HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20150504
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 04, 2015
4:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Proclamation - Aspen Police Appreciation Week
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. HPC Call Ups
a) Notice of HPC approval: 609 W. Smuggler
VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #46, Series of 2015--Street Department Dump Truck Replacement
b) Resolution #48, Series of 2015 - Proposed Use of Ruedi Water for the 15 Mile
Reach and the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan
c) Solid Waste Assessment
d) Resolution #50, Series of 2015 - Library Lease of Old Power House
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #19, Series of 2015 - 300 and 312 E Hyman Ave - Subdivision
IX. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #11, Series of 2015 - Public Projects Code Amendment
b) Ordinance #13, Series 2015 - HPC Work Session Code Amendment
c) Ordinance #16, Series of 2015 - Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4 & 5, Growth
Management Allotments
d) Ordinance #17, Series of 2015, 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and
Transferable Development Rights
X. Action Items
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting May 26, 2015
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making
• Tone and Tenor Matter
• Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1881
WHEREAS, President John F. Kennedy and a joint resolution of
Congress, established National Police Week in 1962 to pay
special tribute to those law enforcement officers who have
lost their lives in the line of duty for the safety and
protection of others; and
WHEREAS, There are approximately 900,000 law enforcement officers
serving in communities across the United States, including
the dedicated members of the Aspen Police Department;
and
WHEREAS, Since the first recorded death in 1792, nearly 19,000 law
enforcement officers in the United States have made the
ultimate sacrifice and been killed in the line of duty; and
WHEREAS, The officers of the Aspen Police Department serve the
citizens and guests in Aspen 24 hours per day, 7 days a
week, 52 weeks per year; and
WHEREAS, The Aspen Police Department is an integral part of our
community, performing their role through a vision focused
on community involvement; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor, City Council and the
citizens of Aspen hereby proclaim May 10 – 16, 2015 as
Aspen Police Appreciation Week
To recognize the dedication and service of Aspen Police officers and
to honor the service and dedication, protecting and safeguarding
our communities and democracy.
By order of the City Council this 4h day of May, 2015 .
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron,
Mayor
P1
III.a
P2
III.a
TO: Mayor Skadron
FROM: Sarah Rosenberg, Special Projects Planner
RE: Notice of HPC
Variances for
MEETING DATE: May 4, 2015
BACKGROUND: On April 22 , 2015
Development, Relocation and Variances
W. Smuggler. 609 W. Smuggler is a wood frame residence
on a 3,000 square foot property. The
contains three bedrooms and one-and
1888, this Victorian home has had a minor
the southwest corner, part of the front porch
in, and some windows and exterior materials have been
altered. A small historic shed sits at the back of the
property, and encroaches into the right of way of the alley.
The alterations include putting the house on a new
windows at the rear of the house. There will be
The historic shed located at the back of the property along the alley will be converted into a garage
with an addition made to the north façade to accommodate parking.
Drawings representing the Conceptual appro
Resolution is attached as Exhibit B .
PROCEDURE : This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation
May 4th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contac
planner, Sarah Rosenberg, 429-2754 or sarah.rosenberg
26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section
26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda.
For this application, City Council may vote to
meeting . If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A: Conceptual Design
Exhibit B: Draft HPC Resolution #13
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
Sarah Rosenberg, Special Projects Planner
HPC approval of Minor Development, Relocation
for 609 W. Smuggler, HPC Resolution #13 , Series of 2015
, 2015 , the Historic Preservation Commission
and Variances for a project at 609
muggler is a wood frame residence
on a 3,000 square foot property. The existing structure
and -a-half baths. Built in
1888, this Victorian home has had a minor addition placed at
part of the front porch has been filled
exterior materials have been
altered. A small historic shed sits at the back of the
encroaches into the right of way of the alley.
include putting the house on a new basement and adding dormers and new doors and
windows at the rear of the house. There will be minor changes to the historic fences in the front yard
The historic shed located at the back of the property along the alley will be converted into a garage
north façade to accommodate parking.
Drawings representing the Conceptual appro val are attached as Exhibit A.
. The board approved the project by a 7-0 vote.
This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made a
Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contac
2754 or sarah.rosenberg @cityofaspen.com . Pursuant to Section
26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section
26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda.
For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their May 4
. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand.
ibit B: Draft HPC Resolution #13 , Series of 2015
Relocation and
, Series of 2015
Commission approved Minor
and new doors and
minor changes to the historic fences in the front yard .
The historic shed located at the back of the property along the alley will be converted into a garage
val are attached as Exhibit A. The draft HPC
will be made a t the
Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contac t the staff
. Pursuant to Section
26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section
May 4 th or May 26 th
HPC Resolution shall stand.
P3
VI.a
10/6/1410/6/14
P
4
V
I
.
a
P
5
V
I
.
a
UP
BEDROOM #3 BATH #3
REC ROOMMECH ROOM
BEDROOM #4 BATH #4
LAUNDRY
LEGEND
PROPOSED WALLS
DEMOLITION
EXISTING TO REMAIN
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A3.0
January 22, 2015
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
N
O
R
T
H 1/4" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
P
6
V
I
.
a
UP
DN
UP
D
W
A4.0
A4.1
A4.14
A4.0
1
3
2
A4.0
14'-6"7'-0"
14
'
-
1
0
"
14
'
-
2
"
14
'
-
2
"
21'-5"
14
'
-
2
"
29
'
-
0
"
6'-9 1/2"
1
BEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOM DININGDININGDININGDINING
LIVINGLIVINGLIVINGLIVING
ENTRYENTRYENTRYENTRY
PORCHPORCHPORCHPORCH
POWDERPOWDERPOWDERPOWDER
KITCHENKITCHENKITCHENKITCHEN
CLOSETCLOSETCLOSETCLOSET
BATHBATHBATHBATH
A4.0
A4.1
A4.14
A4.0
1
3
2A4.1 2
14'-6"7'-0"
14
'
-
1
0
"
14
'
-
2
"
14
'
-
2
"
21'-5"
14
'
-
2
"
29
'
-
0
"
6'-9 1/2"
A4.1
1
DININGDININGDININGDINING
ROOMROOMROOMROOM
HALLHALLHALLHALL
MASTERMASTERMASTERMASTER
BATHBATHBATHBATH
LAVATORYLAVATORYLAVATORYLAVATORY
MASTER BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOMMASTER BEDROOM
CLOSETCLOSETCLOSETCLOSET
KITCHENKITCHENKITCHENKITCHEN
ENTRYENTRYENTRYENTRY
PORCHPORCHPORCHPORCH
LIVINGLIVINGLIVINGLIVING
ROOMROOMROOMROOM
NOOKNOOKNOOKNOOK
WWWW DDDD
RE
F
.
RE
F
.
RE
F
.
RE
F
.
LEGEND
PROPOSED WALLS
DEMOLITION
EXISTING TO REMAIN
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A3.1
January 22, 2015
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
P
7
V
I
.
a
DN
A4.04
A4.1 2
14
'
-
2
"
14
'
-
1
0
"
14
'
-
2
"
14
'
-
2
"
14
'
-
1
0
"
14
'
-
2
"
7'-0"14'-6"6'-9 1/2"
STORAGESTORAGESTORAGESTORAGE
A4.1
1
A4.0
3
OFFICEOFFICEOFFICEOFFICE BATHBATHBATHBATH
BEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOMBEDROOM
LEGEND
PROPOSED WALLS
DEMOLITION
EXISTING TO REMAIN
A4.0
A4.1
A4.14
A4.0
1
3
2A4.1 2
A4.1
1
DN
BEDROOM #2
OFFICE
BATH #2
STORAGE
14
'
-
2
"
14
'
-
1
0
"
14
'
-
2
"
7'-0"14'-6"6'-9 1/2"
14
'
-
2
"
14
'
-
1
0
"
14
'
-
2
"
12/12
12/12 12/12
12/12
4/12 4/12
4/12 4/12
3
A3.2
3
A3.2
CABINETRY
BENCH
5'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
6'
-
6
"
8'
-
8
"
7'
-
5
"
8'
-
3
"
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A3.2
January 22, 2015
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
1/4" = 1'-0"1UPPER LEVEL EXISTING
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
HPC SUBMITTAL
1/4" = 1'-0"2UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
3/8" = 1'-0"3BR #2 HEADROOM AT PROPOSED DORMER
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
P
8
V
I
.
a
DNDN
12:12
1
2
:
1
2
12:12
1
2
:
1
2
1 2 :1 2
1
2
:
1
2
1 2
:1
21
2
:
1
2
1 :1 2
4 :1 2
12:12
1
2
:
1
2
12:12
1
2
:
1
2
1
2 :1
21
2
:
1
2
1 2
:1
21
2
:
1
2
4
:
1
2 4 :1 2
1 :1 2
4 :1 2
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT
NEW SHED DORMERS
EXISTING SKYLIGHT
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A3.3
January 22, 2015
ROOF PLAN
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING ROOF PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
HPC SUBMITTAL
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
P
9
V
I
.
a
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
NON-HISTORIC CHIMNEY
PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
WINDOW TO REMAIN
HISTORIC DOOR
TO REMAIN
WINDOW TO REMAIN
HISTORIC WINDOW
W/ STORM WINDOW
TO REMAIN
HISTORIC WINDOW W/ STORM
WINDOW FASTENERS TO REMAIN.
NEW STORM WINDOW
PROPOSED
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
NON-HISTORIC
GREEN HOUSE WINDOW
TO BE REMOVED
HISTORIC WINDOW
W/ HOLES TO BE REPAIRED
IF POSSIBLE. IF NOT REPAIRABLE,
WINDOW TO BE REPLACED
WITH WINDOW
TO MATCH EXISTING W/
STORM WINDOW
HISTORIC WINDOW
W/ STORM WINDOW
TO REMAIN
WINDOW TO REMAIN
WALL MOUNTED METER
BOX TO BE RELOCATED
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
PATIO BELOW
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
TO BE RELOCATED
EXISTING GAS METER
TO BE RELOCATED
HISTORIC WINDOW
TO REMAIN
NON HISTORIC WINDOW
TO BE REPLACED
WITH NEW WINDOW
NON HISTORIC DOOR
TO BE REPLACED
WITH NEW DOOR IN
NEW LOCATION
EXISTING SKYLIGHT
TO REMAIN
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
WOOD DECK
BRICK PATIO
GARDEN
NON HISTORIC WINDOWS
TO BE REPLACED
W/ NEW WINDOWS
NON HISTORIC WINDOW
TO BE REMOVED
HISTORIC WINDOW W/ STORM
WINDOW FASTENERS TO REMAIN.
NEW STORM WINDOW
PROPOSED
HISTORIC WINDOW W/ STORM
WINDOW TO REMAIN
WALL MOUNTED METER
BOX TO BE RELOCATED
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A4.0
January 22, 2015
ELEVATIONS
EXISTING
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
1/4" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING
1/4" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION EXISTING
1/4" = 1'-0"3SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING
1/4" = 1'-0"4WEST ELEVATION EXISTING
GENERAL NOTE:
ITEMS DASHED INDICATE ITEMS
PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
P
1
0
V
I
.
a
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
88'-11"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
FOUNDATION SUB GRADE
109'-2"
100'-8"
90'-7"
118'-3"
NEW HISTORICALLY
APPROPRIATE WOOD
BRACKETS PAINTED
TO MATCH TRIM
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
88'-11"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
FOUNDATION SUB GRADE
NEW DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING
FRENCH DOOR IN STYLE AND CHARACTER
NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING
WINDOWS IN STYLE AND CHARACTER, TYP.
NEW WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING
WINDOWS THAT ARE ON THE EAST AND
NORTH SIDES OF ROOM IN SIZE AND
CHARACTER
FLASHING
NEW DORMER
EXISTING SIDING TO REMAIN
AND BE RE-PAINTED
NEW DORMER
100'-8"
NEW DECK TO REPLACE EXISTING
TRIM BOARD TO MATCH
EXISTING TRIM BOARD ON
NORTH ELEVATION
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT
EXISTING
SKYLIGHT
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
88'-11"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
FOUNDATION SUB GRADE
WINDOW WELL
109'-2"
100'-8"
90'-7"
118'-3"
TRIM BOARD TO MATCH
EXISTING TRIM BOARD ON
NORTH ELEVATION
FLASHING5
A4.1
NEW HISTORICALLY
APPROPRIATE WOOD
BRACKETS PAINTED
TO MATCH TRIM
T.O. PLY @ MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
T.O. SLAB
88'-11"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LEVEL
108'-6"
RIDGE
117'-7"
FOUNDATION SUB GRADE
RELOCATED GAS METER,
LOCATION T.B.D.
RELOCATED ELECTRIC METER,
LOCATION T.B.D.
NEW WOOD DECK
109'-2"
100'-8"
90'-7"
118'-3"
FLASHING
NEW CORNER BOARDS, WINDOW TRIM AND
TRIM BOARDS TO MATCH EXISTING IN SIZE
AND COLOR, TYP.
NEW SIDING TO MATCH
EXISTING SIDING, TYP.
NEW ASPHALT ROOF ON ALL NEW ROOFS
TO MATCH EXISTING ASPHALT COLOR, TYP
ALL NEW FASCIA AND FASCIA TRIM BOARD
TO MATCH EXISTING, TYP.
TRIM BOARD TO MATCH
EXISTING TRIM BOARD ON
NORTH ELEVATION
2" XPS INSULATION
FND. WATERPROOFING
FOUNDATION WALL
NEW FLASHING
DOWN TO GRADE
EXISTING SIDING
MAIN LEVEL NEW TJI
8"
FURRED OUT
BASEMENT WALL
HANGER
T.O. PLYWOOD= 100'-8"
(RAISED 8" FROM EXIST.
T.O.PLY)
EXISTING TRIM BOARD
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A4.1
January 22, 2015
ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
1/4" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0"3SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0"4WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
1 1/2" = 1'-0"5FOUNDATION DETAIL
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
P
1
1
V
I
.
a
T.O. PLATE @ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT SHED
100'-10 3/4"
110'-6 3/4"
T.O. PLATE @ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT SHED
100'-10 3/4"
110'-6 3/4"
T.O. PLATE @ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT SHED
100'-10 3/4"
110'-6 3/4"
A4.2
3
A4.2 4 A4.22
16'-3 1/2"
EXISTING SHEDEXISTING SHEDEXISTING SHEDEXISTING SHED
4 2
A4.3
1
12
'
-
0
"
A4.2
1
T.O. SLAB = 100'-11 1/2"
(7900.86')
T.O. PLATE @ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT SHED
100'-10 3/4"
110'-6 3/4"
LEGEND
PROPOSED WALLS
DEMOLITION
EXISTING TO REMAIN
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A4.2
January 22, 2015
SHED EXISTING
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
1/4" = 1'-0"3NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING
1/4" = 1'-0"4EAST ELEVATION EXISTING
1/4" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION EXISTING
1/4" = 1'-0"5MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN EXISTING
1/4" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING
HPC SUBMITTAL
N
O
R
T
H
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
P
1
2
V
I
.
a
A4.2 4 A4.22
2'-7 1/2"13'-2 1/2"6"
EXISTING SHEDEXISTING SHEDEXISTING SHEDEXISTING SHEDA4.3 4 A4.32
A4.3
11
A4.3
3
T.O. SLAB = 100'-11 1/2"
(7900.86')
GARAGE DOOR TRACKS ABOVE
12'-0"
T.O. PLATE @ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT GARAGE
100'-11 1/2"
NEW SALVAGED 1/2 LIGHT
HISTORICAL DOOR
T.O. PLATE @ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT GARAGE
100'-11 1/2"
T.O. PLATE@ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT GARAGE
100'-11 1/2"
T.O. PLATE @ SHED
109'-8"
SLAB AT GARAGE
100'-11 1/2"
LEGEND
PROPOSED WALLS
DEMOLITION
EXISTING TO REMAIN
2'-7 1/2"13'-2 1/2"6"
T.O. SLAB = 100'-11 1/2"
(7900.86')
GARAGE DOOR TRACKS ABOVE
ALLEYALLEYALLEYALLEY
MIN.
10'-0"
F O R WA R D O U T
B AC
K
O
U
T
F O R
W
A R D I N
F O R W A R D I N
BACK IN
EXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTING
SHEDSHEDSHEDSHED
NORTH EDGE OF GRAVEL
222211115555 NNNNoooorrrrtttthhhh 11112222tttthhhh SSSSttttrrrreeeeeeeetttt UUUUnnnniiiitttt CCCC,,,, PPPPOOOO BBBBooooxxxx 555555550000,,,,
Carbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, COCarbondale, CO
t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201t 970.963.0201 ffff 999977770000....999966663333....0000222288889999
NNNNOOOOTTTTIIIICCCCEEEE:::: DDDDUUUUTTTTYYYY OOOOFFFF CCCCOOOOOOOOPPPPEEEERRRRAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN
Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:Sheet Number:
Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:Job Site:
File:
SCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGNSCHEMATIC DESIGN
Release of these plans contemplates
further cooperation among the owner,
his or her contractor, and the architect.
Design and construction are complex.
Although the architect and his/her
consultants have performed their
services with due care and diligence,
they cannot guarantee perfection.
Communication is imperfect and every
contingency cannot be anticipated.
Any ambiguity or discrepancy
discovered by the use of these plans
shall be reported immediately to the
architect. Failure to notify the architect
compounds misunderstanding and
increases construction costs. A failure
to cooperate by a simple notice to the
architect shall relieve the architect from
responsibility for all consequences.
Changes made from the plans without
consent of the architect are
unauthorized and shall relieve the
designer from all consequences arising
out of such changes.
D
U
N
A
W
A
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
A4.3
January 22, 2015
SHED PROPOSED
609 W. Smuggler
Aspen, Colorado 81611
DUNAWAY RESIDENCE
609 W. SMUGGLER
6
0
9
W
.
