Homeowners’ Association (“Association”), I authorize
homeowners Thomas Hext and Paulette Perkins, and their law firm, Oates, Knezevich,
Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C., to submit a land use application to the City of Aspen on
behalf of the Association, requesting that Resolution 58, Series of 1994, be amended to eliminate
the restriction that essentially no development can occur in a twenty-five (25) foot buffer zone on
Lacet Subdivision lots that border Riverside Subdivision.
I have discussed this request with the affected homeowners, who are all in support of the
amendment to Resolution 58, Series of 1994.
Sincerely,
Maryanne C. Sefton, President of Lacet
Homeowners’ Association
DocuSign Envelope ID: F8E4A9EB-FEB4-47B4-A966-1D4DCB61E264
227
LAW OFFICES OF
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C.
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING
533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO, 81611
WWW.OKGKM.NET
LEONARD M. OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700
RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121
TED D. GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853
DAVID B. KELLY
MARIA MORROW
OF COUNSEL: smo@okglaw.com
STEPHEN R. CONNOR
ANNE MARIE MCPHEE
SARAH M. OATES
STEPHANIE HOLDER
May 22, 2020
VIA E-MAIL
Garrett Larimer, Planner II
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lacet Subdivision – Amendment to Resolution No. 58 of 1994
Dear Garrett,
As you are aware, the owners of Lacet Subdivision (“Applicant”) appeared in front of City
Council on April 14, 2020, to request an amendment to Resolution No. 58 of 1994 (“Resolution 58”).
Resolution 58 basically prohibits most projections into a 25’ buffer area between Lacet Subdivision and
Riverside Subdivision that would normally be permitted in setbacks under Section 26.575.020(e)(5) of
the Municipal Code. The Applicant requested that this restriction be lifted so that the regulations for
Lacet Subdivision are consistent with the setback regulations on other properties in the City of Aspen
(“City”).
At the April 14, 2020 meeting, City Council expressed concern about certain projections into the
setback such as pools and hot tubs. In order to address Council’s concerns, the Applicant is amending
its request so that certain items would still remain prohibited in the setback. These items are as follows:
• Hot tubs, pools, spas, etc.
• Heating and AC units
• Driveways
• Parking
• Trash and recycling areas
I have provided a redline of the City Code outlining the projections in the Municipal Code which
would not be permitted in the 25’ buffer area, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Noise and nuisance
impacts to the neighbors in Riverside Subdivision, the most adjacent of whom have all consented to the
modification to the 25’ buffer area, seemed of most concern to some of the Council members. The list
228
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY P.C.
Lacet Subdivsion – Amendment to Resolution 58 of 1994.
May 22, 2020
Page 2
of exclusions above are some of the more intensive projections into the setback which are permitted.
Other projections permitted into setbacks pursuant to the Municipal Code are relatively innocuous such
as on-grade patios, utilities and building eaves and lightwells. Additionally, many of these projections
already exist within the buffer area on the Lacet Subdivision lots which contain the restriction.
Short of having regulations consistent with the rest of the City, the Applicant believes a selective
list of allowed projections is the most appropriate solution. There are projections, many of which were
approved with City building permits, that extend close to the property line of each of the Lacet
Subdivision lots subject to the 25’ buffer. Neither Riverside Subdivision owners nor the Applicants
want to see projections such as berms and fences, which are currently located along the common
property lines, removed or prohibited.
Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY &
MORROW, P.C.
/s/ Sarah M. Oates
By___________________________________________
Sarah M. Oates
Enclosures
229
Exhibit A – Proposed Revisions to Setback Regulations to Amend Resolution 58 of 1994
25.575.020(e)(5) Allowed Projections into Setbacks. Setback areas shall be unobstructed above and
below ground except for the following allowed projections:
a. Above or below ground utilities, including transformers and vaults, below-grade heating or
cooling conduit or infrastructure such as a ground-source heat pump system, below-grade
dry wells or other at-grade or below-grade drainage infrastructure.
b. Trees and vegetation.
c. Artwork, sculpture, seasonal displays.
d. Flagpoles, mailboxes, address markers.
e. Foundation footers, soil nails or below-grade tiebacks, and similar improvements necessary
for the structural integrity of a building or other structures.
f. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate exterior mounted utility junctions,
meters, cable boxes, vent flues, standpipes, and similar apparatus and including any
protective structure as may be required by the utility provider.
g. Building eaves, bay windows, window sills, and similar architectural projections up to
eighteen (18) inches as measured from the setback boundary.
h. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement
stairwells as required by adopted Building or Fire Codes as long as these features are
entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building
façade(s) closest to any Street(s).
If any portion of the feature projects into the setback, the entire feature may be no larger
than the minimum required.
Features required for adjacent subgrade interior spaces may be combined as long as the
combined feature represents the minimum projection into the setback. There is no vertical
depth limitation for these features.
This exemption does not apply to Areaways. This exemption does not apply to light wells
and exterior basement stairwells which are not required by adopted Building or Fire Codes.
i. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate an exterior-mount fire escape to an
existing building, as may be required by adopted Building or Fire Codes.
j. Uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks and similar features, which do
not exceed six (6) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade for the
entire feature.
k. Landscape walls, berms, retaining walls, stairways and similar structures, which do not
exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the lower of natural or finished grade
Improvements may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below grade simultaneously, for up
to a sixty (60) inch total. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if
determined to be necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement. (See Figure 16).
Berms are prohibited in the front yard setback.
l. Drainage swales, stormwater retention areas, bio retention areas, rain collection systems,
and similar stormwater retention, filtration or infiltration devices or facilities are permitted in
setbacks as long as the finished grade of the top of the improvement does not exceed thirty
(30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade. Stormwater
improvements or portions thereof may be buried and exceed thirty (30) inches below grade
as long as the finished grade above the facility does not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically
above or below the surrounding finished grade. These features may be up to thirty (30)
inches above and below finished grade simultaneously.
230
Exhibit A – Proposed Revisions to Setback Regulations to Amend Resolution 58 of 1994
m. Hot tubs, spas, pools, water features, and permanently affixed outdoor grills, furniture,
seating areas, and similar permanent structures shall have the following requirements:
1. Prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure; and
2. Shall be located at least double the minimum setback for a primary structure from any
lot line adjacent to a street; and
3. If visible from the street, these features shall be screened in accordance with Section
26.575.050, Fences ; and
4. If located within a setback not adjacent to a street, these features shall not exceed thirty
(30) inches above or below finished grade. These features may be up to thirty (30)
inches above and below finished grade simultaneously. Improvements may exceed
thirty (30) inches below grade if necessary for the structural integrity of the
improvement.
n. Heating and air conditioning equipment and similar mechanical equipment shall have the
following requirements:
1. Prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure; and
2. Shall be located at least double the minimum setback for a primary structure from any
lot line adjacent to a street; and
3. If visible from the street, these features shall be screened in accordance with Section
26.575.050, Fences ; and
4. If located within a setback not adjacent to a street, these features shall not exceed thirty
(30) inches above or below finished grade. These features may be up to thirty (30)
inches above and below finished grade simultaneously.
The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to the requirements of m) and n) above.
The Community Development Director must first determine that the visual impact of the exemption is
minimal and that no other reasonable option exists. Approval shall be in the form of a recordable
administrative determination.
231
Exhibit A – Proposed Revisions to Setback Regulations to Amend Resolution 58 of 1994
o. The height and placement of energy efficiency or renewable energy production systems and
equipment which are located adjacent to or independent of a building shall be established
by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Chapter
26.430—Special Review. These systems are discouraged between any lot line adjacent to
a street and any structure. For energy production systems and equipment located on top of
a structure, see Subsection (f)(4).
p. Fences and hedges less than forty-two (42) inches in height, as measured from finished
grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to six (6) feet in
height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas entirely recessed
behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest
to the Street. This restriction applies on all Street-facing facades of a parcel. (Also see Section
26.575.050—Supplementary Regulations for limitations on fence materials.)
q. Driveways not exceeding twenty-four (24) inches above or below finished grade within any
setback of a yard facing a Street. Within all other required setbacks, finished grade of a
driveway shall not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below finished grade.
r. Parking may occur in required setbacks if within an established driveway or parking area and
the curb cut or vehicular access is from an alleyway, if an alleyway abuts the property, or
has otherwise been approved by the City.
s. Non-permanent features which are not affixed to the ground such as movable patio furniture,
outdoor seating or a picnic table, barbeque grills, children's play equipment, and similar non-
permanent features which are not affixed to the ground. This exemption shall not allow
storage sheds or containers.
t. Wildlife-resistant Trash and Recycling enclosures located in residential zone districts shall be
prohibited in all yards facing a Street. These facilities may be placed within non-street facing
yards if the enclosure is the minimum reasonably necessary in both height and footprint, is
an unconditioned space not integrated with other structures on the property, and serves no
other purpose such as storage, garage space, or other purposes unrelated to protecting
wildlife. Wildlife-resistant trash and recycling enclosures located in commercial, mixed-use,
or lodging zone districts are not exempt from setback requirements and shall comply with
zone district requirements for Utility/Trash/Recycle areas.
232
Exhibit E
Lacet Subdivision Virtual Tour
233
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR and COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES R. TRUE
DATE: June 4, 2020
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
RE: Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement and Customer Service Standards ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Request of Council: To consider the adoption of Ordinance #8, Series of 2020, which would adopt
the Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement, which is attached. This was presented for first reading on
May 26, 2020. The public hearing is scheduled for June 9, 2020. In addition, presented to Council
is Resolution #46, Series of 2020, which would adopt customer service standards.
Background:
City staff and outside counsel Ken Fellman, a Denver attorney specializing in municipal franchises,
have been involved in negotiations with Comcast for a franchise renewal agreement since 2017. The
City worked collaboratively, sharing resources in these negotiations with Pitkin County, Snowmass
Village and Basalt. We began the negotiations using the model franchise agreement developed
between Comcast and the Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance (CCUA)1, making
modifications in that document to address City-specific needs. While the franchise and the customer
service standards are technically two separate documents with no requirements to be addressed at the
same time, we have also worked with Comcast to update the City’s cable customer service standards.
We have concluded negotiations on both the franchise renewal and the customer service standards.
Snowmass Village, Basalt and Pitkin County have adopted their versions of the agreement.
The City’s adoption has been delayed while the City considered the requirement set forth in Section
11.1. of its Home Rule Charter. This provision requires all franchise agreement to obtain approval
by the voters. It has been the position of Comcast that such Charter Requirement is pre-empted by
Federal Law. Although outside Council and the City Attorney’s office has attempted to determine if
there were ways to approve the matter by a vote, without implicating pre-emptive powers or amend
the Charter itself, no acceptable alternative has been found. Thus, it is the suggestion of the City
Attorney’s Office that we proceed with adoption of the agreement by Ordinance approved by Council.
1 The CCUA is a consortium of Colorado local governments who collaboratively work on telecommunications and utility
issues. The CCUA has approximately 65 members, including Aspen and Pitkin County.
234
2
It should be noted that in 2009, the prior agreement was adopted by Council with no discussion of the
Charter provision. Neither the former Finance Director nor the former City Attorney raised the issue.
Questions raised at first reading will be addressed in the public hearing by staff, the City’s outside
counsel or Comcast’s representative.
Discussion:
I. INTRODUCTION
This memo will first advise you of some general background on the law governing cable franchising
and then will address what staff and I believe are the most significant issues addressed in the franchise
renewal agreement and customer service standards with Comcast.
II. FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
A cable franchise is a contract between the cable operator and the local government that the cable
operator serves. In consideration for a cable operator’s right to locate its facilities in the public rights
of way, the City requires the cable operator to enter into a franchise agreement. Federal law places
limitations on what issues can be addressed in that contract.
Under federal law, a cable operator is entitled to a franchise renewal if it offers and has the
legal, technical, and financial ability to comply with a franchise agreement that meets the future cable-
related needs of the community. Since Comcast clearly has the legal, technical and financial
capability to comply with almost any franchise condition, the foundational question becomes whether
Comcast will agree to a franchise document that will meet the City’s future cable-related needs.
Through discussion with City staff and various City departments we developed a number of
negotiating goals related to public, educational and governmental (PEG) access channels, City control
of its rights-of-ways, video streaming capability for PEG programming, and other Comcast
compliance obligations with the franchise, particularly its financial obligations.
Federal law provides for two types of franchise renewals. The more common is an informal renewal
process, which is the process we have engaged in with Comcast. If the parties are unable to informally
negotiate an acceptable franchise, under the federal Cable Act, either party may pursue a formal
franchise renewal. The formal process is more rigidly structured and must strictly follow a number
of regulatory requirements. As a result, it is also far more costly to pursue. At the end of that process,
if the City chose not accept Comcast’s final proposed franchise, the end result, in all likelihood, would
be federal court litigation.
III. CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
The City’s authority to adopt customer service standards is a police power, and these standards can
be adopted and enforced without Comcast’s consent. However, Comcast has the legal authority to
pass through to subscribers the costs of complying with local regulations. While customer service
standards may be adopted without discussion with the cable operator, it has been our practice to
discuss and negotiate the standards with Comcast, in the hopes of reaching consensus. In this
franchise negotiation, it was decided that the model customer service standards developed by the 235
3
CCUA would be used. The CCUA model customer service standards have been continuously
updated to reflect the changing nature of Comcast’s operations, are a negotiated compromise with
Comcast, and have served most of the local governments in Colorado well. We believe that the
CCUA model customer service standards will also be a good fit for Aspen. The proposed standards
are attached, together with Resolution #46 which approves these standards.
IV. KEY PROVISIONS OF NEW FRANCHISE
As noted above, we started with the model agreement negotiated with Comcast and the
CCUA, and factored City-specific needs into the process of developing a franchise proposal to present
to Comcast. That proposal attempted to (1) maintain existing benefits, (2) eliminate regulatory
provisions from the existing franchise that are no longer relevant, (3) upgrade PEG benefits to City
residents, particularly with the ability to make PEG content available in high definition, and (4)
upgrade language related to the City’s oversight of Comcast’s franchise obligations. The new
franchise includes a fee that Comcast will pay to support the cost of PEG related equipment, and this
issue is described in more detail below. Finally, the new franchise also addresses issues of changing
technology and changing regulations in a manner that benefits City and its citizens. While we did not
get everything we’d hoped for, City staff is very pleased with the franchise document. While there
are many issues that are addressed in the franchise agreement, there are five categories of significant
issues which we wish to bring to your attention.
1. Definition of Gross Revenues (Franchise Section 1.29). As you know, Comcast pays
a fee to the City in an amount equal to 5% of the gross revenues generated from the provision of cable
services in the City. As a result of other CCUA members working with a financial firm that has
particular expertise in cable system accounting (and whose principal was formerly a cable company
supervisor in this area), we have successfully amended our prior definition of gross revenues to ensure
that the 5% fee generates the greatest possible revenue for the City that is permitted under federal law.