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
1/4" = 1'-0"5MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0"4EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED
1/4" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED 1/4" = 1'-0"3NORTH ELEVATION
HPC SUBMITTAL
N
O
R
T
H
April 15, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
April 21, 2015
HPC SUBMITTAL
1/4" = 1'-0"6GARAGE: 3 POINT TURNING RADIUS
N
O
R
T
H
P
1
3
V
I
.
a
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION AND VARIANCES FOR 609
W. SMUGGLER, LOT G, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #13, SERIES OF 2015
PARCEL ID: #2735-124-09-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, De Tierra, LLC, represented by Land + Shelter, submitted an
application requesting Minor Development and Temporary Relocation review for the property
located at 609 W. Smuggler, Lot G, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval of Minor
Development, Relocation and Variances with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, 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 April 22, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the development proposal
meets all applicable review criteria; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approves the application with
conditions by a vote of 7 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC grants Minor Development, Relocation and Variance approval for the property located
at 609 W. Smuggler, with the following conditions:
1. HPC hereby reduces the west sideyard and rear yard setback requirements to 1’ for the
garage.
2. HPC hereby reduces the west sideyard and east sideyard setback requirements to 0’ for
the house.
3. Staff and monitor will review and approve the detailing of the skirt board that will be
wrapped around the house.
4. Staff and monitor will review and approve the detailing of the foundation and flashing to
be placed on the house.
5. Staff and monitor will review and approve the design of the brackets that are to be placed
underneath the bay window on the front façade.
6. Staff and monitor will review and approve any proposed new fences as well as any
changes to the transition between the Victorian era metal fence and the early 20 th century
twisted wire fence.
7. Staff and monitor will review and approve the material choices that are to be selected for
the new doors and windows.
P14
VI.a
8. Staff and monitor will review and approve the material choices of the two shed dormers
that are being added on the east and west elevations on the back of the house.
9. The proposed new south-facing skylight is not approved.
10. Staff and monitor will review and approve the details of the shed conversion to a garage
that includes relocating it out of the right-of-way, adding a foundation and flashing, and
stabilizing the structure. This will include monitoring the material choices of the
flashing, garage door, the door on the east side, and the window on the south side.
11. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the house
and shed can be moved must be submitted with the building permit application in
addition to a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $45,000 to ensure
the safe relocation.
12. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan
vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property : 609 W. Smuggler, Lot
G, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
P15
VI.a
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of April,
2015.
______________________
Willis Pember, Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P16
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THRU: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE: April 14, 2015
RE: Vehicle Replacement Contract Approval 2015-028 for (1) One
Tandem Axle Dump Truck
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends approval of the contract 2015-028 for the
replacement of one (1) tandem-axle dump truck for the Street Department.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The 2015 Asset Management Plan contains the funds for this
fleet replacement purchase. City Council approved the 2015 Asset Management Plan as part of
the 2015 Budget.
BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of a competitive bid process in which Trans West
Truck Trailer RV was the lowest responsive bidder with the Western Star Model 4700. The new
dump truck will be put on a 10-year replacement cycle and will be evaluated for replacement
at that time.
DISCUSSION: Part of this year’s fleet replacement plan includes the replacement of the Street
Department tandem axle dump truck. The Street Department currently has a 2004 Mack dump
truck that is up for replacement this year. This dump truck is an essential part of the Street
Department’s operation for hauling snow, sanding material, asphalt and other heavy materials
that require this type of truck for hauling. This dump truck will be a basic tandem-axle dump
truck that will have a 16-foot dump bed, bed tarp and vibrator. This new truck will also have
an auto shift transmission for ease of operation, better fuel economy and reduced
maintenance. The Mack dump truck that is being traded in is 11 years old. It is at the point of
incurring higher maintenance costs because of the amount of wear and tear over the years, yet
it is still in good condition and will merit reasonable trade-in value.
P17
VII.a
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The Streets Department has a total of $415,000.00 in its 2015 Fleet Replacement budget. This
vehicle will be purchased out of that budgeted amount.
The lowest responsive bid for this dump truck purchase was Trans West Truck Trailer with the
total bid amount of $114,169 for a new Western Star model 4700. The trade-in value of the
2004 Mack will be $46,000, resulting in a net contract price of $68,169.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The new truck will be equipped with a 350-horse power Cummins
diesel motor with a diesel after-treatment filter system for catching the diesel particulates
before they enter the atmosphere. This truck will have a 13 speed auto shift transmission that
is computer controlled to sense the weight of the load and the grade of hill and will shift the
transmission into the appropriate gear range for optimal performance and fuel economy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends council approval of contract 2015-028 for the
replacement of the tandem-axle dump truck for the City of Aspen Street Department.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution # 46, Series of 2015
on the consent calendar of Monday, May 4, 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P18
VII.a
RESOLUTION # 46
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND TRANSWEST TRUCK TRAILER RV AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
2016 Western Star Tandem Dump Truck, between the City of Aspen and
Transwest Truck Trailer RV, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for 2016 Western Star Tandem Dump Truck, between the City of Aspen and
Transwest Truck Trailer RV, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 4th day of May, 2015.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, 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, May 4, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P19
VII.a
P20
VII.a
P21
VII.a
P22
VII.a
P23
VII.a
P24
VII.a
P25
VII.a
P26
VII.a
P27
VII.a
P28
VII.a
P29
VII.a
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike McDill, Deputy Director of Utilities
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: April 27 th , 2014
MEETING DATE: May 4th , 2014
RE: Letters Regarding the Proposed Use of Ruedi Water for the 15
Mile Reach and the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council approve delivery of two separate letters to
the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), the first providing comments on the Proposed
Acquisition of a Contractual Interest in Water on the 15 Mile Reach of the Colorado River,
Water Division 5 and the second providing comments on the First Draft of the Colorado Water
Plan.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council reviewed these issues at a work session with the
Pitkin County Commissioners on April 7, 2015 and after discussion, agreed to be a co-signatory
on two letters as described above. Because the County wished to get its water plan comments to
CWCB before Council could approve it, staff is requesting that instead of a joint letter, Council
approve a separate letter adopting and supporting the County’s position.
BACKGROUND:
15 Mile Reach letter . The CWCB and Ute Water Conservancy District (UWCD) have entered
discussions and developed a preliminary proposal for the CWCB to lease an interest in water
stored in Ruedi Reservoir and owned by UWCD to preserve and/or enhance the natural
environment in the 15 Mile Reach of the Colorado River.
Although protection of this critical reach is valued by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, this
letter lists concerns the City and the County have discussed and would like to have addressed in
the proposed lease agreement.
First Draft of Colorado Water Plan letter . The First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan was
discussed at the April 7 joint meeting, and the deadline for comments is May 1. The letter
expressing the concerns council and the commissioners discussed will be finalized, signed and
delivered by the Board of Commissioners to meet that May 1 deadline. There will be additional
P30
VII.b
Page 2 of 3
opportunities to join with the County to submit comments on future drafts of this plan, and
Council can submit its support of the County’s position through a separate letter.
DISCUSSION: The requested 15 Mile Reach letter, draft attached as Exhibit A, lists five
concerns the City and the County would like addressed in the proposed Acquisition agreement.
They are:
1. The effect of releases on power generation at the Ruedi Hydroelectric Facility;
2. Impacts of a new Fryingpan River flow regime resultant from the Lease;
3. Coordinating flushing flows for Dydimo (algae growth on the river bottom) control;
4. Maintenance of reservoir levels for recreation; and
5. Utilization of all available Colorado River main stem releases to meet Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) 15 Mile Reach flow recommendations prior to utilizing leased Ruedi
water.
Details of these concerns are included in the attached draft letter.
The draft of the County’s letter concerning the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan,
attached as Exhibit B, addresses the following concerns with this Draft:
1. The need to consider the effects of climate change in modeling future water
availability;
2. The need to adopt a high level of conservation as a guiding precept statewide;
3. The need to fully vet Identified Projects and Processes (IPP’s) as to viability, realistic
yield and potential detrimental impacts to existing consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
4. The need to consider the impact of the Colorado River Compact obligations and the
absence of water in the Colorado River Basin to meet any additional transmountain diversions;
and
5. The need to elevate local land use planning as a subsection of the Water Plan.
Each of these concerns is explained in the draft letter. Staff will have the County’s final letter at
the meeting.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no costs to the City associated with the delivery
of these letters.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The potential environmental impacts of CWCB’s proposed
acquisition on the City’s power production, the flow regime, stream health, and recreation
P31
VII.b
Page 3 of 3
opportunities of the Fryingpan River are detailed in the 15 Mile Reach letter. To the extent there
are environmental concerns with the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan, they are addressed
in the letter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: We request the council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached
15 Mile Reach letter, along with the Chairman of the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners,
and have it delivered to the County for County signature and delivery to the CWCB. We request
the council to authorize the Mayor to sign a City letter endorsing and adopting the position
expressed in the County’s letter commenting on the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan.
ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to decline to join with Pitkin County in voicing
the above concerns with the proposed Acquisition and 15 Mile Reach use of water from Ruedi
Reservoir and to refrain from any comment at this time on the First Draft of the Colorado Water
Plan.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution 48, Series of 2015, authorizing the
Mayor to sign the attached joint letter concerning the 15 Mile Reach, along with the Chairman of
the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners; and authorizing the Mayor to sign and have
delivered to CWCB a letter endorsing and adopting the County’s concerns about the First Draft
of the Colorado Water Plan as expressed in the attached County letter.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Letter to Linda Bassi, Section Chief, Colorado Water Conservation Board
B. Letter to Colorado Water Conservation Board re Comments concerning the First Draft
of the Colorado Water Plan
P32
VII.b
RESOLUTION #48
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ASPEN TO SUBMIT
COMMENT LETTERS ON WATER MATTERS
WHEREAS, during a joint work session of the Aspen City Council and the
Pitkin County Commissioners on April 7, 2015, Aspen City Council directed staff
to work on comment letters concerning the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan
and concerning the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Proposed Acquisition of
a Contractual Interest in Water on the 15 Mile Reach of the Colorado River, Water
Division 5;
WHEREAS, County and City staff have prepared and reviewed comment
letters, as attached to the staff memorandum submitted with this resolution;
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has determined that the two support
letters, each in a form substantially as presented in and attached to the staff
memorandum incorporated by this reference, are appropriate and in the best
interests of the City and should be submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the Aspen City Council approves the two support letters, and authorizes the
Mayor to sign the 15 Mile Reach letter in substantially the form attached to the
staff memorandum and to submit it to the County for signature and delivery to
CWCB; and to sign a separate City letter to be sent to CWCB enclosing, adopting
and endorsing the County’s position as expressed in the letter attached to the staff
memorandum.
Dated: _________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, 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 May 4, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P33
VII.b
May _____, 2015
Via Email to : linda.bassi@state.co.us
kaylea.white@state.co.us
Linda Bassi, Section Chief
Kaylea White, Senior Water Resources Specialist
Stream and Lake Protection Section
Colorado Water Conservation Board
1313 Sherman Street, Room 718
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Comments on Proposed Acquisition of Contractual Interest in Water on the 15 Mile
Reach of the Colorado River, Water Division 5
Dear Ms. Bassi and Ms. White:
Please accept this letter as the City of Aspen and Pitkin County’s public comments on the Proposed
Acquisition of Contractual Interest in Water on the 15 Mile Reach of the Colorado River, Water
Division 5. The proposal from the Ute Water Conservancy District for a potential lease of an
undefined amount of water for an undefined number of years of a contractual interest in water for
instream flow use to preserve/improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree in the 15
Mile Reach of the Colorado River raises concerns.
Specifically, the following issues should be considered when drafting the potential lease: (1) the
effect of releases on power generation at the Ruedi Hydroelectric Facility; (2) impacts of a new
Fryingpan River flow regime resultant from the Lease; (3) coordinating flushing flows for Dydimo
control; (4) maintenance of reservoir levels for recreation; and (5) utilization of all available
Colorado River main stem releases to meet FWS 15 Mile Reach flow recommendations prior to
utilizing leased Ruedi water.
Thirty percent (30%) of the City of Aspen’s electricity is generated from the Ruedi Hydroelectric
Facility; flows above 300 c.f.s. negatively affect such power generation. Additional analyses must be
a consideration of mitigation of the resultant negative effects to fisheries in the Fryingpan River to
be caused by the proposed lease. New releases from Ruedi associated with utilization of the water
proposed to be leased from Ute Water Conservancy’s are to a Gold Medal Water fishery where
degradation is anticipated if timing and amount of releases are not constrained. Mitigation analysis
P34
VII.b
LINDA BASSI
KAYLEA WHITE
MAY ___, 2015
Pitkin County, 530 E. Main Street, 3 rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81161
City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611
should include: (a) extended flow timing; (b) spawning habitat identification and construction, (c)
integrated management and releases from other reservoirs including Green Mountain, Wolford
Mountain and Lake Granby. Ruedi Reservoir, as defined in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project’s
Operating Principles, is dedicated to water uses on Colorado’s west slope, specifically including
recreation. Releases of the leased water when stacked upon additional releases made by the Bureau
of Reclamation pursuant to other contracts should not result in reservoir levels dropping below
85,000AF or streamflows exceeding 300 c.f.s. due to the adverse recreational effects. Given the
concerns identified above, all available Colorado River main stem releases to meet FWS 15 Mile
Reach flow recommendations prior to utilizing leased Ruedi water. Lastly, the proposed lease has
been identified by the CWCB as an acquisition of contractual interest in water on the 15 Mile Reach
of the Colorado River. The lease should thus be limited solely to this purpose with no additional
uses of the water.
While ensuring additional water is available to supplement 15 Mile Reach flows is laudable and
supported in concept by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, only upon inclusion of the
considerations discussed above can there be true assessment of the environmental impacts of the
lease on the local environment and assurance that any action includes adequate protections. The
City of Aspen and Pitkin County understand a draft lease has not yet been created and thus it is not
possible to ensure comments and concerns regarding the lease are complete. We ask these
comments and concerns be used to identify elements of the environment that could be affected by
the proposed lease and be further addressed.
CITY OF ASPEN , COLORADO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY , COLORADO
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________ _____________________________
Steve Skadron Steven F. Child
Mayor Chair
P35
VII.b
April ____, 2015
Colorado Water Conservation Board
1313 Sherman Street, Room 718
Denver, CO 80203
RE: Comments Concerning the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan
Dear Members of the Colorado Water Conservation Board:
The Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County is writing to express its concerns and
recommendations regarding the First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan. Comments are centered on
four fundamental matters related to the statewide planning for water resources: (1) Drought
Planning Based on Adequate Hydrologic Modeling; (2) Adoption of a High Level of Conservation
Statewide; (3) Recognition of the Lack of Water Available for new Transmountain Diversions and
Implementation of Identified Projects & Processes; and (4) Local Land Use Planning.
River flows in Colorado primarily originate from snowmelt and changes in precipitation and
temperature patterns have the potential to greatly impact long-term water availability. Drought
planning must be well-grounded in measured climatic and hydrologic data over an extended
timeframe. Model-based forecasts grounded upon studies of precipitation and temperature futures
across the state are essential as modest temperature increases could result in marked reductions in
water availability. Modeling must consider anticipated reductions in snowpack, an earlier peak in
spring snowmelt, higher rates of evapotranspiration, reduced late spring and summer flows, and
reductions in annual runoff and stream-flow. Accurately assessing the future hydrological reality of
the state is essential to the success of the Colorado Water Plan.
Adoption of a high level of conservation by the state for all basins should be a guiding precept of
the Colorado Water Plan. Water efficiency, conservation, & reuse programs and the promotion of
agricultural conservation while maintaining viable rural agricultural economies are essential
components of a statewide high level of conservation. Examination of future and existing land uses
will ensure a reduction in any shortfall of water availability. Adequate funding for nonconsumptive
use must not be lost and is essential to environmental resiliency and recreational needs statewide.
The assumption that all IPPs will be completed and produce the projected yields is an imprecise
assumption. The IPPs, or at least those “principal” IPPs, must be vetted as to viability, realistic yield
and potential detrimental impacts to existing consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Only with a
careful analysis of the disclosed IPPs can the water supply gap be accurately assessed and the
feasibility of any new TMD evaluated.
Further, there must be recognition that a Colorado River Compact (“Compact”) call would impose a
statewide obligation to provide water to the Lower Basin states and appears to be an increasingly
reality. As an obligation of the entire state, there must be recognition of the disparate impact a
P36
VII.b
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
APRIL ___, 2015
2
transbasin diversion, has on Colorado's ability to meet that statewide obligation. Simply put, there is
not enough water available for any additional transbasin diversions from the Western Slope to the
Front Range. The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study demonstrates an average
shortfall of 3.2 MAF by 2060. A transbasin diversion is an inherently greater hit to the Colorado
River system than diversions by users in the Roaring Fork basin, as basin return flows contribute to
the water to satisfy our state’s compact. An effective statewide water plan will recognize and
account for this reality.
Successful management of future water demand is directly tied to local land use planning. Local
land use planning provides the opportunity to develop practical solutions to anticipated water supply
shortfall and should be elevated as a subsection of the Water Plan. Local water sensitive land use
planning is an essential tool to: (1) decrease the water supply gap; (2) provide low cost alternatives in
addressing the gap; (3) reflective and protective of Colorado values; (4) increase predictability and
reliability in water supply planning, reducing risk; and (5) encourage adoption of best management
practices and practical land use models to maximize water efficiency or minimize water use.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We encourage you to support the inclusion of these
concerns and recommendations in any legislation concerning the state water plan.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY , COLORADO
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Steven F. Child
Chair
P37
VII.b
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Liz O'Connell, Environmental Health and Sustainability
THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 27, 2015
MEETING DATE: May 4. 2015
RE: Solid Waste Assessment Project
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direct staff to partner with Pitkin County in
conducting a Solid Waste Assessment. The City of Aspen will contribute $44,500 towards this
effort and this funding request will be part of the fall Supplemental request.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Waste reduction efforts were first incorporated into the
Solid Waste portion of the Municipal Code in 2005 which required haulers to include recycling
fees in the base rate for trash service. Council amended the code to include waste diversion
through composting in 2011.
BACKGROUND: The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (landfill) is the sole resource for
disposing of waste from the City of Aspen. The landfill is estimated to have 19 years left at the
current rate of deposition and diversion. A study was done in 2009 to categorize the waste
coming from Aspen and indicated approximately 57-80% of the material could be diverted from
the landfill to recycling or composting. In 2014, the diversion rate for Aspen was 21%, with 1%
of that being compost diversion.
DISCUSSION: Although the waste haulers servicing Aspen are required to report the amount
of material being picked up for recycling and composting, the information they are providing is
based on estimates. The 2009 Waste Study conducted by LBA Associates, Inc. was limited to a
single day of sampling two trash trucks (one residential and one commercial) and only provided
a snapshot of the waste stream of Aspen and Pitkin County. In order to improve our diversion
rate and extend the life of the landfill, a more thorough examination of the waste stream is
necessary. The proposed Solid Waste Assessment (performed by Weaver Consultants Group and
LBA Associates) will be examining the waste brought to the Pitkin County landfill over the
course of two weeks (one in high season and one low season). This will enable us to determine
what is being brought into the landfill, by whom and when with a greater degree of accuracy than
we currently have. Knowing what we are burying in the landfill is the first step in determining
how to bury less.
P38
VII.c
Page 2 of 3
The Solid Waste Assessment will also include collecting data from the waste haulers (number of
customers, distance traveled, challenges and successes, etc.) to help establish the state of the
waste in Aspen and all of Pitkin County. There will also be public meetings to establish the
current conditions, future diversion opportunities and public concerns. After all of the
information is collected, the consultants will compile a list of feasible policy, program and
infrastructure options to be evaluated at part of increasing the diversion rate within both the City
and the County. See Attachment for more detail on the scope of work and associated costs
estimate.
Weaver Consultants Group and LBA Associates are already contracted with Pitkin County Solid
Waste Center for this project, based on direction previously provided by the City of Aspen.
These consultants have a proven track record within the waste industry and are familiar with the
unique nature of our community.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Approximately $89,500 (Attachment) will be needed to
fund this project. The City of Aspen is asked to pay for half ($44,500). This is a one-time request
that will be incorporated into the 2015 Fall Supplemental Request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Extending the life of the landfill allows Aspen to minimize
the carbon footprint of waste disposal by keeping that disposal local. Increasing the materials
recycled conserves resources needed for goods manufacturing. When the amount of recycling
increases, the environmental impact for recycling each item is decreased by taking advantage of
the economies found in larger scale operations. Composting organic materials is the most cost-
effective method for reducing the material going into the landfill, developing a saleable product
produced in our area and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with landfills.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve partnering with Pitkin
County to conduct the proposed Solid Waste Assessment and direct staff to request the
appropriate funding in the fall.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve partnering with Pitkin County on the proposed
Solid Waste Assessment project, then the information about Aspen’s solid waste components,
public concerns and policy and programming opportunities will not be assessed. The
Environmental Health and Sustainability Department will not have the information needed to
develop effective strategies for increased waste reduction within Aspen.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to direct staff to partner with Pitkin County in conducting a
Solid Waste Assessment project.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P39
VII.c
Page 3 of 3
P40
VII.c
Attachment – Tasks and Costs
The proposed Scope of Work for the Solid Waste Assessment project
The Pitkin County Landfill, representing Pitkin County (PC) and the City of Aspen, desires to generate a
comprehensive solid waste plan, with a focus being placed on waste reduction and extending the life of
the Pitkin County landfill. The first phase will include data collection, a waste composition study and a
public process to establish baseline conditions, identify opportunities for future diversion and confirm a
list of feasible policy, program and infrastructure options for further evaluation. The second phase to be
a separate project and would include a cost and benefit analysis of options selected in the first phase.
The primary objectives for Aspen include:
• Maximize waste diversion
• Review or expand food waste options
• Review public awareness and participation
The primary objectives for PC include:
• Maximize diversion, including municipal and non-municipal solid waste streams
• Generate 5-year and 10-year “zero waste” goals.
• Review public awareness and participation
Budget Estimates
Task Description Labor Costs Direct Costs Total
Project Kickoff $5,000 $500 $5,500
Data Collection $5,000 $500 $5,500
Waste Composition Studies $37,000 $10,000 $47,000
Public Involvement for Buy -In $10,000 $1,500 $11,500
Zero Waste Alternative $7,000 $500 $7,500
Report $12,000 $500 $12,500
Phase I Total $89,500
P41
VII.c
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Project Manager
THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 27, 2015
MEETING DATE: May 4, 2015
RE: Lease agreement between Pitkin County and the City for the use of
the Old Power House.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of the attached lease between Pitkin County
and the City for the County’s use of the City owned Old Power House building for temporary
relocation of the Pitkin County Library due to the County’s construction project on the main
library building located on Mill Street and adjacent to Galena Plaza.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the County’s Library expansion
plans in 2014. At a recent meeting, Council agreed to allow the Library to utilize the Old Power
House Building for approximately five months during the expansion construction, commencing
on May 1 st .
BACKGROUND: The Pitkin County Library has commenced the building remodel and
expansion project on their main building. During this project the County has requested the use
of the Old Power House building to be the temporary location for their operations to be able to
be able to serve the public on a limited basis this summer and fall.
DISCUSSION: The County will operate the facility for the duration of the lease and terms specify
the County will pay all utilities and other operational costs, however no rent will be charged. A
draft of a proposed lease is attached hereto. This lease reflects the original period of five months
with two one month options. The draft lease was submitted to the County. In response thereto, the
County submitted a modified request for six months commencing June 1 st , with three one month
options. The County was willing to agree to termination of the lease with 30 days’ notice. The
County Memo regarding the changes is attached hereto.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of lease to allow the County to
house Library operations in the Old Power House building for the period as set forth by Council.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P42
VII.d
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City of Aspen Council
From: Jodi Smith, Pitkin County
Thru: Jeff Pendarvis, City Assets
Date: April 28, 2015
Re: Pitkin County Library Powerhouse Lease Request
Last year Kathy Chandler, County Librarian, requested the use of the Powerhouse
starting May 2015 for a period of 5-months while the Library was being renovated. At
the time of the request, we were working off of best estimates for the relocation. Since
that time, the Project timeline is more defined with a move date of June 1 st to December.
City staff has drafted a lease as directed by Council based on the original request.
The County is requesting Council to consider the following changes to the lease to assist
the Library in meeting our timeline as part of your discussion and approval of the
Powerhouse lease with the County.
1) Powerhouse Lease with the County starting June 1, 2015, for 6 months.
2) Following the expiration of the 6-month lease, the County would have the option
to lease month to month, not to exceed 3 months total.
3) We respectfully request a 30-day notice to relocate back to the library building in
the event that the city needs to space prior to the termination of the lease.
Pitkin County and the Library Board wish to express our gratitude for the use of the
Powerhouse during the renovation of the Pitkin County Library.
P43
VII.d
RESOLUTION NO. 50
Series of 2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A SHORT TERM LEASE AGREEMENT FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN FACILITY (THE OLD POWER HOUSE BUILDING) BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Short Term Lease Agreement
for
Use and Occupancy of the City of Aspen Facility (the Old Power House Building) by and between
the City of Aspen, Colorado and the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. A proposed draft of
such lease is attached hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the entry into Short Term Lease
Agreement for Use and Occupancy of the City of Aspen Facility (the Old Power House Building)
by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, a draft of
which is attached hereto and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to
execute a final agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen in substantially the form attached hereto,
subject to the approval of the City Manager and the City Attorney.
Dated: _________ , 2015.
_____________________________
Steve Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, 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 ________________________, 2015.
______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P44
VII.d
CITY OF ASPEN
SHORT TERM LEASE AGREEMENT FOR
USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FACILITY
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT was entered into on May 1, 2015 by and between the City of
Aspen, a municipal home rule city, referred to as Lessor, and Pitkin County, Colorado referred to
as Lessee.
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this agreement and other good and
valuable consideration the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Description of Premises . Lessor leases to Lessee and Lessee does hereby lease and
take as Lessee the following City of Aspen facility under the terms and conditions of this lease
agreement: The Old Power House Building, 590 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado, consisting of
approximately 8 , 3 6 5 net leasable square feet on the Old Power House property, for the term
and upon the conditions and covenants hereinafter set forth. Taking possession of the Leased
Premises by Tenant shall constitute acknowledgment that such premises are in good condition
and neither the Tenant nor Landlord shall be required to make any alterations thereto, except as
set forth herein, unless agreed to in advance and in writing by Landlord.
2. Ingress and Egress . Lessee shall have the right of ingress and egress into the above
referenced Premises and the following appurtenant areas within the Old Power House property ,
but acquires no other right in any other part of the property other than the building itself: adjacent
parking lot.
3. Purpose . Lessee represents that the above-described premises are being rented for
the purpose set forth below and for no other purpose whatsoever without the written consent of
Lessor endorsed on this lease agreement: Community library .
4. Term . Unless sooner terminated, as provided herein, the initial term of this Lease
Agreement shall be for a period of five (5) months. The Term shall commence at 12:00
noon on May 1, 2015, and shall expire at 12:00 noon on September 30, 2015. Lessee is
hereby granted two options to extend the lease for a period of one month. If Lessee wishes to
exercise such options, Lessee shall give Lessor as much notice as possible, but not less than ten
(10) days prior to the end of the lease or first option term. Additional requirements and
restrictions are detailed on the attached Exhibit A.
5. Quiet Enjoyment . Lessor agrees to permit lessee, upon faithful performance of the
terms and covenants of this lease agreement, to peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy use of
the demised premises for the purpose and for the term stated above.
6. Furnishing of Services . Lessor shall furnish the following: Landscaping and
maintenance of the area around the building.
7. Utilities . The Lessee shall fully and promptly pay for all water, gas, heat, light,
power, fire alarm and sewer charges for the term of the lease. These utilities will remain in the
name of the City of Aspen and the charges will be billed back to Lessee for reimbursement to the
P45
VII.d
2
Lessor. Telephone service, garbage removal, cable television, internet access and other public
utilities of every kind whatsoever of or in connection with the use, operation, and maintenance of
the premises and all activities conducted thereon, and the City shall have no responsibility of any
kind for any utility payment except for the phone line for the fire alarm which will also be charged
to the Lessee for reimbursement.
8. Maintenance . The Lessee shall, throughout the term of this lease without any
expense to the City, keep and maintain the premises, including all buildings and improvements of
every kind which may be a part thereof, and appurtenances thereto, in good, sanitary and neat order,
condition and repair. The City shall not be obligated to make any repairs, replacements, or renewals
of any kind, nature or description whatsoever to the Leased Premises or any buildings or
improvements thereon. Further, the Lessee shall, at its own expense, keep and maintain all
entrances to the leased premises in a clean and orderly condition, free of dirt, rubbish, unlawful
obstructions, snow and ice.
9. Surrender of Premises . Lessee shall quit and surrender the demised premises and all
of Lessor’s equipment contained on and in the demised premises to Lessor at the end of the term in
the same condition as at the date of the commencement of this lease agreement, ordinary use and
wear accepted.
10. Compliance with Law . Lessee shall comply with all laws of the United States and
of the State of Colorado, all ordinances of the City of Aspen, and all rules, regulations and
requirements of the police and fire departments or other municipal authorities of the City of Aspen.
Lessee will not do or suffer to be done anything on the demised premises during the term of this
lease agreement in violation of any such laws, ordinances, rules or requirements. If the attention of
Lessor is called to any such violation on the part of lessee or of any person employed by or admitted
to the demised premises by lessee, lessee will immediately desist from and correct or cause to be
corrected such violation.
11. Defacement . Lessee shall not injure, nor mar, nor in any manner deface the demised
premises or any equipment contained in or on the demised premises, and shall not cause or permit
anything to be done whereby the demised premises or equipment in or on the demised premises
shall be in any manner injured, marred or defaced. Lessee will not drive or permit to be driven
nails, hooks, tacks or screws into any part of the building or equipment contained in the building
and will not make or allow to be made any alterations of any kind to the building or equipment con-
tained in the building.
12. Damage to Premises .
a. If the demised premises, or any part of the building on the demised premises,
or any equipment located on the demised premises during the term of this lease agreement shall be
damaged by the act, default, or negligence of lessee, or of lessee's agents, employees, patrons,
guests, or any person admitted to the demised premises by lessee, lessee will pay to Lessor upon
demand such sum as shall be necessary to restore the demised premises or equipment contained in
or on the demised premises to their present condition.
P46
VII.d
3
b. Lessee assumes full responsibility for the character, acts, and conduct of all
persons admitted to the demised premises by the consent of lessee or by or with consent of any
person acting for or on behalf of lessee. Lessee agrees to have on hand at all times, at lessee's own
expense, such police and fire force as is determined necessary by the Aspen chief of police to
maintain order and to protect persons and property.
13. Fire Hazards .
a. Lessee shall not do or permit to be done anything in or on any part of the
building, or bring or keep anything in the building, which will in any way increase conditions of any
insurance policy upon the building or any part of the building, or in any way increase the rate of fire
or public liability insurance upon the building or property kept therein, or in any way conflict with
the regulations of the fire department or with any of the rules, regulations, or ordinances of the City
of Aspen or in any way obstruct or interfere with the rights of other tenants in the building or injure
or annoy them.
b. Lessee shall not, without the prior, written consent of Lessor, put up or
operate any engine or motor or machinery on the demised premises or use oils, burning fluids,
camphene, kerosene, naphtha, or gasoline for either mechanical or other purposes or any other agent
than gas or electricity for illuminating the demised premises.
14. Assignment . Lessee shall not assign this lease agreement without the prior, written
consent of Lessor nor suffer any use of the demised premises other than as specified in this lease
agreement.
15. Staff . Lessee understands and specifically agrees that Lessor does not furnish any
staff not otherwise provided for in this lease agreement.
16. Damage to Building . In case the building or any part of the building shall be
destroyed or damaged by fire or any other cause, or if any other casualty or unforeseen occurrence
renders the fulfillment of this lease agreement by Lessor impossible, including, but not limited to,
requisitioning of the demised premises by the United States government or any arm or
instrumentality of the United States government, this lease agreement shall terminate and lessee
shall pay rental for the demised premises only up to the time of such termination at the rate
specified. Lessor hereby waives any claims for damages or compensation should this lease
agreement be so terminated.
17. Control of Building . The building, including the demised premises and the keys
thereof, shall be at all times under the charge and control of the facility manager who shall be
appointed by Lessor.
18. Indemnification . To the extent allowed by law, Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the City of Aspen, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance, from and against
all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation
claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury sickness, disease, death, property loss or damages,
or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with
P47
VII.d
4
this lease, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused
in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault
of the lessee. Lessee agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and
defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the lessee, or at the
option of the Lessor, agrees to pay Lessor or reimburse Lessor for the defense costs incurred by
Lessor in connection with, any such liability, claims or demands. The lessee also agrees to bear all
other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorney fees, whether or not any
such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false or fraudulent.
19. Insurance .
(a) The parties hereto understand and agree that Lessor and Lessee are relying
on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this lease agreement, the monetary
limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, et seq .
(b) The parties hereto further understand and agree that Lessor is a member of
the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the
CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of
Aspen Finance Department and are available to lessee for inspection during normal business hours.
Lessor makes no representations whatever with respect to specific coverage’s offered by CIRSA.
(c) Lessee agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or
policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations
assumed by the Lessee pursuant to this Lease. Comprehensive General Liability insurance with
minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence
and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all
premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property
damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and
employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations.
The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. The Lessee shall not be relieved of any
liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to the Lease by reason of its
failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance
in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(d) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and
the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be
primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or
provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to
that provided by Lessee. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall
contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The
Lessee shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above.
(e) All insurance policies carried by Lessee, its officers, or its employees shall
be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by Lessor, its officers, or its employees, or carried
by or provided by Lessor shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by lessee.
P48
VII.d
5
20. Binding Effect . This lease agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties.
21. Governing Law . It is agreed that this lease agreement shall be governed by,
construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
22. Entire Agreement . This lease agreement shall constitute the entire agreement
between the parties. Any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of
this lease agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this
lease agreement.
23. Modification of Agreement . Any modification of this lease agreement or additional
obligation assumed by either party in connection with this agreement shall be binding only if evi-
denced in a writing signed by each party or an authorized representative of each party.
24. Waivers . Waiver by Lessor of any breach of any covenant or duty of lessee under
this lease agreement is not a waiver of a breach of any other covenant or duty of lessee, or of any
subsequent breach of the same covenant or duty.
25. Remedies of Lessor Cumulative . The remedies given to Lessor in this lease
agreement shall be cumulative, and the exercise of any one remedy by Lessor shall not be to the
exclusion of any other remedy.
26. Time of the Essence . It is specifically declared and agreed that time is of the essence
of this lease agreement.
27. Paragraph Headings . The title to the paragraphs of this lease agreement are solely
for the convenience of the parties and shall not be used to explain, modify, simplify, or aid in the
interpretation of the provisions of this lease agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party to this agreement has caused it to be executed on the
date indicated hereinabove.
LESSEE:
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Approved as to form:
______________________ ______________________
By: County Attorney
Title:
LESSOR:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Approved as to form:
P49
VII.d
6
______________________ ______________________
By: City Attorney
City Manager
Exhibit A
This lease agreement is subject to the following additional conditions:
1. Lessor plans to work on the exterior of the building during the term of the lease.
The planned work includes but is not limited to: roof repair and replacement,
window repair and replacement and other work needed to protect and stabilize the
structure from the elements. All work performed will require the Lessor and the
contractors performing the work to obtain the required City of Aspen Building
Permits before work commences. The Lessor will keep the Lessee notified of the
proposed construction schedule throughout the term of the lease and will work with
the Lessee to fully communicate that schedule and coordinate the proposed work in
such a way that mitigates and minimizes as best possible the impact upon the
Lessee’s use of the building while still performing the required work from its
contractors. The Lessee hereby waives any claims for damages that may result from
the work set forth in this paragraph.
2. Pursuant to the lease termination agreement with the Aspen Art Museum (“AAM”),
the previous tenant on the property, Lessor has agreed that the AAM may conduct an
event on the grounds of the property on July 31, 2015. Specifically, the lease
termination agreement states as follows:
The City of Aspen agrees to facilitate the use of the grounds
at 590 N. Mill Street for the museum’s annual benefit Art
Crush to be held on July 31, 2015. In conjunction with the
City of Aspen Special event Committee permitting process,
the City of Aspen will work with the museum to coordinate
these approved activities on the grounds, the parking lot, and
within the facility. All planned activities will also be
coordinated with any possible tenant.” These terms do not
alleviate the Art Museum from any special event permit
requirements.