2. Audit/Financial Review (Franchise Section 3.6). Recent franchise fee audits in other
communities have disclosed problems with Comcast’s record keeping regarding how it allocates its
“bundled” revenues from subscribers for service packages that include cable, internet and telephone
service. By law, the City is only allowed to collect fees on cable service revenues. Comcast was not
always retaining documentation to demonstrate how it allocated bundled revenues to cable services
for purposes of calculating franchise fees. Again, as a result of the CCUA negotiations for the model
agreement, we have agreed to language that an expert financial consultant advises will meet the City’s
needs to accurately monitor and audit future franchise fee payments.
3. Competitive Equity (Franchise Section 2.6). This is the franchise language that used
to be referred to as “level playing field.” Level playing field language in older franchises said that if
a new cable company sought a franchise in order to compete with the incumbent, the governmental
entity was required to impose comparable terms and conditions on the new entrant to the market. In
2006, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determined that level playing field
requirements inhibited competition, and the FCC preempted these kinds of requirements in franchise
agreements. However, the FCC has permitted cable operators to come up with what has become
known as “competitive equity” provisions, which in a way is simply reverse level playing field
language. The competitive equity provisions generally provide that the City can offer a new franchise
to any other operator on any terms and conditions it chooses, but if those provisions are more 236
4
favorable than the incumbent cable operator’s franchise, that incumbent has the ability to force the
City to change the terms of its franchise to match the terms offered to the new competitor.
Prior to development of the CCUA model franchise, Comcast had proposed very one-sided
language which would have given it unilateral authority to determine when a new franchise had better
terms, and to require amendments to incorporate those terms into its agreement. CCUA members
were able to negotiate language that is truly equitable and meets their legitimate needs. The new
Aspen franchise will now state that if a new cable operator is given a franchise that Comcast believes
is a better deal, Comcast will be obligated to demonstrate in writing why it believes the new operator
has a better deal, and must provide specific language that it deems appropriate for a franchise
amendment. The parties are required to negotiate, and there is no obligation that the City accept
Comcast’s position. If there is a dispute that cannot be resolved, either party can seek a determination
in Court on whether new terms for the existing franchise are required. There was one issue that we
modified in the competitive equity language, which is different than the model CCUA agreement,
related to how we define the kind of company that would need City permission to provide video
services, in order to trigger the competitive equity provisions of the franchise. Given changing
technology and innovation in how video programming is provided and sold to subscribers, it was
important to get the language right in this section.
4. Public, Educational and Government Access Issues (Franchise Section 9). This is
one area where it is important to address changing technology, namely, high definition channels for
PEG. These are also issues that Comcast has not generally addressed in franchise language
previously. The franchise provides the ability of the Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village and
Basalt to obtain up to 5 access channels. It will maintain the existing channels in use for City
programming, GrassrootsTV programming and the channel at the airport.
A. High Definition (HD) Channels. The franchise also provides that within 120
days of the franchise effective date, Comcast will provide bandwidth for a high definition channel,
which will be used by Grassroots TV. In addition to this high definition channel, after the second
anniversary of the franchise, the City will be able to require a second high definition channel which
would be utilized by the City for government access programming. After activating the high
definition channels, the Grassroots TV and the City’s government programming content will be
available to Aspen subscribers on both a standard definition channel and high definition channel.
B. High Definition Equipment Grant in Lieu of Video on Demand for PEG
Programming. Comcast does not provide on demand availability for PEG programming and has not
been willing to provide video on demand capacity to allow PEG to be carried on its Colorado cable
systems. In its franchise negotiations a few years ago, Aurora was able to work out an alternative,
whereby Comcast provided a grant for web-based programming equipment, in order to help facilitate
putting more PEG programming online, so it can be viewed by anyone with a broadband connection.
We have agreed with Comcast for a grant to be made in the amount of $20,000, that can be used
jointly by the 4 jurisdictions in the County.
C. PEG Fees. Most jurisdictions in Colorado receive a fee to support capital
expenditures for PEG in addition to their franchise fees. In the vast majority of Comcast’s Colorado
communities including Pitkin County and Aspen, the PEG fee is 50 cents per subscriber per month.
Snowmass Village and Basalt have not imposed a PEG fee in the past but will likely do so in their 237
5
new franchise agreements, so that each jurisdiction is collecting the same amount per subscriber.
Going forward, each jurisdiction will have money available that it can use either for its own PEG
capital needs or for equipment that will be used to benefit the larger community. Under federal law,
Comcast has the right (but not the obligation) to pass government imposed fees through to subscribers,
and in fact, Comcast does pass this charge through to its subscribers in the City (and everywhere else
it is obligated to remit a PEG fee to the local government.
5. Complimentary Cable Service. In prior cable franchises, cable companies
traditionally provided free service to public buildings located on streets passed by the cable system –
schools, county administration buildings, public works buildings, fire stations, libraries and similar
facilities. A decision by the FCC about 9 years ago gave a cable company the right to deduct the
value of the free service provided from its obligation to pay franchise fees. Through last year,
Comcast was still willing, despite the FCC ruling, to provide the free service and not deduct the value
of that service from franchise fees. Their position then changed, and they have been insisting on
language in all new franchises providing that (1) they will continue to provide free service to schools,
(2) while they will continue to provide free service to other public buildings, they are doing it on a
voluntary basis and they reserve the right to charge for it (or deduct the value of the service from
franchise fees) in the future. After asserting this position, a federal court struck down the FCC order,
not due to substantive errors, but rather due to a lack of evidence in the record upon which to base the
order. That means that for now, Comcast cannot deduct the value of free service to public buildings.
But it also means that the FCC may reopen this proceeding and attempt to get the kind of evidence in
the record to support the conclusion they reached in their earlier order. So, the new franchise says
there will be no set off against franchise fees, but allows for the possibility that this will change, if
federal law changes once again to allow the set off. Pursuant to a separate letter, Comcast has
indicated that it is something they may pursue in the future although they are not doing it at this time.
6. Other Issues. City staff is pleased that we were able to preserve many of the benefits of the
existing agreement with Comcast. These issues include preservation of Aspen’s police powers,
indemnification of the City for any damages caused by Comcast’s operations, reporting obligations,
extensions of service to newly developed areas, an effective procedure for addressing franchise
violations and preservation of the City’s rights to address proposed franchise transfers.
Recommendation: The City Attorney’s Office recommends adoption of Ordinance #8, Series of
2020 and adoption of Resolution #46, Series of 2020.
238
ORDINANCE NO. 8
(SERIES OF 2020)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CABLE SYSTEM FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ASPEN AND COMCAST OF COLORADO IX, LLC AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen (“City”) desires to enter into an agreement
with Comcast of Colorado IX, LLC (“Comcast”) to allow use of City right of way for the purpose of
providing cable services to the citizens of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to avail themselves of their respective rights as set
forth in Section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended, relating to
the procedures for negotiating franchise agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
The terms and conditions of the Cable Franchise Agreement between the City and Comcast, annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Section 2.
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.
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.
A public hearing on this ordinance will be held Tuesday, June 9, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
239
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 26
th day of May 2020.
ATTEST:
___________________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
FINALLY adopted, passed and ordered published this 9th day of June 2020.
ATTEST:
____________________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
240
RESOLUTION #46
(Series of 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council the City of Aspen,
Colorado Customer Service Standards, a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, related to the Comcast Franchise Agreement
approved pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 2020.
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 the City of
Aspen, Colorado Customer Service Standards, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 9th day of June 2020.
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, June 9, 2020.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
241
1
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
I. POLICY
The Cable Operator should resolve citizen complaints without delay and interference from the Franchising
Authority.
Where a given complaint is not addressed by the Cable Operator to the citizen's satisfaction, the Franchising
Authority should intervene. In addition, where a pattern of unremedied complaints or noncompliance with the
Standards is identified, the Franchising Authority should prescribe a cure and establish a reasonable deadline for
implementation of the cure. If the noncompliance is not cured within established deadlines, monetary sanctions
should be imposed to encourage compliance and deter future non-compliance.
These Standards are intended to be of general application, and are expected to be met under normal operating
conditions; however, the Cable Operator shall be relieved of any obligations hereunder if it is unable to perform
due to a region-wide natural emergency or in the event of force majeure affecting a significant portion of the
franchise area. The Cable Operator is free to exceed these Standards to the benefit of its Customers and such shall
be considered performance for the purposes of these Standards.
These Standards supercede any contradictory or inconsistent provision in federal, state or local law (Source: 47
U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) and (d)), provided, however, that any provision in federal, state or local law, or in any original
franchise agreement or renewal agreement, that imposes a higher obligation or requirement than is imposed by
these Standards, shall not be considered contradictory or inconsistent with these Standards. In the event of a
conflict between these Standards and a Franchise Agreement, the Franchise Agreement shall control.
These Standards apply to the provision of any Cable Service, provided by a Cable Operator over a Cable System,
within the City of Aspen, Colorado.
II. DEFINITIONS
When used in these Customer Service Standards (the "Standards"), the following words, phrases, and terms shall
have the meanings given below.
"Adoption" shall mean the process necessary to formally enact the Standards within the Franchising Authority's
jurisdiction under applicable ordinances and laws.
"Affiliate" shall mean any person or entity that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control
with, a Cable Operator, and provides any Cable Service or Other Service.
“Applicable Law” means, with respect to these standards and any Cable Operator’s privacy policies, any statute,
ordinance, judicial decision, executive order or regulation having the force and effect of law, that determines the
legal standing of a case or issue.
"Cable Operator" shall mean any person or group of persons (A) who provides Cable Service over a Cable System
and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or (B) who
otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the management and operation of such a Cable
System. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 522(5).
“Cable Service” shall mean (A) the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii) other
programming service, and (B) subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such
video programming or other programming service. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 522(6). For purposes of this definition,
242
2
“video programming” is programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided
by a television broadcast station. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 522(20). “Other programming service” is information that a
Cable Operator makes available to all subscribers generally. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 522(14).
“Cable System” shall mean a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal
generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service which includes video
programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within a community, but such term does not include
(A) a facility that serves only to retransmit the televisions signals of one or more television broadcast stations, or
(B) a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right of way. Source: 47 U.S.C. § 522(7).
“City” shall mean the City of Aspen, Colorado.
“Contractor” shall mean a person or entity that agrees by contract to furnish materials or perform services for
another at a specified consideration.
"Customer" shall mean any person who receives any Cable Service from a Cable Operator.
"Customer Service Representative" (or "CSR") shall mean any person employed with or under contract or
subcontract to a Cable Operator to assist, or provide service to, customers, whether by telephone, writing service
or installation orders, answering customers' questions in person, receiving and processing payments, or
performing any other customer service-related tasks.
“Escalated complaint” shall mean a complaint that is referred to a Cable Operator by the Franchising Authority.
"Franchising Authority" shall mean the City.
"Necessary" shall mean required or indispensable.
"Non-cable-related purpose" shall mean any purpose that is not necessary to render or conduct a legitimate
business activity related to a Cable Service or Other Service provided by a Cable Operator to a Customer. Market
research, telemarketing, and other marketing of services or products that are not related to a Cable Service or
Other Service provided by a Cable Operator to a Customer shall be considered Non-cable-related purposes.
“Normal business hours” shall mean those hours during which most similar businesses in the community are open
to serve customers. In all cases, “normal business hours” must include at least some evening hours one night per
week, and include some weekend hours. Source: 47 C.F.R. § 76.309.
“Normal operating conditions” shall mean those service conditions which are within the control of a Cable
Operator. Conditions which are not within the control of a Cable Operator include, but are not necessarily limited
to, natural disasters, civil disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or unusual weather
conditions. Conditions which are ordinarily within the control of a Cable Operator include, but are not
necessarily limited to, special promotions, pay-per-view events, rate increases, regular peak or seasonal demand
periods and maintenance or upgrade to the Cable System.
“Other Service(s)” shall mean any wire or radio communications service provided using any of the facilities of a
Cable Operator that are used in the provision of Cable Service.
"Personally Identifiable Information" shall mean specific information about an identified Customer, including, but
not be limited to, a Customer's (a) login information for the use of Cable Service and management of a
Customer’s Cable Service account, (b) extent of viewing of video programming or Other Services, (c) shopping
choices, (d) interests and opinions, (e) energy uses, (f) medical information, (g) banking data or information, or
(h) any other personal or private information. "Personally Identifiable Information" shall not mean any aggregate
243
3
information about Customers which does not identify particular persons, or information gathered by a Cable
Operator necessary to install, repair or service equipment or Cable System facilities at a Customer’s premises.
“Service interruption” or “interruption” shall mean (i) the loss or substantial impairment of picture and/or sound
on one or more cable television channels.
“Service outage” or “outage” shall mean a loss or substantial impairment in reception on all channels.
“Subcontractor” shall mean a person or entity that enters into a contract to perform part or all of the obligations of
another's contract.
“Writing” or “written” as the term applies to notification shall include electronic communications.
Any terms not specifically defined in these Standards shall be given their ordinary meaning, or where otherwise
defined in applicable federal law, such terms shall be interpreted consistent with those definitions.
III. CUSTOMER SERVICE
A. Courtesy
Cable Operator employees, contractors and subcontractors shall be courteous, knowledgeable and helpful and
shall provide effective and satisfactory service in all contacts with customers.
B. Accessibility
1. A Cable Operator shall provide customer service centers/business offices (“Service Centers”) which are
conveniently located, and which are open during Normal Business Hours. Service Centers shall be fully staffed
with Customer Service Representatives offering the following services to Customers who come to the Service
Center: bill payment, equipment exchange, processing of change of service requests, and response to Customer
inquiries and request.
Unless otherwise requested by the City, a Cable Operator shall post a sign at each Service Center, visible from the
outside of the Service Center, advising Customers of its hours of operation and of the telephone number at which
to contact the Cable Operator if the Service Center is not open at the times posted.
The Cable Operator shall use commercially reasonable efforts to implement and promote “self-help” tools and
technology, in order to respond to the growing demand of Customers who wish to interact with the Cable
Operator on the Customer’s own terms and timeline and at their own convenience, without having to travel to a
Service Center. Without limitation, examples of self-help tools or technology may include self-installation kits to
Customers upon request; pre-paid mailers for the return of equipment upon Customer request; an automated
phone option for Customer bill payments; and equipment exchanges at a Customer’s residence in the event of
damaged equipment. A Cable Operator shall provide free exchanges of faulty equipment at the customer's
address if the equipment has not been damaged in any manner due to the fault or negligence of the customer.
2. A Cable Operator shall maintain local telephone access lines that shall be available twenty-four (24) hours a
day, seven (7) days a week for service/repair requests and billing/service inquiries.