This lease agreement is subject to and conditioned upon the use of the property for
this event. Lessee agrees to work with Lessor and AAM to facilitate the AAM’s
successful production of the event.
P50
VII.d
7
P51
VII.d
Crystal Palace Subdivision
Staff Memo
5/4/2015
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
FROM: Rebecca Levy, Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 300 and 312 East Hyman Avenue
Subdivision, First Reading of Ordinance #19, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: May 4, 2015
APPLICANT : 312 E. HYMAN , LLC
REPRESENTATIVE : Mitch Haas, Haas
Land Planning, LLC
LOCATION : 300 and 312 E. Hyman,
AKA the “Crystal Palace.”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lots K and L of
Block 81, and Lot M of Block 81, City
and Townsite of Aspen.
PARCEL ID : 2737-073-38-005
2737-073-38-006
CURRENT ZONING : Commercial Core
(CC) within the Historic District. A
historic landmark designation is placed
on 300 E. Hyman.
SUMMARY : The applicant requests to
merge two parcels (a 6,000 sf lot and a
3,000 sf lot) to create one 9,000 sf lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends
approval of the request to merge Lots K and L of
Block 81, and Lot M of Block 81, City and Townsite
of Aspen.
PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION : The
Planning and Zoning Commission approved
Resolution No. 7, Series 2015 recommending City
Council approve the Crystal Palace Subdivision,
Commonly Known as 300 and 312 East Hyman
Avenue, Legally Described as Lots K and L, and Lot
M of Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen by a
vote of 5 to 0.
Photo 1: Current image of commercial buildings
located at 300 and 312 E Hyman.
SUMMARY :
This Application is only for the consideration of a lot merger between 300 and 312 E. Hyman
Avenue. Lot mergers are subject to the City of Aspen Land Use Code’s subdivision standards,
per 26.480.020(A) Applicability. At this time, no application for development, demolition or
change of use has been submitted to the City. According to 26.480.070(A), a lot merger must
follow the Major Subdivision review process, which requires one hearing before the Planning
P52
VIII.a
Crystal Palace Subdivision
Staff Memo
5/4/2015
Page 2 of 4
and Zoning Commission which was held on April 21 st , 2015, and first and second reading before
the City Council. On April 21 st , Planning and Zoning Commission considered staff’s
recommendation and approved Resolution No. 7 of Series 2015 recommending City Council
approve the Lot Merger request for Crystal Palace. Referral comments were provided by the
Historic Preservation Commission – HPC was generally supportive of the request.
BACKGROUND :
The Applicant, 312 E. Hyman, LLC, owns two adjacent parcels on the northeast corner of E.
Hyman Avenue and S. Monarch Street, and has submitted a complete application and Draft Plat
for a lot merger in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. If approved, the proposal would
create a single 9,000 square foot lot by consolidating the 6,000 square foot parcel located at 300
East Hyman, with the 3,000 square foot parcel located at 312 East Hyman.
300 E. Hyman is a single parcel composed of two lots, Lot K and Lot L, and is designated an
historic landmark. The building known as the Crystal Palace is at 300 E. Hyman, and was
erected in 1891 according to the Colorado Historical Society’s (1998) architectural survey.
Several renovations have occurred since then, including two additions on the east side of the
original structure. Lot M is to the east of 300 E. Hyman, and is not designated as an historic
landmark. According to the Pitkin County Assessor’s website, the building on Lot M was first
constructed in 1970. The Application under consideration requests that the entire resulting
parcel, including Lot M, be designated as an historic landmark upon approval of the lot merger.
300 and 312 E.
Hyman are outlined
in red.
Existing lot lines are
P53
VIII.a
Crystal Palace Subdivision
Staff Memo
5/4/2015
Page 3 of 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff finds the Draft Plat to meet the General Subdivision Review Standards in Section
26.480.040, including guaranteed access to a public way, alignment with the original townsite
plat, conformance with the CC Zone District standards, and no increase in non-conformity of
existing structures, uses or parcels. Staff also finds the Draft Plat to meet the review standards
outlined in 26.480.070 Major Subdivisions, including enabling an efficient pattern of
development in order to optimize land use, and the preservation of important features and
structures. No known natural or manmade hazards pose a risk to the site, nor does the lot merger
require stormwater mitigation or the development of other public improvements not already
present. Because there is no proposed development at this time, the proposed lot merger is
exempt from the Growth Management Quota System, School Land Dedication requirements, and
the Vehicular Rights-of-Way requirements. A discussion of staff’s findings may be found in
Exhibits A and B, which are hereby attached to this staff memo. Thus, Staff finds that the
300 & 312
E. Hyman.
Designated
historic
landmarks
are shown
in orange .
300 E. Hyman Avenue
Left: The original two-story structure has had a number of remodels and additions, including the attached
garage, shown in this historic photograph (http://aspenvictorian.com/places/300-e-hyman/).
Right: This photograph shows how the upper story of the garage was remodeled to mimic the original building,
and the ground floors of the addition continued the theme from a remodel of the original building.
P54
VIII.a
Crystal Palace Subdivision
Staff Memo
5/4/2015
Page 4 of 4
Crystal Palace Subdivision application meets all of the criteria pertaining to lot mergers in the
City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 Subdivision.
The Historic Preservation Program designates entire properties, not just the buildings on them.
Extending the designation boundary to include the newly created 9,000 sf lot is consistent with
the majority of the designation descriptions in Aspen. The Crystal Palace (300 E. Hyman) is a
designated landmark; allowing the 3,000 sf lot at 312 E. Hyman to be included in the designation
as a condition of the lot merger provides straightforward application of landmark benefits to the
entire parcel, as opposed to only 2/3 of the newly created lot. Staff recommends that the entire
9,000 sf lot be designated historic as a condition of approval. No new or extra benefits are added
to the 9,000 sf new parcel as a result of extending the designation boundary.
The property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. Exterior changes are
required to comply with the Commercial Core Historic District Design Guidelines and are
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. A 9,000 sf lot in the Commercial Core is not
uncommon. The Guidelines address larger lots by requiring street facing facades to be broken up
into modules.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the first reading of Ordinance # 19, Series of 2015
approving the Crystal Palace Subdivision.
Attachments:
Exhibit A – General Subdivision Review Standards
Exhibit B – Major Subdivision Review Criteria
Exhibit C – Draft Plat
Exhibit D - Application
P55
VIII.a
300/312 E Hyman Lot Merger – First Reading
5/4/2015
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 19
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
CRYSTAL PALACE SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 300 AND 312 EAST
HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K AND L, AND LOT M OF
BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL NOS. 2737-073-38-005 and 2737-073-38-006
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 300
E. Hyman, LLC represented by Hass Land Planning, LLC., requesting the City Council approve
the Subdivision to merge the two lots into one lot, and to designate the entire resulting parcel as
an historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, the property located at 300 E. Hyman is currently a designated Historic
Landmark; and
WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Historic Preservation
Commission and was generally supportive of the concept; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision, approval
may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, the
Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7, Series of 2015, recommending,
with conditions, that City Council approve the Lot Merger, which would allow the merger of a
6,000 square foot lot at 300 E. Hyman and a 3,000 square foot lot at 312 E. Hyman, to create one
9,000 square foot lot; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 19, Series
2015, on First Reading by a _____ to _____ (_-_) vote; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing on _____________, the Aspen City Council approved
Ordinance No. 19, Series 2015, by a ____ to ____ (_-_) vote, approving with conditions the lot
merger; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment at a public hearing; and,
P56
VIII.a
300/312 E Hyman Lot Merger – First Reading
5/4/2015
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the Lot Merger request to merge the 6,000 sq. ft. property known as
300 E. Hyman Street with the 3,000 sq. ft. lot known as 312 E. Hyman Street, as proposed.
Section 2: Plat
The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section
26.480, Subdivision , within 180 days of final approval.
Section 3: Water/Utilities
Upon future development, utility design shall be incorporated into plans that will address the service
and meter(s) for the merged lot. Electric utility impacts should be similarly addressed by any future
developer including, but not limited to, transformer capacity analysis and transformer locations.
New transformers must be maintained on-site, but outside of the public right-of-way; and
Section 4: Historic Designation:
The historic landmark designation is hereby extended to the entire parcel resulting from this
subdivision approval; and
Section 5:
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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
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 7:
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 2015, 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.
P57
VIII.a
300/312 E Hyman Lot Merger – First Reading
5/4/2015
Page 3 of 3
Section 8:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 4th day of May, 2015.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ____ day of ___, 2015.
Attest:
_______________________________ _____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P58
VIII.a
Exhibit A – General Subdivision Review Standards
26.480.040. General subdivision review standards.
A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual
unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not
eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All
streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to
ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points
and driveways are prohibited.
Staff Findings: Neither the creation of new rights of way, nor an alteration in street pattern are
proposed in this subdivision application. The property currently has, and will continue to have,
street and alley access. Staff finds this criteria met.
B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to
the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as
applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to
accommodate significant features of the site may be approved.
Staff Findings: The site under review is located on a corner of a block that was platted as part of
the City’s original townsite. Lot K and L are located on the corner of E. Hyman and S. Monarch.
While many of the lots of the original townsite are 3,000 square feet, it was not uncommon to have
larger lots on corners, particularly within the Commercial Core, such as the Brand Building and
the Elks Building. This subdivision will still maintain the appearance of three separate storefronts.
No demolition or development is included in the review of this application. An application for
redevelopment is required to meet the Commercial Core Historic District Design Guidelines which
has specific requirements for modulating larger lots, and is reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Commission for compliance. Staff finds this criteria met.
C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone
district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved
pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless
unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with
subdivision review.
Staff Findings: The existing structures and lots conform to the requirements of the Commercial
Core Zone District, which allows for a mix of commercial uses including retail, lodging, short
term rentals. There are no minimum or maximum lot sizes within the current zone designation.
Staff finds this criteria met.
D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or
increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other
mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be
considered concurrently.
Staff Findings: The lots, buildings and uses on both lots are in conformance with regulations in
the City of Aspen Land Development Code. Staff finds this criteria met.
P59
VIII.a
E. In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision,
the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to
application for subdivision.
Staff Findings: This application does not propose to demolish or discontinue any existing use.
Staff finds this criteria met.
F. If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a
structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation
of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non-
conformities will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall
be reflected in a development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City
Attorney and may be time-bound or secured with a financial surety.
Staff Findings: The existing structures and uses are in compliance, and would continue to be in
compliance if the application is approved. Staff finds this criteria met.
P60
VIII.a
Exhibit B – Major Subdivision Approval Criteria
26.480.070. Major subdivisions.
The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the
City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Major subdivisions are subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, the standards
and limitations of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards, and the
standards and limitations of each type of subdivision, described below. All subdivisions not
defined as administrative or minor subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions.
A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating
individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according
to the following standards:
1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 –
General Subdivision Review Standards.
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section
26.480.040, as discussed in Exhibit A. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes
the use of the limited amount of land available for development.
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision would not require the extension of utilities, and
does not require additional public infrastructure. Staff finds this criteria met.
3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation,
and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological
importance or contribute to the identity of the town.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting to expand the historic landmark to include Lot
M. Both lots are already located in the Historic District which requires Historic
Preservation Commission review over any exterior changes. Expanding the designation
boundary provides a straightforward application of the historic benefits and is consistent
with the Historic Preservation Program policy to designate properties and not specific
buildings. There are no geologic or vegetal features of importance on either lot. The
historic, cultural and visual significance of 300 E. Hyman would not be impacted by a lot
merger. Staff finds this criteria met.
4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development
because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding,
mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock
slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas,
slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that
could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be
accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to
the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design
Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with
P61
VIII.a
specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through a
Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: The site under review is not subject to any known natural, man-made or
geologic hazards.
5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation
techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards
and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer
may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be
defined and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The Applicant has stated that they will comply with all applicable
requirements of the Engineering Design Standards as a condition of approval. All
recorded plats require the Engineering Department to certify that the plat meets the
standards of Title 29. No engineering or design is required for this lot merger.
6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary
to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Findings: No upgrades or public infrastructure are necessary for this application.
The Applicant is aware that any public improvements will be at the expense of the
developer.
7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management
approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System,
including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and
replacement development as applicable.
Staff Findings: No development or change of use are being proposed as part of this
subdivision application.
8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter
26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance
pursuant to said Chapter.
Staff Findings: No residential uses are being proposed as part of this subdivision
application.
9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: If approved, a final subdivision plat, meeting all of the City of Aspen’s Code
requirements will be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents.
Staff Findings: No new or updated public infrastructure is required for this subdivision
application, and thus, no development agreement is necessary.
P62
VIII.a
B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or any
partial or whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more
than one parcel, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the
following standards:
No rights-of-way are necessary or required for this proposed lot merger. If approved, the
subdivision would create one parcel. Therefore this section does not apply.
P63
VIII.a
P
6
4
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
6
5
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
6
6
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
6
7
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
6
8
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
6
9
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
0
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
1
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
2
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
3
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
4
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
5
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
6
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
7
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
8
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
7
9
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
0
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
1
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
2
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
3
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
4
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
5
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
6
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
7
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
8
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
8
9
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
9
0
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
9
1
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
9
2
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
9
3
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
9
4
V
I
I
I
.
a
P
9
5
V
I
I
I
.
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Public Projects Code Amendment
Ordinance 11, Series of 2015, Public Hearing,
continued from 4/27/15
MEETING DATE: May 4, 2015
SUMMARY:
Staff is proposing a code amendment to bring the City’s Land Use Code into alignment with
State Statute. Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land
Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by a
governmental entity, quasi-municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called “public
entities”), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete
application. This is often referred to as a location and extent review. However, the review
process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has
the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process
in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. The
proposed ordinance establishes a review process for projects submitted by public entities that
complies with State Statute.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments
CHANGES FROM SECOND READING ON 4/27/15:
At the public hearing on April 27, 2015, there was concern expressed over enabling the City to
take advantage of the state’s provision for automatic approval. At the public hearing, an option
was suggested that projects submitted by the City are still eligible for Public Projects review, but
do not require a decision within sixty days. This eliminates the possibility of “fast-tracking”
Page 1 of 3
P96
IX.a
development projects for the City with an automatic approval after sixty days. The language in
the proposed ordinance has been amended in Section 2 under 26.500.060, Timing Requirements
to prohibit the City from using this sixty day approval provision.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the proposed code amendment is to create a process that provides adequate
review of certain projects proposed by public entities (and certain private development projects),
in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
This memo outlines the proposed code amendment.
Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development
Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the
most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is a similar existing
review process. The proposed code amendment includes restructuring the existing review
process, and creating two new levels of review in this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier
review system for public projects: Administrative, Minor, and Major. Administrative review is
for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements.
Minor review includes most remodels, minor expansions, and some new construction. Major
review would replace the existing COWOP process as the highest level of review for large new
construction projects that would benefit from more extensive public exposure and involvement.
Review authorities: Administrative reviews would be completed by the Community
Development Department and mostly include minor or no visual change to a property. This
review type would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative.
Minor review is a one-step review at City Council, with optional input from other City boards.
Major review is a two-step process, with reviews before either HPC or P&Z, as applicable, and
City Council. An optional advisory group may be used for additional input. The advisory group
would consist of members of other City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested
parties, as applicable. The purpose of the advisory group is to review the application, provide
feedback to the applicant, and create a recommendation to the review boards. A private
development project under this review would be required to use the advisory group.
Review process: All reviews must be completed within sixty (60) days. This should be
reasonable, as the most extensive review only requires two public hearings.
On some projects, the applicant may decide a longer timeline may be acceptable. This would be
negotiated with the City. Any private development project that is reviewed under this process
would not be required to be reviewed within sixty (60) days.
Applicability & Exemptions: A private development project has the opportunity to use this
review process if certain criteria are met. This would either be authorized by the Community
Development Director or City Council, depending on the scope.
THE FOLLOWING MEMO IS FROM THE 4/27/15 SECOND READING PACKET:
Page 2 of 3
P97
IX.a
Certain projects are not required to go through the public projects process. Projects located
within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance
and/or upgrades within the right-of-way are exempt.
Additionally, a public entity has the option to elect to go through the standard review process
that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review only serves as an
opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a
project.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff requested feedback from the public entities that this code amendment may affect and held a
meeting with P&Z to obtain feedback. Those public entities providing comment were generally
in support of the concept and direction suggested by staff. P&Z was also generally in support of
the concept and direction suggested by staff. A work session was also held with City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Land Use Code to comply
with State Statute regarding review of public projects.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015 approving amendments to the Land Use
Code upon Second Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendment Language
Page 3 of 3
P98
IX.a
ORDINANCE No. 11
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.500 – DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare an amendment to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the
Convenience and Welfare of the Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on March 16, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.31, Series of 2015, requesting code
amendments to the Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the
Public Chapter of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 – Development
Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to bring the Land Use Code into
compliance with State Statute regarding the review of projects submitted by public entities.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 1 of 8
P99
IX.a
Section 2:
Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.500 in its entirety shall read as follows:
Chapter 26.500
PUBLIC PROJECTS
Sections:
26.500.010 Purpose
26.500.020 Authority
26.500.030 Applicability
26.500.040 Procedures for review
26.500.050 Advisory group
26.500.060 Timing requirements
26.500.070 General review standards
26.500.080 Application
26.500.090 Appeals
26.500.010 Purpose
It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections,
except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the
review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such
alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review
standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible,
streamlined, thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the
City Council to be in the best interests of the community to do so.
26.500.020 Authority
Public Project review of certain public and quasi-public projects is mandated by State law,
including but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and
operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the
authority and power to exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code,
Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
26.500.030 Applicability
This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within city limits if the Applicant for
development is a governmental entity, quasi-municipal organization, or public agency providing
essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The
Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be
reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not
limitation, Public Project development shall include:
1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi-
municipal organization, or a public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or
private developer.
2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, a governmental entity, a
quasi-municipal organization, or a public agency.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 2 of 8
P100
IX.a
3. Park and recreational facilities development.
4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City
Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and
to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter.
An application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be
reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal
reviewed according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code.
26.500.040 Procedures for review
The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed
development application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review.
The necessary steps for each type of review are outlined below:
A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director:
1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an existing
property or building; or
2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an
existing property or building; or
3. Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or
represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may be
appropriate.