3. A Cable Operator shall have dispatchers and technicians on call twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a
week, including legal holidays.
4. If a customer service telephone call is answered with a recorded message providing the customer with various
menu options to address the customer’s concern, the recorded message must provide the customer the option to
connect to and speak with a CSR within sixty (60) seconds of the commencement of the recording. During 244
4
Normal Business Hours, a Cable Operator shall retain sufficient customer service representatives and telephone
line capacity to ensure that telephone calls to technical service/repair and billing/service inquiry lines are
answered by a customer service representative within thirty (30) seconds or less from the time a customer chooses
a menu option to speak directly with a CSR or chooses a menu option that pursuant to the automated voice
message, leads to a direct connection with a CSR. Under normal operating conditions, this thirty (30) second
telephone answer time requirement standard shall be met no less than ninety (90) percent of the time measured
quarterly.
5. Under normal operating conditions, a customer shall not receive a busy signal more than three percent (3%) of
the time. This standard shall be met ninety (90) percent or more of the time, measured quarterly.
C. Responsiveness
1. Guaranteed Seven-Day Residential Installation
a. A Cable Operator shall complete all standard residential installations or modifications to service
requested by customers within seven (7) business days after the order is placed, unless a later date for installation
is requested. "Standard" residential installations are those located up to one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from
the existing distribution system. If the customer requests a nonstandard residential installation, or the Cable
Operator determines that a nonstandard residential installation is required, the Cable Operator shall provide the
customer in advance with a total installation cost estimate and an estimated date of completion.
b. All underground cable drops to the home shall be buried at a depth of no less than twelve inches (12"),
or such other depth as may be required by the Franchise Agreement or local code provisions, or if there are no
applicable Franchise or code requirements, at such other depths as may be agreed to by the parties if other
construction concerns preclude the twelve inch requirement , and within no more than one calendar week from the
initial installation, or at a time mutually agreed upon between the Cable Operator and the customer.
2. Residential Installation and Service Appointments
a. The “appointment window” alternatives for specific installations, service calls, and/or other installation
activities will be either a specific time, or at a maximum, a four (4) hour time block between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m., six (6) days per week. A Cable Operator may schedule service calls and other installation
activities outside of the above days and hours for the express convenience of customers. For purposes of this
subsection “appointment window” means the period of time in which the representative of the Cable Operator
must arrive at the customer’s location.
b. A Cable Operator may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the close of business on the
business day prior to the scheduled appointment, unless the customer’s issue has otherwise been resolved.
c. If a Cable Operator is running late for an appointment with a customer and will not be able to keep the
appointment as scheduled, the Cable Operator shall take reasonable efforts to contact the customer promptly, but
in no event later than the end of the appointment window. The appointment will be rescheduled, as necessary at a
time that is convenient to the customer, within Normal Business Hours or as may be otherwise agreed to between
the customer and Cable Operator.
d. A Cable Operator shall be deemed to have responded to a request for service under the provisions of
this section when a technician arrives within the agreed upon time, and, if the customer is absent when the
technician arrives, the technician leaves written notification of arrival and return time, and a copy of that
notification is kept by the Cable Operator. In such circumstances, the Cable Operator shall contact the customer
within forty-eight (48) hours.
245
5
3. Residential Service Interruptions
a. In the event of system outages resulting from Cable Operator equipment failure, the Cable Operator
shall correct such failure within 2 hours after the 3rd customer call is received.
b. All other service interruptions resulting from Cable Operator equipment failure shall be corrected by
the Cable Operator by the end of the next calendar day.
c. Records of Complaints.
i.A Cable Operator shall keep an accurate and comprehensive file of any complaints
regarding the cable system or its operation of the cable system, in a manner consistent with the privacy
rights of customers, and the Cable Operator's actions in response to those complaints. These files shall
remain available for viewing by the Franchising Authority during normal business hours at the Cable
Operator’s business office, and shall be retained by the Cable Operator for a period of at least three (3)
years.
ii.Upon written request a Cable Operator shall provide the Franchising Authority an
executive summary quarterly, which shall include information concerning customer complaints referred
by the Franchising Authority to the Grantee and any other requirements of a Franchise Agreement but no
personally identifiable information. These summaries shall be provided within fifteen (15) days after the
end of each quarter. Once a request is made, it need not be repeated and quarterly executive summaries
shall be provided by the Cable Operator until notified in writing by the Franchising Authority that such
summaries are no longer required.
iii.Upon written request a summary of service requests, identifying the number and nature of
the requests and their disposition, shall also be completed by the Cable Operator for each quarter and
submitted to the Franchising Authority by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month after each calendar
quarter. Once a request is made, it need not be repeated and quarterly summary of service requests shall
be provided by the Cable Operator until notified in writing by the Franchising Authority that such
summaries are no longer required. Complaints shall be broken out by the nature of the complaint and the
type of Cable service subject to the complaint.
d. Records of Service Interruptions and Outages. A Cable Operator shall maintain records of all outages
and reported service interruptions. Such records shall indicate the type of cable service interrupted, including the
reasons for the interruptions. A log of all service interruptions shall be maintained and provided to the
Franchising Authority quarterly, upon written request, within fifteen (15) days after the end of each quarter. Such
records shall be submitted to the Franchising Authority with the records identified in Section 3.c.ii above if so
requested in writing, and shall be retained by the Cable Operator for a period of three (3) years.
e. All service outages and interruptions for any cause beyond the control of the Cable Operator shall be
corrected within thirty-six (36) hours, after the conditions beyond its control have been corrected.
4. TV Reception
a. A Cable Operator shall provide clear television reception that meets or exceeds technical standards
established by the United States Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC"). A Cable Operator shall
render efficient service, make repairs promptly, and interrupt service only for good cause and for the shortest time
possible. Scheduled interruptions shall be preceded by notice and shall occur during periods of minimum use of
the system, preferably between midnight and six a.m. (6:00 a.m.).
246
6
b. If a customer experiences poor video or audio reception attributable to a Cable Operator's equipment,
the Cable Operator shall:
i.Assess the problem within one (1) day of notification;
ii.Communicate with the customer regarding the nature of the problem and the expected
time for repair;
iii.Complete the repair within two (2) days of assessing the problem unless circumstances
exist that reasonably require additional time.
c.If an appointment is necessary to address any video or audio reception problem, the customer
may choose a block of time described in Section III.C.2.a. At the customer's request, the Cable Operator shall
repair the problem at a later time convenient to the customer, during Normal Business Hours or at such other time
as may be agreed to by the customer and Cable Operator. A Cable Operator shall maintain periodic
communications with a customer during the time period in which problem ascertainment and repair are ongoing,
so that the customer is advised of the status of the Cable Operator’s efforts to address the problem.
5. Problem Resolution
A Cable Operator's customer service representatives shall have the authority to provide credit for interrupted
service, to waive fees, to schedule service appointments and to change billing cycles, where appropriate. Any
difficulties that cannot be resolved by the customer service representative shall be referred to the appropriate
supervisor who shall contact the customer within four (4) hours and resolve the problem within forty eight (48)
hours or within such other time frame as is acceptable to the customer and the Cable Operator.
6. Billing, Credits, and Refunds
a. In addition to other options for payment of a customer’s service bill, a Cable Operator shall make
available a telephone payment option where a customer without account irregularities can enter payment
information through an automated system, without the necessity of speaking to a CSR.
b. A Cable Operator shall allow at least thirty (30) days from the beginning date of the applicable service
period for payment of a customer's service bill for that period. If a customer's service bill is not paid within that
period of time the Cable Operator may apply an administrative fee to the customer's account. The administrative
fee must reflect the average costs incurred by the Cable Operator in attempting to collect the past due payment in
accordance with applicable law. If the customer's service bill is not paid within forty-five (45) days of the
beginning date of the applicable service period, the Cable Operator may perform a "soft" disconnect of the
customer's service. If a customer's service bill is not paid within fifty-two (52) days of the beginning date of the
applicable service period, the Cable Operator may disconnect the customer's service, provided it has provided two
(2) weeks notice to the customer that such disconnection may result.
c. The Cable Operator shall issue a credit or refund to a customer within 30 days after determining the
customer's entitlement to a credit or refund.
d. Whenever the Cable Operator offers any promotional or specially priced service(s) its promotional
materials shall clearly identify and explain the specific terms of the promotion, including but not limited to
manner in which any payment credit will be applied.
7. Treatment of Property
247
7
To the extent that a Franchise Agreement does not contain the following procedures for treatment of property,
Operator shall comply with the procedures set forth in this Section.
a. A Cable Operator shall keep tree trimming to a minimum; trees and shrubs or other landscaping that are
damaged by a Cable Operator, any employee or agent of a Cable Operator during installation or construction shall
be restored to their prior condition or replaced within seven (7) days, unless seasonal conditions require a longer
time, in which case such restoration or replacement shall be made within seven (7) days after conditions permit.
Trees and shrubs on private property shall not be removed without the prior permission of the owner or legal
tenant of the property on which they are located. This provision shall be in addition to, and shall not supersede,
any requirement in any franchise agreement.
b. A Cable Operator shall, at its own cost and expense, and in a manner approved by the property owner
and the Franchising Authority, restore any private property to as good condition as before the work causing such
disturbance was initiated. A Cable Operator shall repair, replace or compensate a property owner for any damage
resulting from the Cable Operator's installation, construction, service or repair activities. If compensation is
requested by the customer for damage caused by any Cable Operator activity, the Cable Operator shall reimburse
the property owner one hundred (100) percent of the actual cost of the damage.
c. Except in the case of an emergency involving public safety or service interruption to a large number of
customers, a Cable Operator shall give reasonable notice to property owners or legal tenants prior to entering
upon private premises, and the notice shall specify the work to be performed; provided that in the case of
construction operations such notice shall be delivered or provided at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to entry,
unless such notice is waived by the customer. For purposes of this subsection, “reasonable notice” shall be
considered:
i.For pedestal installation or similar major construction, seven (7) days.
ii.For routine maintenance, such as adding or dropping service, tree trimming and the like,
reasonable notice given the circumstances. Unless a Franchise Agreement has a different requirement,
reasonable notice shall require, at a minimum, prior notice to a property owner or tenant, before entry is
made onto that person’s property.
iii.For emergency work a Cable Operator shall attempt to contact the property owner or
legal tenant in person, and shall leave a door hanger notice in the event personal contact is not made.
Door hangars must describe the issue and provide contact information where the property owner or tenant
can receive more information about the emergency work.
Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing access or entry to private property, or any other property,
where such right to access or entry is not otherwise provided by law.
d. Cable Operator personnel shall clean all areas surrounding any work site and ensure that all cable
materials have been disposed of properly.
D. Services for Customers with Disabilities
1. For any customer with a disability, a Cable Operator shall deliver and pick up equipment at customers' homes
at no charge unless the malfunction was caused by the actions of the customer. In the case of malfunctioning
equipment, the technician shall provide replacement equipment, hook it up and ensure that it is working properly,
and shall return the defective equipment to the Cable Operator.
2. A Cable Operator shall provide either TTY, TDD, TYY, VRS service or other similar service that are in
compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and other applicable law, with trained operators who can
248
8
provide every type of assistance rendered by the Cable Operator's customer service representatives for any
hearing-impaired customer at no charge.
3. A Cable Operator shall provide free use of a remote control unit to mobility-impaired (if disabled, in
accordance with Section III.D.4) customers.
4. Any customer with a disability may request the special services described above by providing a Cable Operator
with a letter from the customer's physician stating the need, or by making the request to the Cable Operator's
installer or service technician, where the need for the special services can be visually confirmed.
E. Cable Services Information
1. At any time a customer or prospective customer may request, a Cable Operator shall provide the following
information, in clear, concise written form, easily accessible and located on Cable Operator’s website (and in
Spanish, when requested by the customer):
a. Products and services offered by the Cable Operator, including its channel lineup;
b. The Cable Operator's complete range of service options and the prices for these services;
c. The Cable Operator's billing, collection and disconnection policies;
d. Privacy rights of customers;
e. All applicable complaint procedures, including complaint forms and the telephone numbers and
mailing addresses of the Cable Operator, and the FCC;
f. Use and availability of parental control/lock out device;
g. Special services for customers with disabilities;
h. Days, times of operation, and locations of the service centers;
2. At a Customer’s request, a Cable Operator shall make available either a complete copy of these Standards and
any other applicable customer service standards, or a summary of these Standards, in a format to be approved by
the Franchising Authority, which shall include at a minimum, the URL address of a website containing these
Standards in their entirety.
If acceptable to a customer, Cable Operator may fulfill customer requests for any of the information listed in this
Section by making the requested information available electronically, such as on a website or by electronic mail.
3. Upon written request, a Cable Operator shall meet annually with the Franchising Authority to review the
format of the Cable Operator’s bills to customers. Whenever the Cable Operator makes substantial changes to its
billing format, it will contact the Franchising Authority at least thirty (30) days prior to the time such changes are
to be effective, in order to inform the Franchising Authority of such changes.
4. Copies of notices provided to the customer in accordance with subsection 5 below shall be filed (by fax or
email acceptable) with the Franchising Authority.
5. A Cable Operator shall provide customers with written notification of any change in rates for nondiscretionary
cable services, and for service tier changes that result in a deletion of programming from a customer’s service tier,
at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of change. For purposes of this section, “nondiscretionary”
249
9
means the subscribed tier and any other Cable Services that a customer has subscribed to, at the time the change
in rates are announced by the Cable Operator.
6. All officers, agents, and employees of the Cable Operator or its contractors or subcontractors who are in
personal contact with customers and/or when working on public property, shall wear on their outer clothing
identification cards bearing their name and photograph and identifying them as representatives of the Cable
Operator. The Cable Operator shall account for all identification cards at all times. Every vehicle of the Cable
Operator shall be clearly visually identified to the public as working for the Cable Operator. Whenever a Cable
Operator work crew is in personal contact with customers or public employees, a supervisor must be able to
communicate clearly with the customer or public employee. Every vehicle of a subcontractor or contractor shall
be labeled with the name of the contractor and further identified as contracting or subcontracting for the Cable
Operator.
7. Each CSR, technician or employee of the Cable Operator in each contact with a customer shall state the
estimated cost of the service, repair, or installation orally prior to delivery of the service or before any work is
performed, and shall provide the customer with an oral statement of the total charges before terminating the
telephone call or before leaving the location at which the work was performed. A written estimate of the charges
shall be provided to the customer before the actual work is performed.
F. Customer Privacy
1. Cable Customer Privacy. In addition to complying with the requirements in this subsection, a Cable Operator
shall fully comply with all obligations under 47 U.S.C. Section 551.
2. Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information.
a. A Cable Operator shall not use the Cable System to collect, monitor or observe Personally Identifiable
Information without the prior affirmative written or electronic consent of the Customer unless, and only to the
extent that such information is: (i) used to detect unauthorized reception of cable communications, or (ii)
necessary to render a Cable Service or Other Service provided by the Cable Operator to the Customer and as
otherwise authorized by applicable law.
b. A Cable Operator shall take such actions as are necessary using then-current industry standard
practices to prevent any Affiliate from using the facilities of the Cable Operator in any manner, including, but not
limited to, sending data or other signals through such facilities, to the extent such use will permit an Affiliate
unauthorized access to Personally Identifiable Information on equipment of a Customer (regardless of whether
such equipment is owned or leased by the Customer or provided by a Cable Operator) or on any of the facilities of
the Cable Operator that are used in the provision of Cable Service. This subsection F.2.b shall not be interpreted
to prohibit an Affiliate from obtaining access to Personally Identifiable Information to the extent otherwise
permitted by this subsection F.
c. A Cable Operator shall take such actions as are necessary using then-current industry standard
practices to prevent a person or entity (other than an Affiliate) from using the facilities of the Cable Operator in
any manner, including, but not limited to, sending data or other signals through such facilities, to the extent such
use will permit such person or entity unauthorized access to Personally Identifiable Information on equipment of a
Customer (regardless of whether such equipment is owned or leased by the Customer or provided by a Cable
Operator) or on any of the facilities of the Cable Operator that are used in the provision of Cable Service.
3. Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information. A Cable Operator shall not disclose Personally Identifiable
Information without the prior affirmative written or electronic consent of the Customer, unless otherwise
authorized by applicable law.
250
10
a.A minimum of thirty (30) days prior to making any disclosure of Personally Identifiable
Information of any Customer for any Non-Cable related purpose as provided in this subsection F.3.a, where such
Customer has not previously been provided the notice and choice provided for in subsection III.F.9, the Cable
Operator shall notify each Customer (that the Cable Operator intends to disclose information about) of the
Customer's right to prohibit the disclosure of such information for Non-cable related purposes. The notice to
Customers may reference the Customer to his or her options to state a preference for disclosure or non-disclosure
of certain information, as provided in subsection III.F.10.
b. A Cable Operator may disclose Personally Identifiable Information only to the extent that it is
necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business activity related to, a Cable Service or Other Service provided
by the Cable Operator to the Customer.
c. To the extent authorized by applicable law, a Cable Operator may disclose Personally Identifiable
Information pursuant to a subpoena, court order, warrant or other valid legal process authorizing such disclosure.
4. Access to Information. Any Personally Identifiable Information collected and maintained by a Cable Operator
shall be made available for Customer examination within thirty (30) days of receiving a request by a Customer to
examine such information about himself or herself at the local offices of the Cable Operator or other convenient
place within the City designated by the Cable Operator, or electronically, such as over a website. Upon a
reasonable showing by the Customer that such Personally Identifiable Information is inaccurate, a Cable Operator
shall correct such information.
5. Privacy Notice to Customers
a. A Cable Operator shall annually mail or provide a separate, written or electronic copy of the privacy
statement to Customers consistent with 47 U.S.C. Section 551(a)(1), and shall provide a Customer a copy of such
statement at the time the Cable Operator enters into an agreement with the Customer to provide Cable Service.
The written notice shall be in a clear and conspicuous format, which at a minimum, shall be in a comparable font
size to other general information provided to Customers about their account as it appears on either paper or
electronic Customer communications.
b. In or accompanying the statement required by subsection F.5.a, a Cable Operator shall state
substantially the following message regarding the disclosure of Customer information: "Unless a Customer
affirmatively consents electronically or in writing to the disclosure of personally identifiable information, any
disclosure of personally identifiable information for purposes other than to the extent necessary to render, or
conduct a legitimate business activity related to, a Cable Service or Other Service, is limited to:
i. Disclosure pursuant to valid legal process authorized by applicable law.
ii. Disclosure of the name and address of a Customer subscribing to any general programming
tiers of service and other categories of Cable Services provided by the Cable Operator that do not directly
or indirectly disclose: (A) A Customer's extent of viewing of a Cable Service or Other Service provided
by the Cable Operator; (B) The extent of any other use by a Customer of a Cable Service; (C) The nature
of any transactions made by a Customer over the Cable System; or (D) The nature of programming or
websites that a Customer subscribes to or views (i.e., a Cable Operator may only disclose the fact that a
person subscribes to a general tier of service, or a package of channels with the same type of
programming), provided that with respect to the nature of websites subscribed to or viewed, these are
limited to websites accessed by a Customer in connection with programming available from their account
for Cable Services.”
The notice shall also inform the Customers of their right to prohibit the disclosure of their names and addresses in
accordance with subsection F.3.a. If a Customer exercises his or her right to prohibit the disclosure of name and
address as provided in subsection F.3.a or this subsection, such prohibition against disclosure shall remain in 251
11
effect, unless and until the Customer subsequently changes their disclosure preferences as described in subsection
F.9 below.
6. Privacy Reporting Requirements. The Cable Operator shall include in its regular periodic reports to the
Franchising Authority required by its Franchise Agreement information summarizing:
a. The type of Personally Identifiable Information that was actually collected or disclosed by Cable
Operator during the reporting period;
b. For each type of Personally Identifiable Information collected or disclosed, a statement from an
authorized representative of the Cable Operator certifying that the Personally Identifiable Information collected or
disclosed was: (A) collected or disclosed to the extent Necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business
activity related to, a Cable Service or Other Service provided by the Cable Operator; (B) used to the extent
Necessary to detect unauthorized reception of cable communications: (C) disclosed pursuant to valid legal process
authorized by applicable law; or (D) a disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information of particular subscribers,
but only to the extent affirmatively consented to by such subscribers in writing or electronically, or as otherwise
authorized by applicable law.
c. The standard industrial classification (SIC) codes or comparable identifiers pertaining to any entities to
whom such Personally Identifiable Information was disclosed, except that a Cable Operator need not provide the
name of any court or governmental entity to which such disclosure was made pursuant to valid legal process
authorized by applicable law;
d. The general measures that have been taken to prevent the unauthorized access to Personally
Identifiable Information by a person other than the Customer or the Cable Operator. A Cable Operator shall meet
with Franchising Authority if requested to discuss technology used to prohibit unauthorized access to Personally
Identifiable Information by any means.
7. Nothing in this subsection III.F shall be construed to prevent the Franchising Authority from obtaining
Personally Identifiable Information to the extent not prohibited by Section 631 of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 551 and applicable laws.
8. Destruction of Personally Identifiable Information. A Cable Operator shall destroy any Personally Identifiable
Information if the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected and there are no
pending requests or orders for access to such information under subsection 4 of this subsection III.F, pursuant to a
court order or other valid legal process, or pursuant to applicable law.
9. Notice and Choice for Customers. The Cable Operator shall at all times make available to Customers one or
more methods for Customers to use to prohibit or limit disclosures, or permit or release disclosures, as provided
for in this subsection III.F. These methods may include, for example, online website “preference center” features,
automated toll-free telephone systems, live toll-free telephone interactions with customer service agents, in-person
interactions with customer service personnel, regular mail methods such as a postage paid, self-addressed post
card, an insert included with the Customer’s monthly bill for Cable Service, the privacy notice specified in
subsection III.F.5, or such other comparable methods as may be provided by the Cable Operator. Website
“preference center” features shall be easily identifiable and navigable by Customers, and shall be in a comparable
size font as other billing information provided to Customers on a Cable Operator’s website. A Customer who
provides the Cable Operator with permission to disclose Personally Identifiable Information through any of the
methods offered by a Cable Operator shall be provided follow-up notice, no less than annually, of the Customer’s
right to prohibit these disclosures and the options for the Customer to express his or her preference regarding
disclosures. Such notice shall, at a minimum, be provided by an insert in the Cable Operator’s bill (or other direct
mail piece) to the Customer or a notice or message printed on the Cable Operator’s bill to the Customer, and on
the Cable Operator’s website when a Customer logs in to view his or her Cable Service account options. The
form of such notice shall also be provided on an annual basis to the Franchising Authority. These methods of 252
12
notification to Customers may also include other comparable methods as submitted by the Cable Operator and
approved by the Franchising Authority in its reasonable discretion.
G. Safety
A Cable Operator shall install and locate its facilities, cable system, and equipment in compliance with all federal,
state, local, and company safety standards, and in such manner as shall not unduly interfere with or endanger
persons or property. Whenever a Cable Operator receives notice that an unsafe condition exists with respect to its
equipment, the Cable Operator shall investigate such condition immediately, and shall take such measures as are
necessary to remove or eliminate any unsafe condition.
H. Cancellation of New Services
In the event that a new customer requests installation of Cable Service and is unsatisfied with their initial Cable
Service, and provided that the customer so notifies the Cable Operator of their dissatisfaction within 30 days of
initial installation, then such customer can request disconnection of Cable Service within 30 days of initial
installation, and the Cable Operator shall provide a credit to the customer’s account consistent with this Section.
The customer will be required to return all equipment in good working order; provided such equipment is returned
in such order, then the Cable Operator shall refund the monthly recurring fee for the new customer’s first 30 days
of Cable Service and any charges paid for installation. This provision does not apply to existing customers who
request upgrades to their Cable Service, to discretionary Cable Service such as PPV or movies purchased and
viewed On Demand, or to customer moves and/or transfers of Cable Service. The service credit shall be provided
in the next billing cycle.
IV. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
A. Complaints to a Cable Operator
1. A Cable Operator shall establish written procedures for receiving, acting upon, and resolving customer
complaints, and crediting customer accounts and shall have such procedures printed and disseminated at the Cable
Operator's sole expense, consistent with Section III.E.1.e of these Standards.
2. Said written procedures shall prescribe a simple manner in which any customer may submit a complaint by
telephone or in writing to a Cable Operator that it has violated any provision of these Customer Service Standards,
any terms or conditions of the customer's contract with the Cable Operator, or reasonable business practices. If a
representative of the Franchising Authority notifies the Cable Operator of a customer complaint that has not
previously been made by the customer to the Cable Operator, the complaint shall be deemed to have been made
by the customer as of the date of the Franchising Authority’s notice to the Cable Operator.
3. At the conclusion of the Cable Operator's investigation of a customer complaint, but in no more than ten (10)
calendar days after receiving the complaint, the Cable Operator shall notify the customer of the results of its
investigation and its proposed action or credit.
4. A Cable Operator shall also notify the customer of the customer's right to file a complaint with the Franchising
Authority in the event the customer is dissatisfied with the Cable Operator's decision, and shall thoroughly explain
the necessary procedures for filing such complaint with the Franchising Authority.
5. A Cable Operator shall immediately report all customer Escalated complaints that it does not find valid to the
Franchising Authority.
6. A Cable Operator's complaint procedures shall be filed with the Franchising Authority prior to implementation.
253
13
B. Complaints to the Franchising Authority
1. Any customer who is dissatisfied with any proposed decision of the Cable Operator or who has not received a
decision within the time period set forth below shall be entitled to have the complaint reviewed by the Franchising
Authority.
2. The customer may initiate the review either by calling the Franchising Authority or by filing a written
complaint together with the Cable Operator's written decision, if any, with the Franchising Authority.
3. The customer shall make such filing and notification within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Cable Operator's
decision or, if no decision has been provided, within thirty (30) days after filing the original complaint with the
Cable Operator.
4. If the Franchising Authority decides that further evidence is warranted, the Franchising Authority shall require
the Cable Operator and the customer to submit, within ten (10) days of notice thereof, a written statement of the
facts and arguments in support of their respective positions.
5. The Cable Operator and the customer shall produce any additional evidence, including any reports from the
Cable Operator, which the Franchising Authority may deem necessary to an understanding and determination of
the complaint.
6. The Franchising Authority shall issue a determination within fifteen (15) days of receiving the customer
complaint, or after examining the materials submitted, setting forth its basis for the determination.
7. The Franchising Authority may extend these time limits for reasonable cause and may intercede and attempt to
negotiate an informal resolution.
C. Security Fund or Letter of Credit
A Cable operator shall comply with any Franchise Agreement regarding Letters of Credit. If a Franchise
Agreement is silent on Letter of Credit the following shall apply:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the written notification to a Cable Operator by the Franchising Authority that an
alleged Franchise violation exists, a Cable Operator shall deposit with an escrow agent approved by the
Franchising Authority fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or, in the sole discretion of the Franchising Authority, such
lesser amount as the Franchising Authority deems reasonable to protect subscribers within its jurisdiction.
Alternatively, at the Cable Operator’s discretion, it may provide to the Franchising Authority an irrevocable letter
of credit in the same amount.
The escrowed funds or letter of credit shall constitute the "Security Fund" for ensuring compliance with
these Standards for the benefit of the Franchising Authority. The escrowed funds or letter of credit shall be
maintained by a Cable Operator at the amount initially required, even if amounts are withdrawn pursuant to any
provision of these Standards, until any claims related to the alleged Franchise violation(s) are paid in full.
2. The Franchising Authority may require the Cable Operator to increase the amount of the Security Fund, if it
finds that new risk factors exist which necessitate such an increase.
3. The Security Fund shall serve as security for the payment of any penalties, fees, charges or credits as provided
for herein and for the performance by a Cable Operator of all its obligations under these Customer Service
Standards.254
14
4. The rights reserved to the Franchising Authority with respect to the Security Fund are in addition to all other
rights of the Franchising Authority, whether reserved by any applicable franchise agreement or authorized by law,
and no action, proceeding or exercise of a right with respect to same shall in any way affect, or diminish, any
other right the Franchising Authority may otherwise have.
D. Verification of Compliance
A Cable Operator shall establish its compliance with any or all of the standards required through annual reports
that demonstrate said compliance, or as requested by the Franchising Authority.
E. Procedure for Remedying Violations
1. If the Franchising Authority has reason to believe that a Cable Operator has failed to comply with any of these
Standards, or has failed to perform in a timely manner, the Franchising Authority may pursue the procedures in its
Franchise Agreement to address violations of these Standards in a like manner as other franchise violations are
considered.
2. Following the procedures set forth in any Franchise Agreement governing the manner to address alleged
Franchise violations, if the Franchising Authority determines in its sole discretion that the noncompliance has
been substantiated, in addition to any remedies that may be provided in the Franchise Agreement, the Franchising
Authority may:
a. Impose assessments of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day, to be withdrawn from the
Security Fund in addition to any franchise fee until the non-compliance is remedied; and/or
b. Order such rebates and credits to affected customers as in its sole discretion it deems reasonable and
appropriate for degraded or unsatisfactory services that constituted noncompliance with these Standards; and/or
c. Reverse any decision of the Cable Operator in the matter and/or
d. Grant a specific solution as determined by the Franchising Authority; and/or
e. Except for in emergency situations, withhold licenses and permits for work by the Cable Operator or its
subcontractors in accordance with applicable law.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Severability
Should any section, subsection, paragraph, term, or provision of these Standards be determined to be
illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction with regard thereto, such
determination shall have no effect on the validity of any other section, subsection, paragraph, term, or provision of
these Standards, each of the latter of which shall remain in full force and effect.