The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for
Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General
Review Standards.
B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not qualify
for Administrative Public Project Review, shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City Council,
during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for
Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review
Standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project
Review.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 3 of 8
P101
IX.a
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed
development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development
Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic
Preservation Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as
may be appropriate.
C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major Public
Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in
Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project Review.
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the
property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation of
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the
recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the
public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects,
pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), shall also be required to comply with the review standards of
Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission
recommendation shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3
and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as applicable.
Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review.
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed
development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director, the
advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed
public hearing.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 4 of 8
P102
IX.a
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public
Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the
review standards of Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as applicable,
and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council.
D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established
thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects and meets the criteria found in Section
26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development
Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for
Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project, pursuant
to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly noticed public
hearing. The authorization process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review.
2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private
development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering
recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony from
the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards:
a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be
completed.
c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen
Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach, and the
requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council.
6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a
Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C),
Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section
26.500.050, Advisory Group.
26.500. 050 Advisory Group
For Major Public Project Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the
project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the
City Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested
parties (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the
review process outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the
Community Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 5 of 8
P103
IX.a
agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The
decision by the Applicant to create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the
timing of the review beyond that required in Section 26.500.060, Timing Requirements.
The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section
26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review
Standards shall be used as a guide.
Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community
Development Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly
improve the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a
report of the recommendations of the advisory group to forward to P&Z, or HPC, and City
Council. The Community Development Director's report shall include:
1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the
proposed development.
2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group.
3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development.
26.500.060 Timing Requirements
Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community
Development Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for Public Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development
Director’s acceptance of a complete land use application. City projects and private development
projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D)
shall not require a decision within sixty (60) days.
26.500.070 General Review Standards
The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects:
1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise
compatible with neighborhood context; and
2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and
3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use
Code; and
4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470,
Growth Management Quota System.
26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects
The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application
authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project:
1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota
System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision.
2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 6 of 8
P104
IX.a
4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area
Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City.
26.500.080 Application
An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following:
1. The general application information required in common development review procedures
set forth at Section 26.304.030.
2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 –
Approval Documents.
3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and
is deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.
26.500.090 Appeals
An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding
administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter
26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209.
Section 3:
Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to
mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the
Ordinance.
Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 6: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 7:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of April, 2015, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of April, 2015.
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 7 of 8
P105
IX.a
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R True, City Attorney
Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2015
Code Amendment – Public Projects
Page 8 of 8
P106
IX.a
EXHIBIT A
STAFF FINDINGS
26.310.050. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings: There are no known conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings: Staff finds that it is necessary to update the Land Use Code to include a process
that complies with State Statute requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the
City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this
Title.
Staff Findings: The proposed amendment provides a venue for public review of certain projects
that might not otherwise be accomplished under the current Land Use Code, while still meeting
State requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Public Projects Code Amendment
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
P107
IX.a
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 26.500
PUBLIC PROJECTS
Sections:
26.500.010 Purpose
26.500.020 Authority
26.500.030 Applicability
26.500.040 Procedures for review
26.500.050 Advisory group
26.500.060 Timing requirements
26.500.070 General review standards
26.500.080 Application
26.500.090 Appeals
26.500.010 Purpose
It is the purpose of this Chapter to exempt certain types of development from applicable sections,
except as noted herein, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the
review, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such
alternative review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards
for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined,
thorough and coordinated review of public projects or when it is determined by the City Council to be
in the best interests of the community to do so.
26.500.020 Authority
Public Project review of certain public and quasi-public projects is mandated by State law, including
but not limited to, C.R.S. §31-23-209. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under
Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to
exempt certain types of development from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
26.500.030 Applicability
This Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within city limits if the Applicant for
development is a governmental entity, quasi-municipal organization, or public agency providing
essential services to the public and which is in the best interests of the City to be completed. The
Community Development Director or City Council may authorize a private development to be
reviewed as a Public Project pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D). By way of example and not
limitation, Public Project development shall include:
1. Affordable housing projects developed by the City, a governmental entity, a quasi-municipal
organization, or a public agency, by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private
developer.
2. Public buildings, structures, and facilities developed by the City, a governmental entity, a
quasi-municipal organization, or a public agency.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 1
P108
IX.a
3. Park and recreational facilities development.
4. Development applications determined by the Community Development Director or City
Council, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), to support important community goals and to be
reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
Routine maintenance and upgrades within the public right-of-way are exempt from this Chapter. An
application for development that is eligible for review as a Public Project is not required to be
reviewed as a Public Project. The Applicant may elect to have their development proposal reviewed
according to the standard procedures set forth by the Land Use Code.
26.500.040 Procedures for review
The Community Development Director shall make a determination that the proposed development
application qualifies for Administrative, Minor, or Major Public Project Review. The necessary steps
for each type of review are outlined below:
A. Administrative Public Project Review. The following types of Public Projects may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director:
1. Projects necessary to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes on an
existing property or building; or
2. The addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment on an
existing property or building; or
3. Projects that do not change the use, character, or dimensions of the property or building, or
represent an insubstantial change to the use, character, or dimensions of the property or
building.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, neighbors, or the general public as may
be appropriate.
The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for Administrative Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section
26.500.070, General Review Standards.
B. Minor Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds is generally consistent with the existing development, but does not
qualify for Administrative Public Project Review, shall qualify for Minor Public Project Review. City
Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application for Minor Public Project Review, based on the standards of review in Section 26.500.070,
General Review Standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project
Review.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 2
P109
IX.a
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed
development, after considering the recommendations of the Community Development
Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council.
The Community Development Director may seek advisory comments from the Historic Preservation
Commission, Planning & Zoning Commission, neighbors, or the general public as may be
appropriate.
C. Major Public Project Review. An application for Public Project review that the Community
Development Director finds represents a significant change to the property shall qualify for Major
Public Project Review. City Council, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application for Major Public Project Review, based on the standards of
review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic
Preservation Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Minor Public Project
Review.
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the
property is designated or is located within a historic district, shall forward a recommendation
of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council after considering the
recommendation of the Community Development Director and comments and testimony from
the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public
Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D), shall also be required to comply with the review
standards of Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of Decision: The Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission recommendation shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3 and the provisions of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable.
Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Major Public Project Review.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 3
P110
IX.a
2. Process: The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposed
development, after considering recommendations of the Community Development Director,
the advisory group (if applicable), and comments and testimony from the public at a duly
noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.500.070. Private development projects authorized to be reviewed as Major Public
Projects, pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall also be required to comply with the review
standards of Section 26.500.075.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Ordinance.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach as
applicable, and the requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City
Council.
D. Private Development Authorization. A private development project that meets the established
thresholds for Administrative or Minor Public Projects and meets the criteria found in Section
26.500.040.D.3, may be authorized for Public Project review by the Community Development
Director. A private development project that does not meet the established thresholds for
Administrative or Minor Public Project Review may be reviewed as a Major Public Project,
pursuant to Section 26.500.040(C), only after authorization from City Council during a duly
noticed public hearing. The authorization process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before City Council.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application is eligible for Public Project Review.
2. Process: The City Council shall authorize or deny authorization for the proposed private
development project to be reviewed as a Major Public Project, after considering
recommendations of the Community Development Director, and comments and testimony
from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of Review: The proposal shall comply with the following review standards:
a. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
b. The public project review process is in the best interest of the City to be completed.
c. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area
Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City.
4. Form of decision: City Council decision shall be by Resolution.
5. Notice Requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach, and the
requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council.
6. Effect of Authorization: If City Council authorizes a private development to be reviewed as a
Major Public Project, it shall be subject to the review procedures of Section 26.500.040(C),
Major Private Projects, and shall be required to use an Advisory group as outlined in Section
26.500.050, Advisory Group.
26.500. 050 Advisory Group
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 4
P111
IX.a
For Major Public Project Reviews, the Applicant may elect to have an advisory group review the
project prior to public hearings. The members of the advisory group shall be appointed by the City
Manager and shall consist of members of City boards, commissions and other interested parties
(including at least two (2) members of the public at large) not already involved in the review process
outlined in Section 26.500.040(C). The chair of the advisory group shall be the Community
Development Director. The chair of the advisory group shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate
meeting dates for the advisory group and facilitate all meetings. The decision by the Applicant to
create an advisory group shall constitute an agreement to extend the timing of the review beyond that
required in Section 26.500.060, Timing Requirements.
The advisory group shall meet and review the proposed development application prior to Section
26.500.040(C), Step One. The standards of review in Section 26.500.070, General Review Standards
shall be used as a guide.
Following a review of the proposed development and at such time as the Community Development
Director believes that further review by the advisory group would not significantly improve the
overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall create a report of the
recommendations of the advisory group to forward to P&Z, or HPC, and City Council. The
Community Development Director's report shall include:
1. All of the land use decisions and approvals that would otherwise be required for the proposed
development.
2. A report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the advisory group.
3. A recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed development.
26.500.060 Timing Requirements
Unless an alternate timeframe is agreed upon between the Applicant and Community Development
Director, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for Public
Project Review within sixty (60) days of the Community Development Director’s acceptance of a
complete land use application. City projects and private development projects authorized to be
reviewed as Major Public Projects pursuant to Section 26.500.040(D) shall not require a decision
within sixty (60) days.
26.500.070 General Review Standards
The following review standards shall be used in review of any application for Public Projects:
1. The proposed project complies with the zone district limitations, or is otherwise compatible
with neighborhood context; and
2. The proposed project supports stated community goals; and
3. The proposed project complies with all other applicable requirements of the Land Use Code;
and
4. The proposed project receives all development allotments required by Chapter 26.470,
Growth Management Quota System.
26.500.075 Review standards for private development projects
The following review standards shall be used in review of any private development application
authorized to be reviewed as a Major Public Project:
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 5
P112
IX.a
1. The proposed project meets all requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management
Quota System, and Chapter 26.480, Subdivision.
2. The proposed development would provide an essential service to the public.
3. The proposed development is in the best interest of the City to be completed.
4. The proposed development furthers community goals as articulated in the Aspen Area
Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, or other plans adopted by the City.
26.500.080 Application
An application for Public Projects Review shall include the following:
1. The general application information required in common development review procedures set
forth at Section 26.304.030.
2. Any documents required for recordation meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.490 –
Approval Documents.
3. Any additional materials, documentation or reports that would otherwise be required and is
deemed necessary by the Community Development Director.
26.500.090 Appeals
An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding
administration of this Chapter may appeal such decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter
26.316, Appeals. Other administrative remedy may be available pursuant to C.R.S. §31-23-209.
(Ord. No. 11-2015, §2)
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 500, Page 6
P113
IX.a
HPC Work Sessions Code Amendment, 2nd Reading
5/4/2015
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: HPC Work Sessions and Associated Code Amendments
Ordinance 13, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: May 4, 2015
SUMMARY :
The attached Ordinance amends the Historic Preservation portion of the code related to HPC work
sessions and outdated references.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Historic Preservation regulations of the City.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
The City’s Historic Preservation section of the Land Use Code (26.415) outlines the review
process and code requirements for all historic landmarks. Staff is proposing a number of
changes to address issues that have recently been raised.
1. Remove the HPC Work Session. The code currently requires any application
requesting a floor area bonus as part of their historic project to meet with HPC in a work
session prior to the application’s formal HPC public hearing. These work sessions are
non-binding, but are used by an applicant to gauge potential HPC support of the proposed
project. Although a work session meeting is noticed in a manner consistent with the open
meeting laws, because the topic of the work session is not published or posted, neighbors
and other interested community members are often unaware they occur and are not able
to provide their input at the initial design phase. When the formal public hearing comes,
often the project has received detailed comments from HPC without the benefit of
P114
IX.b
HPC Work Sessions Code Amendment, 2nd Reading
5/4/2015
Page 2 of 2
community input. Staff believes this creates an unfair situation for members of the
community, as well as the applicant, and recommends removing the work session
provision. All requests for floor area bonus would still be subject to the public hearing
process, which is properly noticed. The proposed code amendment eliminates the work
session requirement.
2. Update outdated references. The Historic Preservation Chapter (26.415) includes a
reference to outdated building codes. The proposed code amendment updates the chapter
to refer generally to the City’s adopted building codes so it does not need to be updated
every time the City adopts a revised building code.
PUBLIC OUTREACH :
Staff has discussed the merits of HPC work sessions with the Historic Preservation Commission,
and they did not feel strongly about keeping or removing the work session option. Some
architects expressed a desire to keep HPC work sessions, indicating they feel they often get
helpful feedback during them. Others expressed frustration that because the work sessions are
not binding they can’t always rely on them. Staff believes that removing the work session will
ensure a fairer process to everyone, particularly interested neighbors and community members.
City Council approved a Policy Resolution supporting these code amendments at the April 13,
2015 meeting. A copy is attached as Exhibit C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance on first reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (A LL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2015, approving historic preservation related
code amendments.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS :
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendment Redlines
Exhibit C – Approved Policy Resolution
P115
IX.b
Code Amendment – HPC Work Sessions
Ordinance 13, Series 2015
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE No. 13
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE REMOVING UN-NOTICED HPC WORK
SESSIONS AND OUTDATED BUILDING CODE REFERENCES.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to prepare amendments to the Land Use Code related to the Historic Preservation
Chapter of the Land Use Code, including Historic Preservation Commission’s work sessions,
and updating outdated references; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment with the Historic
Preservation Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on April 13, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.37, Series of 2015, requesting code
amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, clarifying the land use review process is identified in the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan as an important city policy and goal; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s goals as
articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
P116
IX.b
Code Amendment – HPC Work Sessions
Ordinance 13, Series 2015
Page 2 of 3
Section 1: Chapter 26.415.110(F) – Benefits, Floor area bonus , shall be amended as follows:
[Subsections 1 – 2 shall be unchanged ]
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of
the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The
floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review.
[Subsection 4 shall be unchanged ]
Section 2: Chapter 26.415.110(O) – Benefits, Building codes , shall be amended as follows:
O. Building codes. The City’s Adopted Building Code provides for flexibility in its
application to historic structures.
Section 3: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not
limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption
of the Ordinance.
Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 6: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 7:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the ___ day of ______________, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the ___ day of ________, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P117
IX.b
Code Amendment – HPC Work Sessions
Ordinance 13, Series 2015
Page 3 of 3
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___day of _________, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P118
IX.b
Exhibit A
HPC Work Sessions, 2nd Reading – 5/4/2015
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council , the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed amendment does not conflict with any portion of Title 26. Staff believes there is a
community interest in updating the code to fix outdated references. In addition, staff believes
elimination of the HPC work session furthers community interest by ensuing all historic projects
go through the same level of review and scrutiny in a public hearing. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan includes a number of policy statements that support this
code amendment. The plan states “The HPC’s review process should be positive, productive and
fair, with a high level of integrity, consistency and collaboration.” The current work session
format does not support this goal, as it prevents genuine neighbor engagement. Staff believes the
proposed changes implement this policy statement by eliminating un-noticed meetings on site-
specific projects. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to protect historic resources, while enabling a clear and
consistent review process. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P119
IX.b
Exhibit B, Code Amendment Redlines
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit B: Code Amendment Redlines
Chapter 26.415
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
26.415.110. Benefits.
F. Floor area bonus.
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square
feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be
considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that:
a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is
incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building;
c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic
building's form, materials or openings;
e) The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon
the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the
proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices.
Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater
likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part
of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D.
The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split
Review. No development application that includes a request for a floor area bonus may
be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss
how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations.
4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet
total.
O. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC)City’s Adopted Building Code
provides for flexibility in its application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City
has adopted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs
in a manner that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure.
P120
IX.b
Resolution No. 37, Series 2015
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 37,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS
TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department
received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to the Historic Preservation
Chapter of the land use code, including Historic Preservation Commission’s work sessions, and updating
outdated references; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the Historic
Preservation regulations in the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds
it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on
April 13, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 37, Series of 2015, by a five to zero (5 – 0) vote,
requesting code amendments to the Historic Preservation regulations in the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for
amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the Historic Preservation regulations in the
land use code. The following are the proposed changes:
1. Remove the HPC work session.
2. Establish criteria for temporary relocation of historic structures.
3. Update outdated reference.
4. Address utility transformer locations.
Section 2:
City Council directs staff to conduct the following public outreach prior to First Reading for code
amendments related to utility transformer locations:
a. Planning & Zoning Commission & Historic Preservation Commission referral
b. Informational outreach through the Community Development Newsletter
c. Direct outreach to Utilities, including Holy Cross
P121
IX.b
Resolution No. 37, Series 2015
Page 2 of 2
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or
proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 13 th day of April 2015.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P122
IX.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Lots 4 & 5, Ranger Station Subdivision – Growth Management Allotments &
Planned Development Amendment, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 16 (Series of
2015), Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: May 4, 2015
APPLICANT /O WNER :
Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC and
Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE :
Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht
PC
LOCATION :
Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Medium Density
Residential (R-6) zone district with a
Planned Development (PD) overlay
PROPOSED LAND USE :
The Applicant is requesting two
development allotments for Lots 4 and 5,
the ability to provide affordable housing
mitigation via a cash payment-in-lieu,
the ability to memorialize how to
calculate Floor Area and a five year
vested right period.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that the City Council approve
the development allotments request conditioned
on 1) the use of Affordable Housing Credits or
providing off-site affordable housing units as
mitigation for the allotments, 2) the lots being
subject to all provisions of the land use code, and
3) granting a three year vested right period.
Vicinity/zone district map of the site
P123
IX.c
Page 2 of 7
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES :
The Applicant has requested a combined review, in which all reviews and decisions are granted
by City Council. The following land use approvals from the City Council are being requested:
• Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for free-market
residential development and allotments. (As a combined review, the City Council is the
final review authority .)
• Planned Unit Development – Minor Amendment for the amendment of a site specific
development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final
review authority).
• Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to
be built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a
prescribed time period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the
final review authority ). The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of five years rather
than the standard three year period.