B. Non-Waiver
Failure to enforce any provision of these Standards shall not operate as a waiver of the obligations or
responsibilities of a Cable Operator under said provision, or any other provision of these Standards.
255
May 21, 2020
Mayor Torre
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mayor Torre:
We appreciate that the City has chosen to move forward on the Comcast Franchise Agreement, which was jointly
negotiated in 2018 with Pitkin County, the Town of Snowmass Village, and the Town of Basalt. We think this an
important step forward which enables Aspen residents to enjoy the same benefits of the new Agreement as
residents in the surrounding communities.
We must note, however, that two years have passed since the successful conclusion of those negotiations , and in
that intervening time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has passed its 621 Order, which allows
wireline video providers to either discontinue the provision of the complimentary video services it provides to
municipal buildings, schools, and libraries or to deduct the value of those services from Franchise Fees.
As currently drafted, the Franchise between Comcast and the City of Aspen contemplated these previously p ending
FCC rule changes. Now that these changes to federal law are in effect, Comcast will need to come into compliance
in the coming months.
As the City is aware, Comcast currently provides certain complimentary video services to schools, libraries, and
municipal buildings, without charge. Should Comcast discontinue the provision of those services, Comcast will
provide the City with at least one hundred twenty (120) days’ prior written notice. This notice will document the
proposed offset or service charges so that the City can make an informed decision as to whether to keep the services.
Following this notice, the City will have a full one hundred twenty (120) days to review the list of outlets receiving
complimentary service, and it will have the right to discontinue receipt of all or a portion of the outlets receiving
complimentary service provided by Comcast. In the event applicable law is overturned in whole or in part by action
of the FCC or through judicial review, the City and Comcast will meet promptly to discuss what impact such action
has on the provision of the in-kind, cable-related contributions.
Again, we appreciate that the City is moving forward with the Franchise Agreemen t, and we thank you for your
collaborative and good faith efforts to complete the Franchise renewal process. We are grateful for the opportunity
to continue to serve the City and its residents, and we look forward to continuing the great relationship we have had
with the City for many years to come.
Sincerely,
Andy Davis
Director of Regulatory and Government Affairs
Comcast – Mountain West Region
Cc: Jim True, City Attorney, City of Aspen
1899 Wynkoop Street
Suite 550
Denver, CO 80202
256
1
443 E. Durant Ave. / Extension of Temporary Use
City Council Hearing – June 9, 2020
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
MEMO DATE: June 1, 2020
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
RE: Extension of Temporary Use – Silver City Ice Rink, 433 E. Durant
Avenue, Resolution #45, Series of 2020
_____
Applicant: G.A. Resort Condo
Association, Inc., c/o Hyatt Residence
Club, Bob Weisman, President, 415 E.
Dean St., Aspen, CO 81611
Representative: Chris Bendon,
BendonAdams, 300 S. Spring St.
#202, Aspen, CO 81611
Location: 433 E. Durant Avenue
Current Zoning & Use: P - Park
Summary: In September 2019, the
applicant received Temporary Use
approval to install a large chiller by the
Silver City ice rink for the 2019/2020
winter season. The chiller was a short-
term solution to manufacture ice after
the original refrigeration system, and a
subsequent synthetic ice surface,
proved to be problematic. The chiller
was permitted to remain in place until
March 31, 2020, but could not be
removed at that time due to COVID-19.
The applicant would like to retain the
equipment through next winter, while
researching a permanent solution to
maintain the ice rink or propose an
alternative use.
Staff Recommendation: The applicant’s
request for an extension through Winter 2021
is beyond Council’s authority. The maximum
extension in one action is 180 days.
The previous Temporary Use approval was
conditioned on the timely pursuit of a
permanent solution, which has not occurred to
date. This is at least in part due to the
economic uncertainty of the last several
months, however the applicant represented to
Council in 2019 that they might need two winter
seasons to develop a plan. Staff recommends
approval of Resolution #45, 2020, allowing the
chiller to remain for another 180 days, unused,
with a July 1st deadline to request another
extension, or propose an alternative. The
chiller has not proven to be a nuisance during
the past 6 months, and Council has indicated a
desire to keep the ice facility viable.
Silver City Ice Rink (Photo Courtesy of
www.uncovercolorado.com)
257
2
443 E. Durant Ave. / Extension of Temporary Use
City Council Hearing – June 9, 2020
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The applicant requests an Extension of Temporary Use
approval, which Council may grant for a period of up to 180 days. Temporary uses are
those uses or structures that may or may not be permitted in a given zone district, but
which may be allowed on a nonpermanent and temporary basis upon individual review of
their proposed nature, location, duration, impact and compatibility with surrounding
permitted uses and structures,
City Council is the final review authority on this matter.
LOCATION AND BACKGROUND: The existing ice rink and associated landscaped area
are in the Park (P) zone district. The facility was approved in 1992 as part of the Hyatt
Grand Aspen development, the timeshare lodge located to the south, at 415 E. Dean St.
Figure 1: Area Map
Ordinance #12, Series 1992 granted approval for the development of the “Aspen Winter
Garden”, which was provided by the developers of the Grand Hyatt Aspen as a public
park amenity. As part of Planned Unit Development, the dedication from the developers
was provided in lieu of requirements for Subdivision, park and water tap fees. The park
area also fulfills the development’s open space requirements.
The Grand Hyatt Aspen retains ownership over the property and is responsible for the
park, including the upkeep of the ice refrigeration system which maintains the skating
surface throughout the winter season. Management of the rink and associated services
is contracted with the owners of CP Burger, the restaurant located on site.
The 1992 approval stipulates several features and activities which must be present on
the site to ensure it provides a public park amenity as originally approved by Council. The
approval includes specific language about the type of refrigeration system provided and
258
3
443 E. Durant Ave. / Extension of Temporary Use
City Council Hearing – June 9, 2020
its maintenance. The approval requires that an ice-skating rink be provided in perpetuity
until such time as the approval is amended or the property redeveloped.
In 2018, the applicant approached the City with a proposal to replace the refrigerated
natural ice surface with “synthetic ice”. The original refrigeration system required
increasing maintenance to function properly, and the coolant used in the system (CFC-
22) is to be phased-out of use in 2020 according to the EPA. Without CFC-22,
modifications and additional maintenance of the system would be required to continue to
provide an ice-skating surface. Citing maintenance challenges and associated costs, as
well as a desire to reprogram the site in the future, the applicant requested an
Insubstantial Planned Development Amendment from the Community Development
Department to replace the ice with a “synthetic ice” surface which did not require
refrigeration.
That administrative amendment was granted November 19, 2018 based on
representations made by the applicant appearing to meet the criteria for such an
amendment. During the first few months of the 2019-2020 winter season, the Community
Development Department received complaints from customers, members of the public,
and City Council members about the suitability of the synthetic skating surface and the
unsatisfactory user experience. On April 2, 2019, the Community Development Director
revoked the approval via letter (attached as Exhibit B). The consequence of the
revocation was the requirement that the applicant reinstate the ice-skating amenity as
described in the 1992 approval.
Subsequently, the applicant appealed the Director’s action, but has stayed their pursuit
of the appeal for the time being, in recognition that Council’s Temporary Use approval
provided an interim solution.
As demonstrated in the attached minutes from the 2019 Temporary Use approval, and
the resulting Resolution, the commitments made to provide a public amenity on this site
are a high priority for Council. Both the applicant and the community benefit from the
previous agreements. During the Temporary Use review, Council unanimously favored
the continued use of a refrigerated ice surface as required in the original approval and
encouraged at least the short-term use of a modern above grade chiller unit. A below
grade location may or may not be achievable as it would potentially require significant
modifications to the site and may raise new waterproofing issues.
The visual and noise impacts of the chiller unit were evaluated in depth before the
Temporary Use approval was granted. The unit is very large but is located in what has
always been a utilitarian corner of the site. A screen wall was required but restricted to
the standard fence height limit of 6,’ which doesn’t fully cover the equipment. This could
259
4
443 E. Durant Ave. / Extension of Temporary Use
City Council Hearing – June 9, 2020
potentially be adjusted through a Planned Development review for a permanent
installation.
Figure 2: View of the site before and after the chiller installation.
The maximum permitted noise level in commercial zone districts between 7:00 a.m. and
9:00 p.m. is 65 dBa.
Community Development received no complaints from the public regarding noise, the
quality of the skating experience or the presence of the equipment last season. The
owners of CP Burger, the business to the east of the rink and the operators of the rink in
winter, have stated their desire to continue to have a functioning rink for the 2020-2021
winter season. Further, they did not object to the noise level of the unit in operation during
the previous winter season. Staff believes it is important that this site continue to provide
an engaging and pleasant amenity to the public as envisioned in the 1992 approval. Staff
also recognizes the applicant’s failure to act in a timely manner on Councils direction in
2019 to develop a permanent solution and meet the requirements of their land use
approval. Given the choice between an extension of the current system and no system
in place for the 2020-2021 season, staff believes the status quo is preferable. As such,
staff supports an Extension of the Temporary Use, which meets the intent of the existing
land use approvals.
The Extension of Temporary Use approval is limited to 180 days, which, calculated from
the expiration of the 2019 Temporary Use approval, will terminate on September 17,
2020. Staff recommends a July 1st deadline for the applicant to request another
extension, or propose an alternative.
During this Extension of Temporary Use, there is no reason for the equipment to be
functioning, other than for periodic maintenance, therefore noise impacts will not be a
factor.
STAFF FINDINGS: Staff has reviewed the applicant’s request against the relevant review
criteria and finds the following:
260
5
443 E. Durant Ave. / Extension of Temporary Use
City Council Hearing – June 9, 2020
The proposed Extension of Temporary Use is consistent with the existing approval for the
use of the park site, insofar as it provides a refrigerated ice-skating surface. The proposed
uses would allow the applicant to continue to provide the public amenity required in the
1992 approval while the applicant, Council, and the community discuss long-term
solutions for the use of the site.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may choose to deny the extension, which would require the
applicant to remove the chiller. Council may also choose to condition the temporary use
extension upon the applicant’s submission of a long-term solution for the site or other
requirements at Council’s discretion.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution #45, Series of
2020, granting a 180-day Extension of the Temporary Use approval for the portable
refrigeration unit.
PROPOSED MOTION (WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution #45, Series of 2020.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A- Staff Findings
Exhibit B- Synthetic Ice Voided Approval
Exhibit C- Council minutes of August 12, 2019
Exhibit D- Council minutes of September 9, 2019
Exhibit E- Council Resolution #91, Series of 2019, Granting Temporary Use Approval
Exhibit F- Application
261
1
RESOLUTION #45
(SERIES OF 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE APPROVAL AT 433 E. DURANT AVENUE,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2737-182-85-006
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Chris Bendon of BendonAdams, LLC, on behalf of G.A. Resort Condo. Association, Inc., c/o
Hyatt Residence Club, Bob Weisman, President, requesting an extension of a 2019 Temporary
Use approval to install a temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system
through the 2020/2021 ski season, contingent upon the active development of plans and a land
use application for the future use of the site; and
WHEREAS, via Ordinance #12, Series 1992, the site was previously approved as a Park
and Ice-Skating Rink to provide a public amenity and open space in conjunction with the
development of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and the lodge property presently known as the
Grant Hyatt Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, via Resolution #91, Series of 2019, the applicant received approval to
locate a temporary chiller on the site to produce an ice rink from November 21, 2019 to March
31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the onset of COVID-19 prevented the applicant from removing the
equipment by the deadline established in Resolution #91, Series of 2019. The applicant
requested an extension through Winter 2021, which is beyond the maximum extension that
Council may approve in one action; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed the request according to
the criteria of Section 26.450, Temporary Uses, provided in the Aspen Municipal Code, and
recommended Council grant the maximum extension of 180 days, with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the 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 Community Development Director, and has taken and
considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 9, 2020; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request to be in accordance with the
applicable development standards and approves an Extension of Temporary Use for one-
hundred and eighty (180) days, contingent upon the active development of plans and a land
use application for the future use of the site; and,
262
2
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
City Council hereby approves an Extension of Temporary Use request to allow the portable,
outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system already in place to remain on the site in the
current configuration for one-hundred and eighty (180) days, from March 31st, 2020 (the
expiration of the previously approved Temporary Use) to September 17, 2020.
The temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system shall be out of
operation at all times during this period, and the existing screening around the equipment
shall remain in place at all times. These restrictions shall not prevent any necessary
maintenance of the unit. Following any maintenance activities, the unit and site shall be
returned to its original, approved condition.
Section 2:
The approved Extension of Temporary Use does not modify the existing approved use of the site as
described in Ordinance #12, Series 1992. By July 1st, 2020, the applicant is required to submit a
complete land use application requesting another extension, or proposing an alternative. Upon
expiration of the Extension of Temporary Use, if no other request has been granted, the site shall be
returned to its condition prior to the Temporary Use approval as described in Ordinance #12, Series
1992.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
temporary use proposal as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the
same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
263
3
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 9th day of June, 2020.
Attest:
_______________________ ________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
Approved as to form:
____________________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
264
1
Exhibit A
Staff Findings
26.450.050. Duration and expiration of a temporary use.
B. Extensions. The City Council may grant extension(s) of an approved temporary use.
The Community Development Director may grant one extension of an approved
insubstantial temporary use. Requests for an extension of a temporary use approved by
City Council must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Director no less
than fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of a permitted temporary use. Requests for an
extension of an insubstantial temporary use approved by the Community Development
Director must be submitted in writing to the Community Development Director no less than
three (3) days prior to the expiration of a permitted insubstantial temporary use.
All proposed extensions of a temporary use or insubstantial temporary use shall be
evaluated under the same criteria as set forth in Sections 26.450.030 and 26.450.040.
Requests for an extension of time approved by the City Council shall be heard and approved
or denied at a public hearing. Extension of a temporary use approved by City Council shall
not exceed one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days in a 12-month period. Extension of
an insubstantial temporary use approved by the Community Development Director shall not
exceed seven (7) consecutive days in a 12-month period.
Staff Response: The applicant submitted a timely request to extend the Temporary
Use approval granted by City Council via Resolution #91, Series of 2019. Evaluation
of the extension as set forth in Sections 26.450.030 and 26.450.040 is provided below.
Staff recommends the maximum extension that can be granted in one action, which
is a period of 180 days.
Section 26.450.030. Criteria applicable to all temporary
uses.