BACKGROUND:
The United States Forest Service (USFS) property is located in the West End of Aspen and the
property is comprised of multiple lots and blocks as well as portions of alleys and W. Francis
Street that were never improved (Figure 1). The property was originally platted as part of the
Aspen Townsite Map of 1880 and the USFS came into ownership of the subject property in
1940. In 2012 USFS officials met with city officials in a series of meetings and discussed their
intent to redevelop the administrative campus as well as sell off a portion of the property. As a
federal agency, the officials represented that they were not subject to the city’s jurisdiction. On
May 22, 2013, the United States Forest Service (USFS) recorded a survey with the Pitkin County
clerk and recorder. Entitled ‘Ranger Station Subdivision’, the survey (which was not approved
and signed by the city) created five separate lots from the federal agency’s property that is
bounded by N. Eight Street, W. Smuggler Street and N. Seventh Street (Figure 2).
As a result of the filing of the survey, the community
development department began to field inquiries on the
lots. Staff provided a summary on the development issues
associated with the lots prior to their sale, most notably
the fact that the lots had not been approved through a city
process and that the lots had not received growth
management development allotments (Exhibit C).
During these discussions, it was made clear to the USFS
and to potential buyers of the property that the city would
not object to the subdivision of the property, although the
USFS did not go through with a subdivision process.
However, as noted above, the summary emphasized that
each lot would require a GMQS allotment.
Figure 1: A portion of the Aspen Townsite Plat, 1880
P124
IX.c
Page 3 of 7
All of the lots have been purchased and a land use application has been submitted for two of the
lots with the intent of receiving a development allotment for each.
Figure 2: Ranger Station Subdivision, 2013
PROJECT SUMMARY :
The Applicant, Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC
(hereinafter Aspen Dragonfly) requests a total of two development allotments, one each for Lot 4
and 5 of the Ranger Station subdivision so that each lot can be developed residentially.
Figure 3: Lot 4 and 5
P125
IX.c
Page 4 of 7
Both lots are located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district with a Planned
Development (PD) overlay and exceed the minimum lot size required for the zone district. The
Applicant is asking 1) to pay a cash payment in lieu of any affordable housing mitigation
associated with the two development allotments being requested, 2) that the land areas associated
with W. Francis Street and the alley contained within each lot be included as part of the lot area
when calculating maximum allowable Floor Area, and 3) that the vested rights period be five
years.
Land Use Reviews:
Planned Development:
The entire USFS property is designated with a PD overlay, inclusive of the newly created lots. A
single family or duplex residence is permitted to be developed on a property, without a PD
review, if the development is compliant with the underlying zone district requirements. Lot 4 can
accommodate a single-family residence or duplex while Lot 5 can accommodate a single family
residence. The Applicant is agreeing to conform to underlying zone district requirements but is
requesting that both lots be exempt from a lot area deduction. Specifically, the land use code
calculates the allowable Floor Area of a lot not by gross lot size but by net lot size. Net lot size is
established by deducting certain areas of a lot such as steep slopes, vacated rights of way or
vehicular easements.
Lot 4 contains a portion of an access easement (formerly part of the alley of Block 9) while Lot 5
includes part of the W. Francis Street right-of-way. As outlined below in Table 1, the lot area
deducted for the access easement and W. Francis is equivalent to 96 sq. ft. of Floor Area for Lot
4 and 489 sq. ft. for Floor Area for Lot 5.
Table 1: Allowable Floor Area (maximum and with r-o-w deductions)
Gross Lot
Size
Max Allowable
Floor Area
(based on Gross lot
size)
Net Lot
Size
Max Allowable
Floor Area
(based on Net 1 lot
size)
Floor Area
Difference
SFR Duplex SFR Duplex
Lot
4
11,615 sq.
ft.
3,816 sq.
ft.
4,236 sq.
ft.
10,002 sq.
ft. 2
3,720 sq.
ft.
4,140
sq. ft.
96 sq. ft.
Lot
5
7,490 sq. ft. SFR 4,999 sq.
ft. 3
SFR 489 sq. ft.
3,448 sq. ft. 2,959 sq. ft.
Staff Comment: All city lots are subject to potential deductions in lot size when calculating Net
Lot Area if they contain steep slopes, easements, previously vacated rights of way, bodies of
water and similar features. Staff does not support treating these lots differently when calculating
deductions from gross lot area when lots in the surrounding area are subject to the deductions.
1 Steep slopes have been identified on the properties but may be manmade and were not included as a deduction. If
shown and accepted as manmade slopes by the city, no deduction is required.
2 The access easement (former alley) equals 1,613 sq. ft. in area.
3 Former W. Francis Street r-o-w equals 2,491 sq. ft. in area.
P126
IX.c
Page 5 of 7
Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing:
In most instances a multi-lot subdivision requires the development of affordable housing
mitigation in the form of physical units. Examples of subdivisions that include a certain ratio of
free-market to affordable housing development include Trainors Landing (Barbee PUD) near
Koch Park and Alpine Cottages off of E. Cooper and Alpine Court. In this case, if the USFS had
gone through a city review a minimum of 60% of the units and 30% of the project’s Floor Area
would have been required to be developed as affordable housing.
In cases where a “project consists of only one (1) free market residence, then a minimum of one
(1) affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent of the project’s total floor area
and deed-restricted as a Category 4 “for sale” unit” shall qualify to receive a development
allotment. Based upon the previously quoted code language, the required affordable housing
mitigation for each lot to receive a development allotment is 30% of the lot’s maximum
allowable Floor Area.
Generally speaking, affordable housing is permitted to be developed on site, off-site, via the
extinguishment of Affordable Housing Credits (AHCs), a cash payment in lieu, or through a
combination of these methods. The intent of the mitigation requirement applicable to these lots is
for a physical unit; however, four out of the five lots recorded by the USFS do not permit more
than one dwelling unit on the property.
The Applicant is requesting to provide the required mitigation for each lot through payment-in-
lieu. When calculating the payment, the Applicant is requesting to memorialize the payment-in-
lieu fee at the 2015 Category 4 income level ($144,393.00 per employee) for a five year vesting
period.
Table 2 Payment-in-Lieu for a Single-Family Residence (AHU vs. ADU dollar difference)
Mitigation required for a lot without a
Development Allotment
Mitigation
for a lot with
a
Development
Allotment
Maximum
Floor Area
(based on
Gross –
Table 1)
AH
Mitigation
(30% of
Maximum
Floor Area)
FTE
Conversion
(AH
Mitigation /
400)
Payment-
in-lieu for
FTEs
(FTEs x
Category 4
Cash-in-
lieu,
$144,393)
Payment-in-
lieu
(Maximum
Floor Area x
$79.97)
Difference
Lot 4 3,816 sq. ft. 1,144 sq. ft. 2.86 FTEs $412,963.98 $305,165.52 $107,798.46
Lot 5 3,448 sq. ft. 1,034 sq. ft. 2.59 FTEs $373,977.87 $275,736.56 $98,241.31
In looking at the cash-in-lieu payment it is important to consider that the amount represents a
development allotment for each lot and the total mitigation required for the lot. A typical vacant
lot in the West End with an allotment associated with the property is required to provide
affordable housing through a number of options but is typically provided in the form of a
physical accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or via a cash payment-in-lieu. The 2015 fee is $79.97
P127
IX.c
Page 6 of 7
per square floor of Floor Area developed. As a comparison, the cash payment-in-lieu for Lot 5 to
receive a development allotment is $373,977.87 based on gross lot area. If the property had a
development allotment, built out the property, and paid a cash payment-in-lieu rather than
developing an accessory dwelling unit the amount would be $275,736.56 (a difference of just
over $98,000.00).
Staff Comment: The intent of the mitigation requirement is a physical “for sale” affordable
housing unit. Although the majority of the lots cannot accommodate an additional dwelling
based upon the lot size, other mitigation options include providing an off-site unit or
extinguishing AHCs. Staff’s preference is the latter.
Vested Rights
The Applicant is requesting a vested property right for a period of five (5) years rather than the
standard three (3) year period.
Vesting provides an applicant a timeframe in which the applicant can rely on the approvals
granted in a site specific development plan. It allows the applicant to undertake and complete the
development and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific
development plan. Once vested, a development plan shall not be required to be amended as a
result of “any zoning or land use action by the city or by an initiated measure” during the vesting
period. If the vested rights expire, the project will be subject to any new regulations that may
impact the approval granted. Additionally, if the vesting expires the development allotments also
expire, requiring an applicant to reapply for growth management approval.
The Land Use Code typically provides for a three year vesting period and a variation from that
period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City does have a process for extending or
reinstating vested rights (Section 26.308.101 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights).
An extension, if granted would be approved by the City Council. Staff recommends that the
longer vesting period not be granted, as it does not provide a community wide benefit.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS :
The housing authority has been referred on this application, and the formal referral is attached as
Exhibit E. The APCHA board recommends the use of Affordable Housing Credits (AHCs) as the
preferred form of mitigation.
RECOMMENDATION: The USFS represented that, as a federal agency, they were not subject
to the city’s jurisdiction and recorded a plat creating five lots without going through a city
approval process. Prior to sale of the lots, the city provided an administrative summary clearly
outlining that each lot would require a growth management development allotment.
A growth management development allotment is being requested for both Lots 4 and 5.
Typically, on-site affordable housing mitigation is associated with a multi-lot subdivision;
however, in this case on-site affordable housing is not a practical solution given the density
allowances associated with the lots (as four out of the five lots only permit a single-family
residence). Other affordable housing mitigation options include: providing a cash-in-lieu
payment, providing AHCs as mitigation or providing off-site physical units via a buy down or
constructing new units. The intent of the required growth management review is to provide
physical units, therefore staff recommends that the Applicant be permitted to provide mitigation
P128
IX.c
Page 7 of 7
only in the form of AHCs or off-site units rather than a cash-in-lieu payment. Both of these
options meet the intent of the requirement for physical units and recognizes the physical
constraints on the lots by allowing off-site mitigation.
Staff does not support the request to be exempt from standards associated with calculations of
net lot area. Properties throughout the city are subject to deductions in lot area that affect the
calculation of Floor Area. These include deductions for former rights-of-way, which were not
originally intended to provide development rights, as well as deductions for site constraints, such
as land under bodies of water and steep slopes. Staff does not support and exemption and
recommends that these properties be subject to the same standards applicable to all properties
within the city limits.
With regard to the vested rights period, Staff recommends that the longer vesting period not be
granted, as it does not provide a community wide benefit. The Applicant always has the option to
request an extension of vested rights prior to their expiration. Vested Rights extensions are
reviewed by City Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance No 16 (Series of 2015) with the
following conditions: 1) the use of Affordable Housing Credits or providing off-site affordable
housing units as mitigation for the allotments, 2) the lots being subject to all provisions of the
land use code, and 3) granting a three year vested right period.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS :_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS :
EXHIBIT A – Growth Management Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B – Planned Development Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C– Staff Development Summary
EXHIBIT D– Application
EXHIBIT E – APCHA Referral
EXHIBIT F – Alternative, Staff Conditioned Ordinance
P129
IX.c
Ordinance No 16, Series 2015
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 16
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5, RANGER
STATION SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 273512428005 AND 273512428004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen
Dragonfly III, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly IV, LLC represented by E. Michael Hoffman of
Garfield and Hecht, requesting approval of growth management reviews for two residential
development allotments, a Planned Development Amendment for the calculation of Floor Area
and a five year vested property right; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential, R-6 with a Planned
Development Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department did not support the requests as proposed and
recommended in favor of the proposal with alternative conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090(3), City Council may accept a cash-payment-in-lieu
for required affordable housing, may allow for variations within a Planned Development
through Section 26.445.050 and may, at their sole discretion, allow a longer vested property right
during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and a
recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2015, the City Council approved
Ordinance No. 16, Series of 2015, by a ______ to ___ (__ – __) vote, approving the land use
requests; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
P130
IX.c
Ordinance No 16, Series 2015
Page 2 of 3
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the granting of two residential development allotments, one each for
Lot 4 and Lot 5, via a cash-payment-in-lieu, exempting the two lots from a lot area deduction
when calculating net lot area and permitting a vested property right of five years for each lot
conditioned on the following:
A. A cash-in-lieu payment based upon the maximum allowable Floor Area and maximum
density permitted on each lot shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for
each lot. To determine the amount of mitigation required for each lot the following
calculation shall be used:
Max. Allowable Floor Area x .3 = Floor Area required for mitigation
Floor Area required mitigation / 400 = Number of employees required for mitigation
A. The cash-in-lieu rate shall be at a Category 4 income level and locked in at the 2015 rate
of $144,393 per FTE for the vesting period unless a lesser rate is adopted by the City
Council in the future.
B. The area of former S. Francis Street within Lot 5 and the former alley within Lot 4 shall
not be deducted from the lot size when calculating the net lot area of each lot.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Approvals
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 4th day of May, 2015, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
P131
IX.c
Ordinance No 16, Series 2015
Page 3 of 3
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 27 th day of April, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _____________, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
___________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P132
IX.c
Exhibit A
Growth Management Review Criteria
Sub Section 26.470.070(9)
9. Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable. The development of a
residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in which a minimum
of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the additional floor area
is affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and
Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the total additional units and thirty percent (30%)
of the project's additional floor area shall be affordable housing. Multi-site projects are
permitted. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and shall average Category 4 rates as defined in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may
choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.
b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1)
affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total
floor area and deed-restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit, according to the provisions
of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify.
Staff Findings: The project for each lot is the permitted use for each lot. Of the two lots, Lot
4 may be developed with a single-family residence or duplex and Lot 5 may be developed
with a single-family residence. The following table provides the floor area mitigation
required based on a single family residence with a conversation to Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) and a corresponding cash-in-lieu payment. Applicant is requesting a cash payment-
in-lieu.
Gross Lot
Size
Mitigation
(30% of
Floor Area)
Employee
Conversion
Payment-in-
lieu
(Category 4)
Net Lot Size
Mitigation
(30% of
Floor Area)
Employee
Conversion
Payment-in-
lieu
(Category 4)
Lot 4 1,144 sq. ft. 2.86 FTEs $412,963.98 1,116 sq. ft. 2.79 FTEs $402,856.47
Lot 5 1,034 sq. ft. 2.59 FTEs $373,977.87 887 sq. ft. 2.22 FTEs $320,552.46
The intent of the mitigation requirement is a physical “for sale” affordable housing unit.
Although the majority of the lots cannot accommodate an additional dwelling based upon the
lot size, other mitigation options include providing an off-site unit or extinguishing AHCs.
Staff does not find this criterion met.
Sub Section 26.470.070(4)
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
P133
IX.c
Exhibit A
Growth Management Review Criteria
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Findings: The housing authority has been referred on this application, and the formal
referral will be provided with the second reading memo.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment-in-lieu be accepted for both
lots by city council. Staff finds this criterion met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment-in-lieu be accepted for both
lots by city council. As such, staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
P134
IX.c
Exhibit A
Growth Management Review Criteria
Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting that a cash payment-in-lieu be accepted for both
lots by city council. As such, staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such
non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Findings: Applicant is not proposing affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
Sub Section 26.470.090(3)
3. Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment. The provision of
affordable housing equal to or in excess of one (1) residential unit, as required by Chapter
26.470, Growth Management, via a cash-in-lieu payment shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
a. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project requiring such
affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal parameters of the
development or of the site or would be inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
Staff Findings: With the configuration of the lots, Lot 4 is large enough to be developed with
a duplex, while Lot 5 can be developed with a single-family residence. In general almost of
the lots only permit one primary residence, making physical on-site affordable housing units
impractical. Staff finds this criterion met.
b. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required
affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling units or the deed
restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing status.
Staff Findings: As noted in the application, the applicant has investigated the potential for a
buy down and is concerned over the increased cost compared to a cash-in-lieu payment.
c. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the cash-in-lieu payment will result
in the near-term production of affordable housing units. A recommendation from the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing
mitigation to be provided through a cash-in-lieu payment, including all or none. Unless
otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu
payment for a fraction of a dwelling unit shall not require City Council approval.
Staff Findings: Accepting a cash payment-in-lieu will not further the production of housing
compared to the buying down of a physical unit or purchasing Affordable Housing Credits.
Staff does not find this criterion met.
P135
IX.c
Exhibit B
Planned Development Standards
26.445.050. Project Review Standards.
The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any
dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The
burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application
and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying
zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the
dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional
variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review
of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following:
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies
with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Findings: The property is not subject to any regulatory plans. Staff finds this criterion is
not applicable.
B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development
on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep,
rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide
areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable
for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed
in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation
techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs,
mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review
and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: The lots do not appear to include lands unsuitable for development. Some steep
slopes are present but may be a man-made condition affecting a portion of the lots that will not
harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Overall, both of the lots can be developed.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as
steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or
contribute to the identity of the town.
3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
P136
IX.c
Exhibit B
Planned Development Standards
Staff Findings(1, 2 & 3): The lots are configured so that minimum lot sizes are met and that
the lots are oriented towards public streets. Future development of the lots with residences
will reflect the neighborhood context. Staff finds this criterion met.
D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established
during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any
dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to
the following criteria:
1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
Staff Findings: Applicant is requesting that certain areas of land that are typically
deducted when calculating allowable Floor Area of a lot not be deducted. This variation
will treat the two lots differently from other lots within the city. Staff does not believe
allowing for additional Floor Area supports any significant community goal. Staff does
not find this criterion met.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
Staff Findings: The permitted use is either a single-family residence or duplex depending
on lot size for each lot. Not deducting the rights-of-way will result in a potentially larger
residence.
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of
nearby historical or cultural resources.
Staff Findings: The permitted use is either a single-family residence or duplex depending
on lot size for each lot. Not deducting the rights-of-way will result in a potentially larger
residence.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
Staff Findings: Parking is not part of this discussion and the parking requirement will be
met when the lot is proposed for development. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review.
Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 –
Amendments.
Staff Findings: The applicant is not asking for design flexibility between Project Review
and Detailed Review. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
P137
IX.c
Exhibit B
Planned Development Standards
E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be
used:
1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards , Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards , and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation .
2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Findings (1 & 2): The development of each lot will be subject to the city’s residential
design standards. As a vacant lot the criteria are not applicable to this review. Staff finds the
review criteria not applicable.
F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed
Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: Single family and duplex development is exempt from developing pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit facilities. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the
applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: When developed, the lots will comply with all requirements of Title 29 and the
URMP. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall
upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be
at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Findings: When developed, the lots will comply with all public infrastructure requirements.
Staff finds this criterion met.
I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or
obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
P138
IX.c
Exhibit B
Planned Development Standards
Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure
adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and
driveways are prohibited.
Staff Findings: All lots have access to the public right-of-way. Staff finds this criterion met.
P139
IX.c
P140
IX.c
P141
IX.c
E. Michael Hoffman
E - m a i l : mhoffman@garfieldhecht.com
Phone: (970) 544-3442
Revised March 24, 2015
Originally Submitted February 24, 2015
Aspen City Council
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: GMQS Application of Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners
IV, LLC, for Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station "Subdivision"
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC is the owner of Lot 4 and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC
is the owner of Lot 5, each as depicted and described on the survey of Ranger Station
Subdivision recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado, in Plat Book 103 at
Page 1, as Reception No. 599691 (the "Survey Plat"). (Lots 4 and 5 will be referred to in this
application as the "Subject Lots." Together, the two owners of the Subject Lots are referred to
herein as "Aspen Dragonfly.")
Executive Summary: Aspen Dragonfly seeks Growth Management approval for development of
a single family home on each of the Subject Lots. To resolve a disagreement concerning which
section of the Growth Management code applies to the property, the applicant seeks the right to
pay "cash-in-lieu" at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, calculated based on the
regulations now in place or, if City regulations are changed to reduce the cost of employee
housing mitigation, those in place at the time of building permit issuance.
This application is filed for the purpose of securing from the City of Aspen all land use approvals
which are prerequisite to the receipt of a building permit for each of the Subject Lots. The
applicant seeks a vested right to pay a "liquidated sum" or to complete other defined performance
so that it, or its successors in each of the Subject Lots, may file an application for a building
permit and know with certainty what it must pay or what performance it must complete to
receive the building permit. This includes, without limitation, the sum required to be paid or the
performance required to satisfy the City's Growth Management regulations. Aspen Dragonfly
P142
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 2
recognizes that it will also need to satisfy the City's Building Code and other "design-specific"
regulatory requirements to receive a building permit.
Pursuant to Code § 26.304.060. B.1., Aspen Dragonfly asks that the various requests set forth in
this application be combined and considered by Aspen City Council. The question of the type of
employee housing mitigation to be provided by the Applicant is ultimately the decision of City
Council, and it makes sense that it deal with all related aspects of this request in connection with
that primary question.
As described in the Pre-Application Conference Summary (the "Pre-App") dated January 6,
2015, the Aspen Land Use Code's Growth Management chapter is the essential element of Aspen
Dragonfly's current request. Although the Applicant does not waive its argument that a less
demanding section of the Code should apply,1 this application is submitted to secure a growth
management allotment pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070.9.b. This section of the Code allows
an applicant to satisfy the affordable housing mitigation requirement through construction of
newly-built units, buy-down of existing affordable housing stock, payment of cash-in-lieu (with
conditions), use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, or a mix of these methods. Once a
Growth Management allotment has been granted and the relevant conditions satisfied, no additional
affordable housing will be required in connection with construction of a home on either of the
Subject Lots.
The affordable housing impact of new construction is tied by Code to the size of the home to be
constructed onsite. Generally speaking, the larger the home, the more employee housing mitigation
required. Aspen Dragonfly is not currently seeking the right to build a structure of a particular size
on either of the two Subject Lots. Instead, it seeks a vested right to mitigate the employee housing
impacts through a particular methodology -- by payment of "cash-in-lieu" utilizing the lesser of the
increment of cash-in-lieu currently found in the Code or which exists in the Code at the time a
building permit is issued for improvements to each of the Lots. The amount of cash-in-lieu per
"FTE" currently found in the Code is $144,393. However, the "per FTE" cash-in-lieu requirement
will likely be reduced based, at least in part, on the results of the Aspen Residential Employee
Generation Study, dated March 4, completed for the City by RRC Associates. This study reported a
substantial reduction in the number of employees "generated" residential development. If the
information provided in the study, among other things, leads the City to adopt a lower "cash-in-lieu"
payment requirement, that lower requirement should apply to the amount paid to develop the
Subject Lots.
The maximum floor area of a home which may be built on a particular parcel is limited by Code and
depends on the size of the lot and the floor area ratio applicable in the zone district in which the
property is located.
1 The applicant's argument that a different part of the Growth Management section of the Land Use Code should
apply to this application is articulated in a letter dated August 14, 2014, from Attorney Curtis Sanders to City
Attorney James R. True. A copy of the "Sanders Letter" is attached to this application as Exhibit A.
P143
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 3
A. History of Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Subdivision.2
The Aspen Town Site Map dated March 25, 1880 as Reception No. 860, Pitkin County, Colorado
(the "1880 Townsite Map") created the 121 separate blocks comprising the City of Aspen, with
each block consisting of up to eighteen separate, 100 foot by 30 foot lots, together with certain
streets and alleys also depicted thereon.
By a final condemnation award dated May 16, 1940, all of the following lands located in the City
of Aspen and depicted on the 1880 Townsite Map were adjudged and decreed to the use of the
United States as Petitioner (collectively, the "Forest Service Lands"):
All of lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S of Block 9, and
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S of Block 10 of the
Townsite and City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, together with
abandoned alleys and streets adjacent thereto, more particularly described as
follows: Francis Street in said Blocks 10 and 9 of said alley - between Seventh
and Eighth Streets and also the alley in Block 9 between Seventh and Eighth
Streets and also that part of the alley in said Block 10 lying between Lots C, D, E,
F, G, H and I on the north thereof and M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S on the South in
said Block 10.
By confirmation quitclaim deed recorded May 20, 1940 in Book 157 at Page 633, Pitkin County,
Colorado, Charles F. Garlington conveyed all of the Forest Service Lands to the United States.
The alleys and streets contained within the Forest Service Lands were previously vacated and
abandoned by the City of Aspen in a Resolution of the Aspen City Council dated March 3, 1937.
The Forest Service owned the property from May of 1940 until September of 2013, when, over a
six-month period, it conveyed the five lots of the "Ranger Station Subdivision" to three separate
owners.
As depicted on the Survey Plat, Lot 4 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, O, and P, Block
10, Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned alley lying
immediately to the north of Lots K, L, M, N, O, and P.
As depicted on the Survey Plat, Lot 5 consists of portions of Lots K, L, M, N, and O, Block 10,
Townsite and City of Aspen, together with a portion of the vacated and abandoned Francis Street
lying immediately to the south of Lots K, L, M, and N.
The Aspen Dragonfly properties and the historic lots established by the Aspen Townsite Plat are
each shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto.
On August 27, 2013, the United States General Services Administration conducted an auction for
the purpose of selling the five Ranger Station lots. Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC acquired
Lots 4 and 5 pursuant to a Quitclaim Deed given by the United States as grantor, dated March 18,
2 The information in this section is based on material prepared by attorney Curtis B. Sanders on behalf of Aspen
Dragonfly and the other owners of lots within the Ranger Subdivision and is used with permission.
P144
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 4
2014 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado on May 1, 2014 as
Reception No. 609963. On December 9, 2014, Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC conveyed Lot
5 to Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC; it retained ownership of Lot 4.
B. Development Rights Associated with the Subject Lots.
The physical area which is the Subject Lots was made a part of the City of Aspen by its inclusion
in the 1880 Townsite Map. The U.S. Forest Service acquired title to the property through a
condemnation proceeding completed in 1940. Both the condemnation award and the quit claim
deed which memorialized the conveyance of the property to the USFS described the large parcel
by reference to the lots and blocks of the 1880 Townsite Map.
All of the Forest Service Lands were owned by the Forest Service for approximately 74 years.
Aspen Dragonfly acquired a part of those lands, the Subject Lots, in May of 2014.
Code Section 26.470.060.2.a.3) should apply to this application because the Subject Lots include
portions of lots described in the 1880 Townsite Map. Each of the Subject Lots should be "Non-
conforming Lots of Record" and processed under Code Section 26.312.050 A. That section
provides as follows:
A detached single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be
developed on a lot of record if:
1. The lot of record is in separate ownership and not contiguous to lots in
the same ownership; and
2. The proposed single-family dwelling can be located on the lot so that
the yard, height, open space and floor area dimensional requirements of
the zone district can be met or a variance is obtained from said
dimensional requirements pursuant to Chapter 26.314.
Aspen Dragonfly consents to the merger of the Townsite lots as they exist within each of the
Subject Lots. With that merger, the two Subject Lots will fully comply with Code Section
26.312.050 A.
As applicable to the Subject Lots, the Code provides a property owner two regulatory paths to
receipt of a Growth Management allotment. If a lot has a pre-existing "development right," then
the Growth Management process may proceed administratively and employee housing mitigation
for a single-family home may accomplished by one of the six alternatives listed in Code Section
26.470.060.2.a.3). If a lot does not have pre-existing development right, a Growth Management
allocation must be acquired through the "Planning and Zoning Commission application" process
defined Section 26.470.070 of the Code. As discussed on Page 7, below, the cost of mitigating
employee impacts under the Planning and Zoning Commission application process is
substantially higher than the cost of doing so in an administrative process.
Aspen Dragonfly believes that the Subject Lots are entitled to the development rights associated
with the 1880 Townsite lots which continue to exist on the Subject Lots and, for that reason, an
P145
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 5
administrative Growth Management application process should apply to this application. City
staff has not recognized the development rights associated with the Subject Lots and has required
that Aspen Dragonfly seek Growth Management allotments though the more burdensome
regulatory path.
Aspen Dragonfly has submitted this application as requested by staff as a means of finally settling
the issue. However, it reserves the right to assert the alternative interpretation if its request is denied
or approved with unacceptable conditions.
C. Application of Relevant Code Provisions to this Application.
As set forth in the Pre-App, the following sections of the Code are applicable to this application:
26.304 Common development review procedures
26.470 Growth Management Quota System
26.470.070 (9)(b) Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable
26.470.070 (4) Affordable housing
26.470.090 (3) Provision of required affordable housing via a cash in lieu
p a y m e n t
26.470.100 Calculations
26.470.110 Growth management review procedures
26.710.040 Medium Density Residential (R-6)
The common development review procedures govern the format of this application and the
review process and are not separately discussed in this application letter. A discussion of how
this application meets the other requirements of the listed Code sections is found below. In
particular cases the relevant section of Code is found in italics, followed by a discussion of how
the application addresses that regulation, in standard print.
Code Section 470.070 (9): Residential development – sixty percent (60%) affordable. The
development of a residential project or an addition of units to an existing residential project, in
which a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the additional units and thirty percent (30%) of the
additional floor area is affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
. . .
b. If the project consists of only one (1) free-market residence, then a minimum of one (1)
affordable residence representing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the project's total
floor area and deed-restricted as a Category 4 "for sale" unit, according to the provisions of
the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines, shall qualify.
To determine the amount of affordable housing required, it is necessary to begin with a review of
the Lot Areas for each of the Subject Lots. As shown on Exhibits C and D, the Gross Lot Area of
Lots 4 and 5 are 11,615 and 7,490 square feet, respectively. The calculations of Net Lot Area for
each of the two Subject Lots are found in Exhibit E, attached hereto. Deductions in Net Lot Area
P146
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 6
are required for slopes of greater than 20%. As shown on the exhibit, the Net Lot Area of Lot 4 is
10,586 square feet.3
As shown on Exhibit E, 900 square feet must be deducted from the Gross Floor Area of Lot 5 for
steep slopes, which establishes a Net Floor Area for that lot of 6,590 square feet.4
Detached residential dwellings and Duplex structures are permitted uses within the R-6 zone
district (which is applicable to the Subject Lots).5 It is likely that each of the Subject Lots will be
improved by the construction of a single residential dwelling.
Both of the Subject Lots meet the minimum requirements for Gross and Net Lot Area (6,000
square feet and 4,500 square feet, respectively).6 A private residence may be built on either
Subject Lot in full compliance with the other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district.
As shown on Exhibit E, the maximum floor area for a single-family residence is 3,755 square
feet on Lot 4 and 3,405 square feet on Lot 5.
If the largest dwelling unit permitted on each Subject Lot is requested, the 30% affordable
housing requirement of Code Section 470.070(9) will require the Applicant (or its successor in
each lot) provide affordable housing mitigation of 1,127 square feet for Lot 4 and 1,022 square
feet for Lot 5.7
The Affordable Housing Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA")
provide that "in order to calculate mitigation requirements, 400 square feet of affordable housing
units shall be used to equate to one full-time employee ["FTE"] in determining the required
affordable housing mitigation for the free-market component of a mixed use development."8 As
shown in Exhibit E, the maximum number of "Full Time Equivalents" which may be required for
3 Lot 4 is currently bisected by an easement ten feet in width in favor of the City of Aspen for underground utility
lines. The Code does not require a reduction in Net Floor Area for easements of this type. Pursuant to the language
of the easement itself, the Aspen Dragonfly may "relocate the easement and the utility appurtenance(s) therein . . .
upon the payment of all direct and indirect costs of such relocation."
4 City staff previously asserted that the portion of Lot 5 which was once a part of Francis Street had to be deducted
when calculating net lot area for that parcel. This application, at the insistence of staff, has been filed on the basis
that the Townsite map is inapplicable to the Subject Lots. On that basis, the Applicant's property does not benefit
from the development rights normally associated with lots described on the Townsite Map and neither should it be
penalized for those portions of its property which were once the streets and alleys found on the Townsite Map. No
deductions in Net Lot Area should be imposed on either of the Subject Lots due to this regulation.
5 The Subject Lots, along with the balance of the property currently and formerly owned in the immediate vicinity of
the Subject Lots was zoned R-6/SPA in City of Aspen Ordinance No. 86 (Series of 1981). A change in the Code
adopted in 2014 converted all SPA areas to Planned Developments. Technically, the area is now zoned R-6/PD. The
property owned by the US Forest Service was identified by its 1880 Townsite Map designations in the 1981
Ordinance. Permitted uses for the R-6 zone district are found at Code Section 26.710.040(B).
6 Code Section 26.710.040(D)1. and 2.
7 See Exhibit F.
8 APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines ("APCHA Guidelines"), adopted January 2015, Part VII, Section 8.
P147
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 7
Lots 4 and 5 (depending on the floor area to be constructed on each lot) are 2.82 and 2.55,
respectively.
As mentioned above, Aspen Dragonfly is seeking the right to satisfy the affordable housing
mitigation requirements for development of Lots 4 and 5 by payment of "cash-in-lieu," as
provided in Section 26.470.090 (3) of the Code, set forth here:
3. Provision of required affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment. The
provision of affordable housing equal to or in excess of one (1) residential unit, as
required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, via a cash-in-lieu payment
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based
on the following criteria:
a. The provision of affordable housing on site (on the same site as the project
requiring such affordable housing) is impractical given the physical or legal
parameters of the development or of the site or would be inconsistent with the
character of the neighborhood in which the project is being developed.
As a practical matter, it is not feasible to locate two residential dwellings on either of the two
Subject Lots. The Net Lot Area of Lot 5 is inadequate (at 6,590 square feet) as a matter of Code
for the establishment of a second structure on site. While Lot 4 meets the regulatory minimum
Net Lot Area for two detached residential units (or two duplex units), the topography of the site
does not lend itself to the construction and continuing existence of two separate homes. See
Exhibits F and G for a graphical representations of the topography of Lot 4 and Lot 5,
respectively.
b. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing
the required affordable housing off site through construction of new dwelling
units or the deed restriction of existing dwelling units to affordable housing
status.
In the course of its investigation, the applicant found that the cost of constructing new offsite
employee housing or buying down existing dwelling units to satisfy Growth Management
requirements is well in excess of $1,000,000 for the two Subject Lots. As discussed in the letter
from Attorney Curtis Sanders to City Attorney James R. True, which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, Aspen Dragonfly and the other owners of lots within the Ranger Station Subdivision
have a good faith belief that they should not be required to provide new affordable housing units
in connection with the construction of homes on their lots. As described above, each of Lots 4
and 5 are made up of parts of lots defined by the 1880 Townsite Map. Those lots were "legally
described parcels prior to November 14, 1977" and should be processed under Section
26.470.060.2.a.3) of the Code. Under that section Aspen Dragonfly would be currently required
to pay an "affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the [APCHA] Guidelines,"9 of $79.97 per
9 Code, Section 26.470.060.2.a.3
P148
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 8
square foot of new structure in full satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement.10 The cost
of Affordable Housing mitigation under this regulatory scheme would be $572,605.99 if floor
area were maximized on both Subject Lots. The additional cost of treating the Subject Lots as not
existing prior to November 14, 1977 is over $200,000 if floor area is maximized on both lots
under current Code. (If the cash-in-lieu affordable housing mitigation fee is reduced prior to the
date a building permit is issued for either Lot, the lower fee should be passed on to the applicant.)
c. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the cash-in-lieu payment
will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. A
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
considered for this standard.
The applicant encourages the City to immediately use the money to be paid at the time of
building permit issuance for affordable housing purposes. City staff has informed Aspen
Dragonfly that it supports the approach described in this application as it will produce substantial
revenue to the affordable housing program and because it avoids litigation. Avoidance of
litigation is also in the best interests of the Applicant.
Conclusion
For reasons which are not fully apparent to Aspen Dragonfly, the City and the U.S. Forest
Service did not resolve the zoning and development issues related to the Ranger Station
Subdivision at the time the Forest Service auctioned the lots in 2013. Even though the Subject
Lots exist within the area defined by the City's 1880 Townsite Map, City staff has asserted that
the lots are not entitled to the development rights normally associated with Townsite lots. As a
compromise between the City's position and the regulations which the Applicant believes should
apply to this application, Aspen Dragonfly requests that the Growth Management mitigation
requirements for Lots 4 and 5 be satisfied through payment of cash-in-lieu as calculated at the
lower of the rate found in current Code or that found in Code at the time a building permit is
issued for each Lot. The actual amount of cash-in-lieu to be paid to the City shall be calculated
based on the floor area requested in a building permit application and paid at the time required by
the City regulation in force at that time. Aspen Dragonfly also requests that the net lot area of the
Lots 4 and 5 be recognized as 10,586 square feet and 6,590 square feet, respectively.