When considering a development application for a temporary use or an insubstantial
temporary use, the Community Development Director or City Council shall consider,
among other pertinent factors, the following criteria as they or any of them, relate thereto:
A. The location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the
proposed use.
Staff Response: The location of the refrigeration unit against two walls, at the rear
of the site, and adjacent to required electrical and mechanical locations is the most
appropriate available. The location concentrates visual and noise impacts from
the mechanical equipment in one area and ensures the impacts of the unit on the
use of the site and appearance from public rights-of-way are minimized to the
extent possible.
The system provided ice for last winter, preserving the site as a park and ice
skating facility for that season. An extension of the Temporary Use approval that
265
2
expired on March 31, 2020 can only be granted for 180 days, or until September
17, 2020. Granting the extension will allow the equipment to remain in place until
the applicant requests another extension, or submits a plan for a permanent
solution (which may or may not include the existing chiller). Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
B. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and
use of structures and uses in the immediate vicinity.
Staff Response: The previously approved Temporary Use allowed the applicant to
maintain the ice-skating surface required by Ordinance #12, Series 1992 during the
last winter season. Extending the Temporary Use approval facilitates continued
work on a solution that will address Winter 2020-2021, and hopefully beyond.
The ice rink itself is a familiar and valued feature of downtown. During the time the
chiller has been in place, no concerns have been raised to Community
Development to indicate that the temporary equipment it is in conflict with
surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. The impacts of the proposed temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
traf fic patterns, municipal services, noise levels and neighborhood character.
Staff Response: As noted above, the chiller has not been found to be a nuisance
to other uses. Compliance with noise requirements in the City of Aspen Municipal
Code is measured 25 feet from the object in question. At 25 feet, the refrigeration
unit is estimated to meet the 65-decibel maximum allowed in commercial zones
during daytime hours. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has
previously been approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the
application.
Staff Response: There are no other active Temporary Uses on this property. The
site is used occasionally for permitted special events, which are approved through
the Special Event, rather than Temporary Use process. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
E. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed.
Staff Response: The purpose of the Park zone district, as established for the site in
the 1992 PD approval, was for the provision of public space and a recreation amenity
to serve the development and the public. The Extension of Temporary Use proposed
in this application meets the intent of the zone district in the sense that it is intended
to facilitate future ice rink use or the development of an alternative plan. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
266
3
F. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which
ma y have occurred in the area and zone district in which the use is proposed.
Staff Response: The chiller was approved to restore the rink on this site after the
original ice equipment, and a synthetic ice surface both failed to perform as needed.
The applicant has stated a desire to explore options for the future use of the site.
The proposed Extension of Temporary Use would provide a stop-gap measure to
ensure the site continues to provide the public space and amenity required in the
PD approval. The eventual expiration or abandonment of the Temporary Use would
be in conjunction with the development of a Council-approved permanent use of the
site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. How the proposed temporary use will enhance or diminish the general public
health, safety or welfare.
Staff Response: The proposed Extension of Temporary Use meets the requirement
that the site provide public space and recreation amenities which enhance the public
health, safety and welfare. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
26.450.040. Conditions of approval.
Upon review and approval by the Community Development Director or City Council, as set
forth at Section 26.450.060 herein, the temporary use approval may be conditioned as
deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the zone district and the surrounding uses and
structures in the neighborhood in which a temporary use is to be permitted. This may
include, but is not limited to, setting requirements for or imposing restrictions upon size,
bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, screening, lighting, noise, signage,
parking, operations, hours of operation, set-backs, building materials and requiring such
financial security as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with any or all conditions of
approval and/or to restore the subject property to its original use and condition.
Staff Response: Staff recommends the chiller remain out of operation and
screened, except for maintenance, during this 180 day approval, and that Council
direct the applicant to submit for either a second Extension of Temporary Use, or a
PD Amendment proposing a permanent solution, no later than July 1, 2020.
267
Page 1 of 4
April 2, 2019
Mr. David Massarano, President
G.A Resort Condominium Association, Inc.
c/o Hyatt Residence Club, Grand Aspen
415 E. Dean Street
Aspen, CO 18611
(Via Certified Mail)
RE: Silver City Ice Rink Status
Dear Mr. Massarano,
On November 19, 2018, the City approved an application for an Insubstantial Planned Development (PD)
Amendment to the Aspen Mountain Planned Development. The amendment was proposed for the specific
purpose of replacing the ice on the Silver City Ice Rink with a synthetic substitute. The approval was
recorded on November 21, 2018, and is attached to this letter as Exhibit “A”. The purpose of this letter is
to inform you that numerous complaints have been submitted to the City regarding the amendment and
that following a review of the approval, the Community Development Department has determined that the
amendment was inappropriately issued and that the approval of the amendment is hereby revoked and
deemed void.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.110.A.1, the criteria to grant an Insubstantial PD Amendment,
includes a requirement that “[t]he request does not change the use or character of the development.” The
substitute for ice being used is a “synthetic” ice known as “Global Synthetic Ice Super-Glide SLICK.” The
application represented that this material would function substantially similar to ice and that “[f]or a casual
skater, the most notable difference would be the lack of wet and cold.”
Specific statements, with emphasis added, which led the City to approve this application, included:
• “A warming climate has presented challenges in maintaining a natural ice skating surface
throughout the winter season. This environmentally-friendly alternative will allow rink operations to
maintain the hours and window of operation mandated in the project approvals. Moreover, this will
allow visitors and locals to continue the outdoor winter experience of skating with their children
and friends under the shadow of Aspen Mountain.” Page 2 of Application Cover Letter.
• “Synthetic ice is used in public ice skating rinks all over the world. The natural ice would be replaced
with Global Synthetic Ice Super-Glide SLICK™ material, which has been successfully used at the
torch lighting of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics and for NHL celebrity games. Video of the product
in use can be found here – www.globalsyntheticice.com.” Page 2 of Application Cover Letter.
• “The rink will be replaced with Super-Glide SLICK material. The synthetic ice has been successfully
skated on at the Sochi Olympic Touch Lighting, NHL celebrity games, and public rinks around the
world. For a casual ice skater, the most notable difference will be the lack of wet and cold.” Review
Criteria Responses, 26.445.110.A.2. “The rink faces current operational challenges as a result of using
268
Silver City Ice Rink Status Letter
Page 2 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | F: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
natural ice in a changing climate. Approvals state the rink be operational seven days a week from
Thanksgiving to the end of March. Synthetic ice will allow rink operators to respond to the technical
challenge presented by solar gain. Arguably, global warming was known in the 90ies but synthetic
ice was likely not considered as a viable option at that time. The engineering of synthetic ice has
improved 10-fold since it’s advent several decades ago, allowing it to be considered for a suitable
skating surface for a public skating rink.” Review Criteria Responses, 26.445.110.A.4.
Further, the Hyatt indicated that the material proposed for the ice rink was chosen because of its similarity
to natural ice, and the fact that the United States is phasing out the use of CFC-22 coolant, which is used
to cool the original ice rink.
After a season of use, the City has determined that this synthetic ice has changed the character of the
development, which is inconsistent with the requirements for the Insubstantial PD Amendment. While the
product has been used in international skating rinks and events, what was not included in the application,
nor in the information available during the land use review process on the company’s website, is the fact
that this surface is fundamentally different than natural ice. The friction of synthetic ice compared to
natural ice is indisputably higher. Granted, experienced skaters may be able to train with a higher degree
of efficiency given this greater resistance and even beginner skaters may learn to be better skaters by
training on this surface. However, the purpose of the rink was to provide a skating experience to casual
skaters and families. The casual skater is not able to glide as if on ice, and their experience is more like
walking on a plastic surface than a gliding on an ice surface. It is factually false to say that “the most notable
difference will be the lack of wet and cold.” The evidence is clear that casual skaters are not able to skate.
Following the complaints received directly by the City of Aspen, we contacted CP Burger as the
operator of the rink for additional information, and they provided additional information regarding
complaints and refund requests that they had received. Attached as Exhibit B are copies of numerous
complaints that have been received by the City, as well as those passed on to the City. A few quotes
from these complaints include:
•“How disappointing that we have PLASTIC, rather than ICE, for ice skating. This may be acceptable
for ‘Holidays in Maui’ … but it sure is dismal for THE BEST, most iconic and highest profile Winter
destination in the U S of A.”
•“I am writing to you to express my great disappointment that we have lost our cherished Silver City
Ice rink. It has been replaced by some plastic “space” that produces nothing but ridicule from
passing pedestrians, and sadness from anyone who tried to use it.”
•“My daughter can’t skate is not ice. She was disappointed.”
•“We’ve been coming up from Glenwood for years and were surprised to see fake ice, not real ice.
We’re pretty good skaters & couldn’t skate on the fake ice. We were very disappointed!”
•“We were very disappointed to find the ice rink at the Hyatt now has synthetic ice! Arrived with our
small children who had their brand new figure skates & told we/they could not use them. We came
(and have come for the past four years) for traditional ice and a true Aspen/Christmas experience.
From now on, we’ll be skating at the ARC. This is not real skating!”
•“I brought my family out here for ice skating came to find out we were on plastic not ice, not working
out at all. Ice is better.”
•“The ice rink doesn’t slide properly. Me and my two brothers tried to ice skate, however, it is
impossible to slide on the fake ice.”
269
Silver City Ice Rink Status Letter
Page 3 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | F: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
• “Please add the ice back to the ice rink! Ridiculous & terrible this year!”
• “Synthetic ice is very hard to skate on – was not expecting being unable to skate.”
• “Refund! This is terrible! My kids are literally crying bc they can’t skate on this!”
• “NO ICE! The kids want to skate no walk on plastic!”
Attached as Exhibit C are a number of pictures taken on March 18, 2019, which show the surface of the
synthetic ice damaged from clearing of snow. This type of damage is not seen on real ice, and again, creates
a change to the character of the area.
Land Use Code Section 26.104.050, Void Permits, states as follows:
“All persons are presumed to know the terms and requirements of this Title and the extent
of the legal authority of the City and its employees, boards and commissions to issue
development approvals or permits. Any permit or approval issued in error or otherwise not
in conformity with the requirements of this Title, shall be void. Similarly, any permit or
approval issued in reliance upon or as a result of, a materially false statement or
representation made in the process of obtaining the permit or development approval shall,
likewise, be void. Any person having received a void or voidable permit or approval shall
not be relieved from having to comply with all applicable terms and conditions of this Title
and the City shall not be estopped from fully enforcing same.”
We recognize that the statements made were not made with the intention of misleading the City. Further,
we recognize that phasing out the use of CFC-22 coolant may be environmentally appropriate.
Nonetheless, the evidence clearly indicates that the statements which led to the issuance of the
amendment were materially false, thus changing the use and character or the initial approval.
Consequently, the City must consider the issuance of the approval as in error; thus, the approval is hereby
deemed void. Ice, created by refrigeration and/or the natural environment, pursuant to the original project
approvals, is required for the next winter season. Although CFC 22 is being phased out, numerous
replacements are available and should not delay the return of an ice surface.
Given the circumstances, the City is happy to work with you to ensure necessary building permit review
and issuance in time for the 2019-2020 winter season. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if
you would like to meet to discuss the permitting process.
Best,
Jessica Garrow, AICP
City of Aspen
Community Development Director
130 S Galena Street
970.429.2780
Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com
270
Silver City Ice Rink Status Letter
Page 4 of 4
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | F: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Copy of approval of Insubstantial Development Approval.
Exhibit B: Copies of complaints and refund requests
Exhibit C: March 18, 2019 Pictures of Silver City Ice Rink
CC:
Sara Ott, City of Aspen, Acting City Manager
James R. True, City of Aspen, City Attorney
Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, Owners Representative (via email)
271
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
272
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
273
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 3
274
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 27
275
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 27
276
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 27
277
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 27
278
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 27
279
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 27
280
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 27
281
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 27
282
Exhibit B
Page 9 of 27
283
Exhibit B
Page 10 of 27
284
Exhibit B
Page 11 of 27
285
Exhibit B
Page 12 of 27
286
Exhibit B
Page 13 of 27
287
Exhibit B
Page 14 of 27
288
Exhibit B
Page 15 of 27
289
Exhibit B
Page 16 of 27
290
Exhibit B
Page 17 of 27
291
Exhibit B
Page 18 of 27
292
Exhibit B
Page 19 of 27
293
Exhibit B
Page 20 of 27
294
Exhibit B
Page 21 of 27
295
Exhibit B
Page 22 of 27
296
Exhibit B
Page 23 of 27
297
Exhibit B
Page 24 of 27
298
Exhibit B
Page 25 of 27
299
Exhibit B
Page 26 of 27
300
Exhibit B
Page 27 of 27
301
Exhibit C: Photos of Surface dates March 18, 2019
302
303
304
305
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2019
5
Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Resolution #75, Series of 2019; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2019 – Code Amendment – Sandwich Board Signs
Mr. Supino said the ordinance will extend the date from September 28, 2019 to September 28,
2020. In no other way does this amend the regulations. Second reading is set for August 26.
Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinance #18, Series of 2019; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 18
SERIES OF 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO
LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510- SIGNS.
Councilwoman Richards move to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 2019 on first reading;
seconded by Councilman Mesirow. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mesirow, yes; Richards,
yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2019 – Request to table item – Major Subdivision approval to
vacate a western portion of South Aspen Street
Councilwoman Mullins moved to table Ordinance #19, Series of 2019; seconded by
Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #91; SERIES OF 2019 – Silver City Ice Rink Temporary Use – 433 E. Durant
Avenue
Mr. Supino said the discussion is for a temporary use for the Silver City ice rink. The applicant
is requesting temporary use for the 2019-2020 season. That use would be in place of the
approved ice rink which was originally approved as part of a planned development approval in
1992. The temporary use would be to deliver the active public amenity approved as part of the
park zone development, and as was envisioned as part of the original development approval.
The Grand Hyatt Aspen developed the rink to meet the open space and parks requirements for
that site in the early 90’s. As part of that, it was exempted from growth management,
subdivision requirements as well as various fees including parks and water tap fees. The
approval states the park shall feature a refrigerated ice rink that will run from Thanksgiving
through March 31st. The rink presently provides a popular active and aesthetically pleasing
amenity for locals and visitors. Last year the applicant citing maintenance and replacement
costs for the existing system requested to substitute the ice surface with a plastic skating
surface. The community development director in the fall of 2018 granted an insubstantial PD
amendment to allow for that surface. This was based in large part on representations made by
the applicant about the adequacy and quality of the skating experience provided by that surface.
However, following some pretty significant comments mostly negative, from the public, about
the skating experience provided there and additional research by staff, we revoked that
approved amendment. It then required the applicant to restore the rink to its approved
condition. The applicant has appealed that revocation, which goes to a hearing officer, and that
case is pending. The applicant then submitted this temporary use application which is intended
to provide Council with an opportunity to provide direction on the preferred use of the site for the
upcoming winter. There were three options presented in the memo. They indicated a desire to
306
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2019
6
have a discussion about the future permanent use of that site to be different from the approved
use. While that discussion falls outside of the scope of this application, staff is aware those
items are linked together. The approval or not of a temporary use would not commit the Council
to any discussions about the future use of the site. Typically, we require robust documentation
for approval of temporary uses including appearance, operations and neighborhood impacts.
Staff’s position is generally to continue the hearing if you are amenable to one of the options
presented. That would allow the applicant to provide us with more information. The park or
unrefrigerated skating surface proposal does not include sufficient information to determine its
appropriateness. Staff recommends continuing the hearing for additional information.
Councilwoman Richards asked isn’t a third option to deny the permit and require them to fulfill
the refrigerated ice requirement from their original approval. Mr. Supino replied yes, that is an
option. The temporary use request outlines three proposals from the applicant. Should Council
decide not to grant the approval it would revert them back to the 1992 approval for a refrigerated
surface. There is a pending appeal of the revoked approval for the synthetic surface. The
applicant has indicated if the temporary use is not approved they would move forward with that
amendment. The future use of the site would depend upon the decision of the hearing officer.
Councilwoman Richards asked is there any timeline on the appeal. Jim True, city attorney,
replied not now. We stayed it pending this discussion. The code says within 30 days or the
closest time practicable.
Councilman Mesirow asked is it the only publicly available outdoor ice rink. Mr. Supino relied
correct. Mr. True stated it is available for a certain period during the winter.
Applicant –
Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, and Bob Weisman, chair of the board. The Hyatt is
the operator of the site. It is zoned public. It functions as a public park. Outdoor skating at the
time was very topical. There was a lot of discussion of wanting to have an outdoor skating
facility. That became part of the requirements for this project. In 2018 we were struggling with
aging infrastructure. It would be a pretty significant reinvestment. That combined with CFC 22,
refrigerant, is a banned substance now. There is a significant amount of energy use. There is a
desire by the association to have a discussion with the city as to what is the best use of the
parcel. Given the significant reinvestment what should this be. We approached the city to
replace the surface with the synthetic material. It was seen as a temporary solution while we
had the long term discussion. We were up front that it was synthetic. It does have a different
feel to it. It is not as slippery as ice. There is more friction. It is used in training facilities for
professional ice skaters and other places. We submitted the application and it was approved by
planning staff. We bought and installed the material this last season. Without notice to us we
got the revocation letter. We did not have a chance to engage with the city about the concerns.
Based on that there is an appeal that is pending. Staff reached out to us and encouraged us to
pursue a temporary use route. We would like to have a conversation as to what are the ideas
worth pursuing without having to do the full engineering. Our short term proposal is to buy that
time to have that conversation. We have 3 ideas including the synthetic material. We have it
we made the investment. We would like to go this route and address the feedback the city
received. We are taking over the maintenance which we think will have an improvement. The
city is also contemplating the synthetic surface for possibly the tennis court. The second idea is
using ambient temperature to freeze the surface. We’ve looked at a temporary chiller but there
is the noise to consider. We are not able to retrofit a temporary chiller into our mechanical
room. Flooding the surface and letting it freeze might work for Christmas and New Years, but
with sun we don’t think we can get through a full season. The third option is for a pocket park.
Chris gave out handouts. We could make an interesting place for hanging out. It could be
interactive and experimental for kids. We would need to fully vet these ideas. Long term there
is a need for a major redo and significant investment. We want to engage with the city on 307
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2019
7
exploring ideas that are minimal costs to us. The city does have a sketch plan review in the
code. It is an opportunity to come forward and run a bunch of ideas before you. We would want
to do that. The temp use would allow us that kind of time. Ideas range from what is there now
to a park. We heard there is some need for additional special event space. Ideas for parking
below. Taking the park up and commercial on the street level.
Councilwoman Mullins said the original ordinance, was summer use dictated or just winter. Mr.
Supino replied the park zoning requires an open space facility. The putt putt that is there now is
not stated in the approval. The only explicit statement is a refrigerated ice rink to operate
Thanksgiving to March. Councilwoman Mullins said I don’t want us to be forced into putting the
plastic down again. It is not acceptable as a substitution for a traditional skating rink. This
parcel does merit a much bigger conversation. It is a year long discussion. We are backed into
a corner. Is the refrigerated system completely bust. Mr. Bendon replied that is my
understanding. It utilizes CFC22 which is not available any longer. We are not intending to
back you into a corner. We thought we had a viable solution. We are truly trying to come up
with a scenario that is a viable use for the space. Councilwoman Mullins said it will have to be
pretty convincing before we go back and change the ordinance.
Councilwoman Richards said I think it was more the concept we wanted it to be refrigerated ice
not ambient. I’m looking at this and the 1992 approval. It was good 25 years ago. What has
been the annual allocation for capital replacement by the owners of the property. Mr. Weisman
said the property only opened in 2006. We inherited the ordinance and took over when we
acquired the property. Councilwoman Richards said what I’m wondering is the dedication was
required in place of fees. Would those become due if they fail their obligation. Mr. Supino said
we don’t have the means to retroactively access impact fees. Councilwoman Richards said if
the amenity no longer exists and the agreement was in perpetuity it seems like there should be
some look back to the obligations. Mr. Supino replied there is an obligation there. Our position
would be the obligation would be to continue to deliver an ice rink until that approval is amended
as opposed to retroactively seeking to recoup fees we didn’t collect at the time. Mr. Bendon
said if we need to go through the appeal process there would be discussion of equities on both
sides. Councilwoman Richards said even the term temporary use permit is temporary. Mr.
True said the amendment was an insubstantial amendment to the approval. We feel staff
appropriately revoked it based on information that was gleaned over the winter. That is up for
appeal. This is a method looking at whether there is a temporary solution that would avoid
those further processes that perhaps leads to an amendment or perhaps not. Mr. Bendon said
instead of having a legal conversation of what we are obligated to do we wanted to have a
planning conversation as to what we would like to do with the parcel. That is why we are here.
Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned with the process of something being better. I’d
love to take a look at this. If we are going in to appeal we need the records of what has been
invested into the property. It was granted to your hotel to be an amenity. There were
obligations to keep it up for the guests. It is inconceivable to me we are in this place. I am very
disappointed. I don’t see other park uses for that site. It is immediately across from Wagner
park. The malls are right there.
Councilman Mesirow said I support staff’s position. I think based on the history it is pretty clear
what is expected. I’m not closed to other creative ideas. It was very clear what the community
wanted. There needs to be clear evidence the entire community would be happy with the result.
Mayor Torre opened the public comment.
1. Toni Kronberg said for 30 years our community wanted a second ice rink. Twice voters
defeated a second rink. I voiced my support for an ice rink in that location. If we took a
look at this parcel that is zoned park and open space there are a lot of opportunities.
The noise from a temp generator is a nuisance. They have a solution that professional 308
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2019
8
skaters skate on then the next thing you know the approval is revoked and voided. In all
fairness they don’t want it to go away. They want it to be the best. The city put them in
this position. They weren’t given the opportunity to make amends. Go out to the public
and see what they would like to do.
2. Craig and Samantha Cords Pierce, operators of CP Burger. It affects our business and
we have kids who like to skate. The city may not have gone to the Hyatt about the
complaints but we did. They knew about it. The experiment failed. Craig said it’s hard
to sit here and listen to what has been said. We are tenants of their building. I had the
idea of the burger joint in 2010. When I went in the skating was where the burger place
is now. We opened the burger joint, created the kitchen and created the energy there.
Thousands of people go there every day for what we created. It is such a great place for
people to come to and get that break from their kids. Without the one the other one
doesn’t work. I can’t keep selling 7 dollar hamburgers without the other side of it. We
love it there and have 10 years to go. I’m an idea guy. I create opportunities and
spaces. I wish we were brought into this process before anything happened. This is the
first we’ve had an opportunity to talk about this. Within a week of the synthetic ice going
in we knew it was not working. We were told you have to deal with it. We are the face
of the rink. Our counter people get abused every day. We were giving the money back,
cleaning it and maintaining it. We lost over $180,000 this winter. We communicated
every week showing what was happening with the sales. We just want to be heard. We
are good for the space. Through this whole process not one time was CP burger
mentioned. We were not even thought of. Samantha said there are other options for
real ice that don’t use the banned chemicals. They are a fraction of what they thought
they would spend.
Councilwoman Mullins asked is it ice you want to see there in the winter. Samantha
replied for visitors and the town. Councilwoman Mullins said the plastic ice was a failure.
Can you see the only option a rink. Samantha replied yes. Snowmass didn’t use
synthetic ice. Vail didn’t use it.
Councilwoman Richards asked did your lease say an ice rink. Samantha replied it says
we operate an ice rink.
Mayor Torre asked have we looked in to the additional information. Mr. True replied it is
part of the record. I do not know if they have investigated it. Mr. Supino replied staff has
not had time to look into it. Mayor Torre asked were you made aware of alternative ice.
Mr. True said there are clearly alternatives to the coolant. I have not vetted the
alternative. Craig said it would go directly on top of what is there. I have no qualms
about talking about the opportunities that could be there. I’m in favor of those
conversations. The only thing that is hard for us is we are the only ones being affected
by this. We don’t want to be seen as the guys that put down the crappy ice. We can’t
survive by the way we were affected last year. We’ve invested in lights and speakers and
done everything we can to create this place everyone can come to. Samantha said in
2017-2018 we registered 7700 skaters. Through the end of February we only had 1700
skaters.
Mayor Torre closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Rachael asked about an executive session. Mr. True said staff is
recommending a decision be postponed and continued at least for 2 weeks to get further
information. You do have a right to go into executive session and receive advice from council.
Mayor Torre asked do you have a dollar amount on the savings, fee waivers from the original
approvals. Mr. Supino replied no.
Mayor Torre said we are being requested to continue this item for 2 weeks. 309
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 12, 2019
9
Mr. Bendon said we are interested in a continuance if there is something to pursue. We thought
it would be more like 4 or 6 weeks before we come back. We want to have some direction from
council if there are things you want to see.
Councilwoman Mullins said we can’t have the plastic ice again. If continued, I don’t want to see
the discussion of future uses. I would want to see how you would solve the problem using
refrigerated ice or ambient ice. Worst case is having it empty all winter.
Mayor Torre said my support here is not for a change to a park or plastic ice. I’m intrigued if
there is an option for a different cooling system. My preference is to uphold what the original
ordinance and approvals said. There is a lack of information here as well. We don’t know what
upkeep looks like or what the original waivers were. For me if it is a continuance to explore a
different system or ambient ice. I would support that. I am not interested in a conversation
about park features or plastic. It is a bad situation but it is not dire. I think it is fixable.
Councilwoman Richards said I echo Torre for the most part. I would like to know what the
waivers were and the context for understanding the Hyatt’s financials better. It is the classic we
got our approvals and now want to shed our responsibilities. That is how it feels.
Councilwoman Mullins said I think the point is we want to see ice there this winter. We can
have a conversation on the other uses that can be there.
Mayor Torre said maybe there’s an opportunity for the city to help with costs if that is really an
issue. If you prefer the city to take over the operations you could deed the property to the city.
Councilwoman Richards asked how the parcel came into city ownership.
Mr. Bendon asked for more than 2 weeks. To address Rachael’s perception of our position,
what we are facing is a significant reinvestment in to that parcel. We want to make sure we are
doing what the community wants us to do. That may be ice. If there are other ideas we want to
bring them forward. It is not an attempt to back out or shift the obligation.
Mr. Supino said staff is concerned with ensuring that the city and applicant are providing an
amenity at that site for the winter that meets community expectations. Council is looking for the
total value of the fee waivers. Ensure that staff and applicant explore reasonable alternatives
for a reliable skating surface. Rachael also requested the context of the Hyatt and their
commitment.
Ms. Ott said there was mention about looking at ownership. Should we be spending time on it.
Mayor Torre replied the applicant can come back to us if they are interested in that.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Resolution #91, Series of 2019 to September 9, 2019;
seconded by Councilman Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 2019 – adding a second alternate to the Commercial Core and
Lodging Commission
Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #20, Series of 2019; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins,
yes; Mayor Torre, yes.
310
311
312
RECEPTION#: 659064, R: $23.00, D: $0.00
DOC CODE: RESOLUTION
Pg 1 of 3,09/27/2019 at 12:58:32 PM
RESOLUTION NO. 91 Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
SERIES OF 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
TEMPORARY USE AT 433 E. DURANT AVE., LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6,
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273718285006
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Chris Bendon of BendonAdams, LLC, on behalf of G.A. Resort Condo. Association, Inc., c/o
Hyatt Residence Club, Bob Weisman, President, requesting a Temporary Use approval to
install a temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system for one-hundred
and forty (140) days per year, contingent upon the active development of plans and a land use
application for the future use of the site; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.450.050 of the Land Use Code, City Council may
grant a temporary use approval for up to 180 days, and no more than ten (10) annual recurrences;
and,
WHEREAS, via Ordinance 12, Series 1992, the site was previously approved as a Park
and Ice-Skating Rink to provide a public amenity and open space in conjunction with the
development of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and the lodge property presently known as the
Grant Hyatt Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the 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 Community Development Director, and has taken and
considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 12, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approves the Temporary Use for one-hundred and forty
140) days per year, and contingent upon the active development of plans and a land use
application for the future use of the site; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the request for the extended temporary use to be
in accordance with the applicable development standards associated with the request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section L
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council hereby approves a Temporary Use request to allow the use of a
1
313
temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system for one-hundred and forty
140) days, from approximately November 21", 2019 to March 31", 2020.
The temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system shall perform at all
times in accordance with the specifications for a Trane CGAM130 on file in the Community
Development Department. Should the noise or visual impacts from the unit exceed at any
time those represented by the applicant or manufacturer or should the skating surface and
park experience fail to meet the requirements of the amenity approved by Ordinance No. 12,
Series 1992, the Community Development Director may revoke this Temporary Use
approval. At such time, the applicant shall be required to provide a refrigerated ice-skating
surface in accordance with the approval granted in Ordinance No. 12, Series 1992.
Section 2:
The approved Temporary Use is subject to the criteria established in Land Use Code section
26.450.040 and the final site design, maintenance and management plans submitted to the
Community Development Department. Screening for the refrigeration unit shall be provided
and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the
Temporary Use. Additionally, the approved Temporary Use may be subject to review for
compliance with applicable Commercial Design Guidelines and the Commercial Design Review
regulations provided in Land Use Code section 26.412.
Section 3:
The Temporary Use on site must comply with the Outdoor Lighting Requirements outlined in
Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code.
Section 4:
The approved Temporary Use on site does not modify the existing approved use of the site as
described in Ordinance No. 12, Series 1992. Upon expiration of the approved Temporary Use, the
use of the site shall be returned to its existing condition or modified in accordance with an approved
Planned Development Amendment.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
temporary use proposal as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the
same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 6:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 7:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
2
314
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 91" day of September 2019.
Att
747,T
r
C'
Linda Manning,City I lerk Torre, Mayor
Approved as to form:
mes R. True,City Attorney
3
315
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 27, 2020
Mr. Phillip Supino, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Application Silver Circle Ice Rink – Extended Temporary Seasonal Use
Mr. Supino:
Please accept this application for a
Temporary Seasonal Use for the Silver
Circle Ice Rink.
The City of Aspen approved a previous
Temporary Seasonal Use for the 2019-2020
season to allow for a chiller to be placed
adjacent to the rink to allow for natural ice to
be used. The installation of this chiller and
its location is necessary in order to meet City
Council’s direction to revert the approved
synthetic ice back to natural ice and it was
approved in early fall 2019.
The ground-mounted chiller powers the
natural ice system and was not able to be
installed sub-surface due to its size. The unit
is roughly 17 feet long and about 7.5 feet tall,
plus a platform base. Existing placement
and screening details are provided in Exhibit
13. The site plan to the right shows the
existing location of the chiller. This location
represents the least-impactful location
regarding aesthetics and sound. A screening
wall was developed around the unit for
aesthetics and to mitigate noise, as requested by City of Aspen staff and City Council.
316
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The location was selected to be away from the restaurant and from the bus loading area
with minimal landscape changes required for its installation. The images below show the
exact placement of the existing chiller.
The unit has a listed operating sound level of 67dBa,
measured from 30 feet away. This figure was confirmed
by the installer and is roughly the sound level of an idling
RFTA bus. The system comes with “super-quiet” fans
and the installer utilized additional sound blankets inside
the frame of the device to further baffle sound. Noise
from the unit was negligible this past winter/spring.
Electrical service is already provided to this area. The
unit has been plumbed into the existing tubing system under the rink. The device was
intended to be installed at the beginning of each winter season and removed in the spring
for use elsewhere. However, after its installation and Association discussions, the
complexities and logistics of moving the chiller after each season has been realized to be
more intensive than initially anticipated.
This temporary use application seeks approval for the chiller to remain in place through
the end of the 2021 winter season, at which time the applicant anticipates continuing
conversations about the short-term and long-term use of the property with the City of
Aspen. The unit will remain dormant through the summer and fall and activated for the
winter season.
The long-term conversation has always generated ideas for this parcel to provide greater
community benefit or simply provide public benefit in a different way. We believe there
are potentially different, new ways to imagine public use of this parcel that may or may
not involve ice skating. A significant investment is needed in any circumstance and the
317
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
applicant believes that a discussion of the site’s potential is worthwhile before making
such an investment.
Please reach out if you have questions about this ground-mount system that we or the
installer can answer.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments:
1. Response to Review Criteria
2. COA Land Use Application
3. Pre-Application Conference Summary
4. Letter of Authorization
5. Proof of Ownership
6. Agreement to Pay
7. HOA Form
8. Vicinity Map
9. City Council Resolution 91-2019
10. Site Plan and Pictures
318
Ex. 1, Page 1
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
26.450.030. Criteria applicable to all temporary uses. When considering a development application for a
temporary use or an insubstantial temporary use, the Community Development Director or City Council
shall consider, among other pertinent factors, the following criteria as they or any of them, relate thereto:
A. The location, size, design, operating characteristics and visual impacts of the proposed use.
Response: The temporary use will mimic the existing character of the development and
has already been approved by the City in September 2019, which allowed for the chiller to
be installed and screened utilizing existing electricity operations on site and with
additional sound mitigation panels.
B. The compatibility of the proposed temporary use with the character, density and use of structures and
uses in the immediate vicinity.
Response: The chiller allows for natural ice to be utilized on-site and is necessary for
ongoing operations of this manner. The applicant is requesting that the chiller be allowed
to remain in place through the end of the 20’-21’ winter season due the complexities of
removing it seasonally. The chiller is properly screened to staff’s satisfaction and has
proven to be effective in its current location.
C. The impacts of the proposed temporary use on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and traffic patterns,
municipal services, noise levels and neighborhood character.
Response: The chiller is placed away from the RFTA bus stops and CP Burger, reducing
impacts to pedestrians. It is located next to a stairway up to the Hyatt property, but is
heavily screened and due to additional noise mitigation, further reducing noise levels and
impacts. The chiller is located on the interior portion of the property and does not affect
vehicular traffic or traffic patterns.
D. The duration of the proposed temporary use and whether a temporary use has previously been
approved for the structure, parcel, property or location as proposed in the application.
Response: The chiller was previously approved in fall of 2019, and the current proposal is
to stay in its current condition and location through the end of the 20-21’ season due to
the complex logistics of its removal each season.
E. The purposes and intent of the zone district in which the temporary use is proposed.
Response: The Public zone district allows for civic uses and includes a public park as one
of the allowed uses.
319
Ex. 1, Page 2
F. The relation of the temporary use to conditions and character changes which may have occurred in the
area and zone district in which the use is proposed.
Response: The request for the seasonal temporary use is in response to the complex
logistics surrounding the seasonal removal of the chiller. The applicant is requesting the
chiller be allowed to remain in place through the end of the 20’-21’ winter season to allow
for further discussions for the long-term uses of the parcel.
G. How the proposed temporary use will enhance or diminish the general public health, safety or welfare.
Response: The public will continue to be able to enjoy this public amenity either as a
skating facility or as a semi passive park.
320
Silver Circle Ice Rink - Temporary Use
2737-182-85-006
G.A. Resort Condominium Association, Inc., c/o Hyatt Residence Club; Bob Weisman, President
415 E. Dean Street; Aspen, CO 81611
970-429-9100 rwweisman@gmail.com
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611
925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com
Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision was granted approval to develop a synthetic ice surface
for wintertime use. The approval was revoked after installation. The application seeks a
temporary winter garden with either synthetic ice, natural ice but without a chiller, or a non ice
surface for a semi-passive winter park.
na na na
na na
1,300
Exhibit 72
321
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, Community Development Department,
amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
DATE: 4.27.2020
PROPERTY: 433 E. Durant Avenue, Silver City Ice Rink
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, chris@bendonadams.com
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Extension of Temporary Use , PRE-20-044
DESCRIPTION: The Hyatt Grand Aspen is the owner of Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain PD. According
to the PD approval, this lot is to function as a community activity center and seasonal public ice skating
rink.
After the original ice-making equipment installed to serve this property became problematic, the Hyatt
attempted the use of a synthetic ice system in 2018/2019. Problems with the functionality of this surface
led to a Temporary Use approval granted by City Council on September 9, 2019 via Resolution #91, Series
of 2019, for the installation of an updated chiller to create ice for the rink during the 2019/2020 winter
season. This chiller, somewhat conspicuously located adjacent to the rink, was intended to be a short-
term solution.
The Temporary Use approval expired on March 31, 2020, at which time the property owner was to
remove the mechanical equipment. The on-set of Covid-19 prevented this work from taking place before
the deadline. While removal could proceed now, the property owner has not yet developed a plan for
how to create ice for next winter and is contemplating proposing another use of the property for Council
review. The Hyatt Grand Aspen wishes to apply for a 180 day e xtension to allow the chiller equipment
to remain in place for now.
The applicant may submit the Temporary Use Extension, and is asked to do so within 30 days of the
issuance of this pre -app. The land use code requires a request for an extension to be submitted to the
Commu nity Development Director no less than fifteen days prior to the expiration of the permitted
Temporary Use. The applicant’s representative reached out to Community Development Department
seven days before the approval expired, which the City Attorney has deemed acceptable under the
circumstances of the current health crisis.
Council can allow the requested Temporary Use Extension if they find it to meet the review criteria, but
since the maximum extension would only stretch to September 28th, it will buy some time for the
property owner to work on their alternative idea, but will not settle how the rink will comply with the PD
approval in winter 2020/2021. A Planned Development Amendment application will be needed to keep
this property in compliance with the PD approval. It is expected that a deadline to submit that
application will be established within the Council resolution that addresses this Temporary Use
Extension.
Exhibit 3
322
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.312 Commercial Design Standards
26.450 Temporary and Seasonal Uses
Land Use Code:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code.
Land Use Application:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1835/Land-Use-Application-Packet -2017.
Review by:
• Staff for complete application and recommendation
• Public hearing before City Council for approval
Planning Fees: $1,300 Deposit for 4 hours of staff time (additional planning hours are
billed at a rate of $325/hour)
Referral Fees: none
Total Deposit: $1,300
To apply, please submit a single pdf document with the following information to
amy.simon@cityofaspen.com.
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre -application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur.
Proof of ownership in the form of a title commitment or a letter from an attorney licensed in the
state of Colorado
HOA Compliance form
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of
the applicant.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of
how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development
application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
Pictures of the existing Temporary Use in place. 323
A sketch plan of the site showing property lines and existing and proposed features relevant to
the temporary use and its relationship to uses and structures in the immediate vicinity.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the deposit fee will be requested.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may
or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
324
Exhibit 4325
Land Title Guarantee Company
Customer Distribution
PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when
initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions.
Order Number:BANA62010520-2 Date: 04/21/2020
Property Address:433 E DURANT AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance
Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title
Team
200 BASALT CENTER CIRCLE
BASALT, CO 81621
PO BOX 3440
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(970) 925-0610 (Work Fax)
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
Buyer/Borrower
GA RESORT CONDO ASSOC
140 FOUNTAIN PKWY # 570
ST PETERSBURG, FL 33716
Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery
CHIRS BENDON
Attention: CHIRS BENDON
CHRIS@BENDONADAMS.COM
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
Mortgage Broker
DAVIS MASSARANO
Attention: DAVIS MASSARANO
(832) 563-4042 (Cell)
DAVID@MASSARANOLAW.COM
Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery
Exhibit 5
326
Order Number:BANA62010520-2 Date: 04/21/2020
Property Address:433 E DURANT AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611
Chain of Title Documents:
Pitkin county recorded 12/21/2005 under reception no.
518732
Pitkin county recorded 12/19/2005 under reception no.
518619
Plat Map(s):
Pitkin county recorded 02/09/1993 at book 30 page 69
327
This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the
vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer
on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages,
and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county
in which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title
insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and
no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report.
Prepared For:
DAVIS MASSARANO
This Report is dated:
04/20/2020 at 5:00 P.M.
Address:
433 E DURANT AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611
Legal Description:
LOT 6,
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE SEVENTH AMENDED PLAT OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 9, 1993 IN BOOK 30 AT PAGE 69.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Record Owner:
GA RESORT CONDO ASSOC
We find the following documents of record affecting subject property:
***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION **********************
Parcel No.: 273718285006
2018 Land Assessed Value $1,286,300.00
2019 Improvements Assessed Value $30,200.00
2010 real property taxes PAID in the amount of $13,762.40.
****************************************************************
1.SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 518619 AND
RERECORDED DECEMBER 21, 2005 AS RECEPTION NO. 518732.
NO ENCUMBRANCES
Land Title Guarantee Company
Full Property Report
Order Number:BANA62010520-2
328
Exhibit 6329
Exhibit 7330
Exhibit 8
433 E. Durant St. (Silver Circle Ice Rink) – Vicinity Map
331
RECEPTION#: 659064, R: $23.00, D: $0.00
DOC CODE: RESOLUTION
Pg 1 of 3,09/27/2019 at 12:58:32 PM
RESOLUTION NO. 91 Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
SERIES OF 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
TEMPORARY USE AT 433 E. DURANT AVE., LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6,
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, CITY
AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 273718285006
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Chris Bendon of BendonAdams, LLC, on behalf of G.A. Resort Condo. Association, Inc., c/o
Hyatt Residence Club, Bob Weisman, President, requesting a Temporary Use approval to
install a temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system for one-hundred
and forty (140) days per year, contingent upon the active development of plans and a land use
application for the future use of the site; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.450.050 of the Land Use Code, City Council may
grant a temporary use approval for up to 180 days, and no more than ten (10) annual recurrences;
and,
WHEREAS, via Ordinance 12, Series 1992, the site was previously approved as a Park
and Ice-Skating Rink to provide a public amenity and open space in conjunction with the
development of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and the lodge property presently known as the
Grant Hyatt Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the 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 Community Development Director, and has taken and
considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 12, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approves the Temporary Use for one-hundred and forty
140) days per year, and contingent upon the active development of plans and a land use
application for the future use of the site; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the request for the extended temporary use to be
in accordance with the applicable development standards associated with the request; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section L
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council hereby approves a Temporary Use request to allow the use of a
1
Exhibit 9
332
temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system for one-hundred and forty
140) days, from approximately November 21", 2019 to March 31", 2020.
The temporary, portable, outdoor ice-skating rink refrigeration system shall perform at all
times in accordance with the specifications for a Trane CGAM130 on file in the Community
Development Department. Should the noise or visual impacts from the unit exceed at any
time those represented by the applicant or manufacturer or should the skating surface and
park experience fail to meet the requirements of the amenity approved by Ordinance No. 12,
Series 1992, the Community Development Director may revoke this Temporary Use
approval. At such time, the applicant shall be required to provide a refrigerated ice-skating
surface in accordance with the approval granted in Ordinance No. 12, Series 1992.
Section 2:
The approved Temporary Use is subject to the criteria established in Land Use Code section
26.450.040 and the final site design, maintenance and management plans submitted to the
Community Development Department. Screening for the refrigeration unit shall be provided
and approved by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the
Temporary Use. Additionally, the approved Temporary Use may be subject to review for
compliance with applicable Commercial Design Guidelines and the Commercial Design Review
regulations provided in Land Use Code section 26.412.
Section 3:
The Temporary Use on site must comply with the Outdoor Lighting Requirements outlined in
Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code.
Section 4:
The approved Temporary Use on site does not modify the existing approved use of the site as
described in Ordinance No. 12, Series 1992. Upon expiration of the approved Temporary Use, the
use of the site shall be returned to its existing condition or modified in accordance with an approved
Planned Development Amendment.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
temporary use proposal as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the
same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 6:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 7:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
2
333
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 91" day of September 2019.
Att
747,T
r
C'
Linda Manning,City I lerk Torre, Mayor
Approved as to form:
mes R. True,City Attorney
3
334
Ñg
ÑÑ$.$.50505050503),6%2#)2#,%)#%2).+#0"52'%2Ñg
ÑÑg
Ñ% $52!.4!6%-%4!,'5!2$2!),!2/5.$4(%0%2)-%4%2/&4(%)#%2).+Ñ!&&PLQLPXPFOHDUDQFHVQHHGHGSHULQVWDOOHUExhibit 10 335
@BendonAdams
336
337
338
339
340