Sincerely,
E. Michael Hoffman
Table of Exhibits
10 APCHA Guidelines, Part VII, Section 12, 3.
P149
IX.c
Aspen City Council
March 24, 2015
Page 9
Exhibit A - Letter dated August 14, 2014 from Curtis Sanders to City Attorney James R. True
Exhibit B - Survey of Subject Lots and Townsite Map Overlay
Exhibit C - Current Survey of Lot 4
Exhibit D - Current Survey of Lot 5
Exhibit E - Lot Area, Floor Area, FTE Calculations Worksheet
Exhibit F - Topography of Lot 4
Exhibit G - Topography of Lot 5
P150
IX.c
Exhibit A
P151
IX.c
P152
IX.c
P153
IX.c
P154
IX.c
P155
IX.c
P156
IX.c
P157
IX.c
P158
IX.c
P159
IX.c
P160
IX.c
P161
IX.c
P162
IX.c
P163
IX.c
P164
IX.c
P165
IX.c
Lo
t
5
Lo
t
4
Th
e
s
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
b
o
x
e
s
we
r
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
b
y
th
e
U
S
F
S
b
e
f
o
r
e
th
e
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
L
o
t
s
we
r
e
c
o
n
v
e
y
e
d
t
o
As
p
e
n
D
r
a
g
o
n
f
l
y
.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
C
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
B
P166IX.c
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
C
P167IX.c
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
D
P168IX.c
Ne
t
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
an
d
Fl
o
o
r
Ar
e
a
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Gr
o
s
s
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
fo
r
St
e
e
p
Sl
o
p
e
s
N
e
t
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
B
a
s
e
FA
fo
r
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Sp
a
c
e
To
t
a
l
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Fl
o
o
r
Ar
e
a
Lo
t
4
11
,
6
1
5
1
,
0
3
0
1
0
,
5
8
6
3
,
6
6
0
9
5
3
,
7
5
5
Lo
t
5
7,
4
9
0
9
0
0
6
,
5
9
0
2
,
4
0
0
1
,
0
0
5
3
,
4
0
5
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
fo
r
St
e
e
p
Sl
o
p
e
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Gr
o
s
s
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
0
%
Ͳ
20
%
Sl
o
p
e
2
0
%
Ͳ
30
%
Sl
o
p
e
O
v
e
r
30
%
Sl
o
p
e
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
fo
r
St
e
e
p
Sl
o
p
e
s
To
t
a
l
Ne
t
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
Lo
t
4
1
1
,
6
1
5
9,
8
8
0
1
,
4
1
1
3
2
4
1
,
0
3
0
1
0
,
5
8
6
Lo
t
5
7,
4
9
0
5,
9
2
4
1
,
3
3
3
2
3
4
9
0
0
6
,
5
9
0
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
Ca
s
h
Ͳ in
Ͳ Li
e
u
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Fl
o
o
r
Ar
e
a
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
(3
0
%
of
To
t
a
l
Fl
o
o
r
Ar
e
a
)
FT
E
Eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
s
Ca
s
h
Ͳ in
Ͳ Li
e
u
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
($
1
4
4
,
3
9
3
pe
r
FT
E
)
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
of
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Fe
e
Lo
t
4
3
,
7
5
5
1
,
1
2
7
2
.
8
2
$
4
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
8
6
$
3
0
0
,
2
9
7
.
7
5
Lo
t
5
3
,
4
0
5
1
,
0
2
2
2
.
5
5
$
3
6
8
,
7
5
7
.
7
0
$
2
7
2
,
3
0
8
.
2
5
ͲͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
To
t
a
l
7
,
1
6
0
2
,
1
4
8
5
.
3
7
$
7
7
5
,
4
1
8
.
5
7
$
5
7
2
,
6
0
5
.
9
9
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
s
t
of
Pa
y
i
n
g
Ca
s
h
Ͳ in
Ͳ Li
e
u
=
$2
0
2
,
8
1
2
.
5
7
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
E
Th
e
c
a
s
h
-
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
b
o
v
e
w
e
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
.
T
h
e
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
e
e
k
s
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
a
y
th
e
l
o
w
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
o
r
a
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
C
o
d
e
a
s
i
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
f
b ui
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
L
o
t
.
P169IX.c
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
F
P170IX.c
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
G
P171IX.c
Redevelopment of Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station “Subdivision” Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager
DATE: April 15, 2015
RE: Redevelopment Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station “Subdivision”
ISSUE : The applicant is seeking Growth Management approval for development of a single-
family home on each of the subject lots.
BACKGROUND : The Forest Service owned the property from May 1940 to September 2013.
The Forest Service conveyed five lots of the “Ranger Station Subdivision” to three separate
owners over a six-month period. Aspen Dragonfly Partners III, LLC is the owner of Lot 4 and
Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC is the owner of Lot 5. The applicant is requesting the right to
pay a fee-in-lieu to resolve a disagreement concerning which section of the Growth Management
code applies to the property.
The lots were made a part of the City of Aspen in the 1880 Townsite Map and the U.S. Forest
Service acquired title to the property through a condemnation proceeding completed in 1940. All
of the Forest Service Lands were owned by the Forest Service for approximately 74 years. The
applicant states that the subject lots should be classified as “non-conforming lots of record” and
processed under Code Section 26.312.050, as stated below:
A detached single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be
developed on a lot of record if:
1. The lot of record is in separate ownership and not contiguous to lots in the
same ownership; and
2. The proposed single-family dwelling can be located on the lot so that the yard,
height, open space and floor area dimensional requirements of the zone
district can be met or a variance is obtained from said dimensional
requirements pursuant to Chapter 26.314.
The Code provides a property owner two regulatory paths to receive a Growth Management
(GM) allotment. If a lot has a pre-existing “development right,” then the GM process may
proceed administratively and employee housing mitigation for a single-family home may be
accomplished by one of the six alternatives listed in Code Section 26.470.060.2.1.3). If a lot does
P172
IX.c
Redevelopment of Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station “Subdivision” Page 2
not have a pre-existing development right, then the GM allocation must be acquired through the
Planning and Zoning Commission application.
The six alternatives listed in Code Section 26.470.060.2.1.3) are as follows:
1) Providing an above-grade, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a carriage house
pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses;
2) Providing an accessory dwelling unit, or a carriage house, authorized through special
review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
4) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
5) Recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit
being constructed; or
6) Providing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Section
26.540.060 Authority of the Certificate, commensurate with the net increase of square
footage, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
In July of 2013, the Community Development Department indicated that the U.S. Forest Service
had recorded the survey plat “creating” five separate lots. The City of Aspen recognized the legal
creation of the Forest Service Lots as a result of the Survey Plat, but that none were currently
developable since they were not created as legally separate properties pursuant to the City of
Aspen subdivision regulations; that they could be developed only pursuant to the Growth
Management Quota System.
In conclusion, according to the City of Aspen, none of the lots is currently developable; further,
according to the City, in order to develop a Forest Service lot, the owner must receive GMQS
approval. This would require each lot to provide one affordable housing residence (which
represents a minimum of 30% of a Forest Service Lot’s floor area), with such unit being deed
restricted as a Category 4 “for sale” unit.
DISCUSSION : Under the GMQS regulations, affordable housing can be mitigated by providing
either: 1) a fee-in-lieu payment, subject to City Council approval; 2) newly built or buy down
units; 3) utilization of the Affordable Housing Credit Certificate program.
For a 6,000 square foot lot to develop its 3,240 square feet of FAR, the owner would need to
purchase around 2.43 Category 4 FTE’s per lot. Assuming one FTE Category 4 credit is being
sold for $175,000 (going rate six months ago), to develop a 3,240 square foot residence would
require mitigation of approximately $400,000.
If each of the lots had one development right, an owner could mitigate as follows:
• Pay fee-in-lieu of $254,320 per lot, an automatic right, and does not require City Council
approval; or
P173
IX.c
Redevelopment of Lots 4 and 5, Ranger Station “Subdivision” Page 3
• Construct an on-site ADU of 300 square feet on each lot (City Code does not prohibits
construction of ADU on lots with the dimensions of the Forest Service lots);
• Purchase and provide affordable housing mitigation certificate for one Category 4 FTE
for each 3,000 square feet of FAR constructed on each lot. Currently, the cost would be
around $200,000 per lot, which would be an additional $1 million for all five lots.
The entire property is designated with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. Under the PD
overlay, a single-family or duplex residence is permitted to be developed on each lot; however,
only Lot 4 is large enough to accommodate a single-family or duplex residence. The applicant is
requesting that both lots be exempt from a lot area deduction. Under Growth Management,
where a project consists of only one free-market residence, there is a minimum of one affordable
housing residence representing a minimum of 30% of the project’s total floor area, deed
restricted as a Category 4 “for sale” unit.
The intent of the mitigation requirement applicable to these lots is for a physical unit; however,
as stated above, only one of the lots is large enough to permit more than one dwelling unit on the
property.
The applicant is requesting the following;
• Provide the required mitigation for each lot through a fee-in-lieu payment and
memorialize the calculation based on 2015 Category 4 income level ($144,393);
• Request vesting for a five-year period of time vs. an allowed three-year period of time.
Table 2, page 5 of 6 of Jennifer Phelan’s, Deputy Planning Director, memo, shows the fee-in-lieu
based on a single-family residence. The employee conversion is based on 400 square feet = 1
FTE. Staff agrees that requesting one lot to provide on-site affordable housing does not make
sense, and that all mitigation should be provided by the use of the Affordable Housing Credit
program.
RECOMMENDATION : Based on the memo provided by the Community Development
Department, the APCHA Board recommends the following:
• The calculation of the mitigation requirement shall be determined by the Community
Development Department;
• Mitigation shall be provided by the use of Affordable Housing Credits based on the
employee conversion stated in Table 2 of Phelan’s memo;
• Mitigation to be based on the amount due at the time of payment, or at building permit,
whichever comes first;
• Vesting rights to remain at the three-year threshold and not extended to five years.
P174
IX.c
Ordinance No 16, Series 2015
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 16
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5, RANGER
STATION SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 273512428005 AND 273512428004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen
Dragonfly III, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly IV, LLC represented by E. Michael Hoffman of
Garfield and Hecht, requesting approval of growth management reviews for two residential
development allotments, a Planned Development Amendment for the calculation of Floor Area
and a five year vested property right; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential, R-6 with a Planned
Development Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department did not support the requests as proposed and
recommended in favor of the proposal with alternative conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090(3), City Council may accept a cash-payment-in-lieu
for required affordable housing, may allow for variations within a Planned Development
through Section 26.445.050 and may, at their sole discretion, allow a longer vested property right
during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public and a
recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and
has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2015, the City Council approved
Ordinance No.16, Series of 2015, by a ______ to ___ (__ – __) vote, approving the land use
requests; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
P175
IX.c
Ordinance No 16, Series 2015
Page 2 of 4
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City
Council hereby approves the granting of two residential development allotments, one each for
Lot 4 and Lot 5, via the provision of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit or a physical,
off-site affordable housing unit; exempting the two lots from a lot area deduction when
calculating net lot area; and permitting a vested property right of three years for each lot
conditioned on the following:
A. Provision of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits or physical affordable housing unit
for affordable housing mitigation.
1. Each lot may provide affordable housing mitigation via the extinguishment of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, at a Category 4 income level. The maximum
Allowable Floor Area shall be based on a duplex for Lot 4 and a single family residence for
Lot 5. To determine the amount of mitigation required for each lot the following calculation
shall be used:
Max. Allowable Floor Area x .3 = Floor Area required for mitigation
Floor Area required mitigation / 400 = Number of employees required for mitigation (FTEs)
Extinguishment of the Certificate of affordable housing credit is required prior to the
issuance of a building permit for each lot. Once mitigation is provided no further affordable
housing mitigation shall be required.
or
2. Each lot may provide a physical, off-site affordable housing unit in the form either a new
unit or in the form of a buy-down unit within the city limits of Aspen. The unit shall, at a
minimum, contain the Floor Area required for mitigation and/or the Number of employees
require for mitigation (FTEs). The Certificate of Occupancy for each free-market lot shall not
be issued until the Certificate of Occupancy for the deed restricted unit associated with the
individual lot has been executed.
Approval by APCHA of a buy down unit, meeting the requirements above, as well as
providing an appropriate approved and recorded deed restriction is all that is necessary to fulfill
the affordable housing mitigation. Development of a new affordable housing unit shall meet
the provisions of Title 26 of the land use code. All units shall meet the APCHA guidelines and
be “for sale” units.
B. The area of former W. Francis Street within Lot 5 and the former alley within Lot 4 shall not
be deducted from the lot size when calculating the net lot area of each lot.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
P176
IX.c
Ordinance No 16, Series 2015
Page 3 of 4
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: 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 4: Approvals
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 4th day of May, 2015, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 27 th day of April, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _____________, 2015.
Attest:
__________________________ ___________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
P177
IX.c
Ordinance No 16, Series 2015
Page 4 of 4
___________________________
Jim True, City Attorney
P178
IX.c
1
MINOR SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #17, Series of 2015, 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision
Amendment and Transferable Development Rights
DATE: May 4, 2015
SUMMARY: 119 Neale Avenue, seen at right,
is a 12,762 square foot lot that was created in
2012 as a result of a Historic Landmark Lot
Split. To the south of the subject parcel is the
other half of the subdivision, a 3,000 square foot
lot containing a 1880s era log cabin. This cabin
was moved from its original location along Owl
Creek Road and is now considered City of
Aspen landmark.
The owner of 119 Neale Avenue would like to
amend one of the conditions of approval that
affects his property. The amendment would
allow a duplex on the property, which complies
with zoning. He would also like to convert some unbuilt floor area into Transferable
Development Rights, to be constructed elsewhere in Aspen.
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Shoaf, property owner.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-53-003.
ADDRESS: 119 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, Benedict Cabin Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential.
26.480.090.C Minor amendment. An amendment to an approved subdivision found to be
generally consistent with the original approval but which does not qualify for an insubstantial
amendment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council. The
P179
IX.d
2
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
amendment must either respond to issues raised during the original review or must address an
issue that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the review. The City Council must
find that the change is minor and that it is consistent with or an improvement to the approved
subdivision. Notwithstanding the above, the City Council may find that an amendment request is
substantial and should require review as a Major Amendment.
Staff Finding: The Benedict Cabin Subdivision was created through City Council Ordinance
#2, Series of 2012. The Ordinance and the associated Subdivision Exemption Agreement and
Plat contain a condition which the owner of Lot 1 would like to amend.
During the 2012 Council review, staff provided a chart summarizing various development
options and examples of possible ways to allocate density and floor area between the two parcels
being created. A total of three residential units were permissible by zoning. While Council has
typically only required maximum floor area to be stated on Historic Landmark Lot Split approval
documents, the board at the time restricted the density of the project as well. The restriction was
intentional, and allowed only a single family home on each parcel rather than a single family
home on the smaller lot and a duplex on the larger lot, as allowed by zoning.
The owner would like to change the approval documents to allow for a duplex on Lot 1, the
larger lot. Lot 2 will remain limited to a single family home. Allowed floor area would be
unchanged. Floor area for the lot split was determined by calculating the allowance for the
fathering parcel, minus reductions in lot area for steep slopes. The total cap on floor area in this
Subdivision is 5,333 square feet of floor area, with 1,133 assigned to Lot 2 (since reduced to 633
through the sale of two TDRs), and 4,200 square feet of floor area on Lot 1. This floor area limit
cannot be increased.
If the amendment is approved, an Amended Subdivision Exemption Agreement and Amended Plat
will be required to be filed. If a duplex use is developed on Lot 1 in the future, affordable housing
mitigation will be required for the new unit according to Growth Management, and each unit in the
duplex will have to have 2 on-site parking spaces.
From the applicant’s perspective, the decision regarding permitted density was unexpected and
unfolded quickly during Council’s deliberations. He did not acknowledge at the time that the
house on his lot already contained two units and had for many years. Amending this condition of
Ordinance #2, Series of 2012 will resolve what has the potential to become an enforcement issue.
Staff finds the amendment to be appropriate and fair given the zone district parameters.
The applicant wishes to create three TDRs, removing 750 square feet of floor area from 119
Neale Avenue.
P180
IX.d
3
26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development
right.
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to
adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
A. The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family
or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts.
Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
Staff Finding : Single family and duplex uses are permitted in the zone district where 119 Neale
Avenue is located.
B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights,
for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty
(250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates
requested.
Staff Finding: According to City Council Ordinance #2, Series of 2012, the property is allowed a
maximum floor area of 4,200 square feet. To the extent that the existing development represents
less than that, the owner may apply to sever Transferable Development Rights in increments of 250
square feet of floor area.
The application demonstrates that there is unused FAR available. The existing structure has been
calculated to be 3,265 square feet, allowing for three TDRs and 185 square feet of expansion left
for the future.
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 Finding: No non-conformities will be created.
D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built
development, any approved development order, the allowable development right
prescribed by zoning for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the
potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential
development incentives.
Staff Finding: The analysis only includes development that is by right.
E. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally
connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered
null and void.
Staff Finding: No such development order exists.
P181
IX.d
4
F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of
the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance
for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established. For
properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the
maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use,
shall be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted)
minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of
historic TDR certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a
square footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex
residence, as my be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible
for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City
Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction
shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Finding: The deed restriction will follow the form approved by the City Attorney.
G. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR
certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute
and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject
property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the
County Clerk and Recorder's office.
Staff Finding : A closing will be scheduled at the conclusion of the review.
H. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building
plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of
built floor area. (Ord. 54-2003, §§ 4, 5)
Staff Finding: The applicant has provided floor area analysis.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve Minor Subdivision Amendment
and the creation of TDRs.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits:
Ordinance #17, Series of 2015
A. Application
P182
IX.d
5
B. Ordinance #2, Series of 2012
C. Aspen City Council Minutes of February 27, 2012
D. Recorded Plat
P183
IX.d
ORDINANCE #17
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT AND CREATING THREE
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
119 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 1, BENEDICT CABIN SUBDIVISION, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-53-003
WHEREAS, Jeffrey Shoaf, owner of 119 Neale Avenue, applied for a Minor Subdivision
Amendment to remove a condition of approval established in Aspen City Council Ordinance #2,
Series of 2012, affecting his property. The applicant also requested approval to create and sever
three Transferable Development Rights (TDRs); and
WHEREAS, Section 26.480.090.C of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
creation for Minor Subdivision Amendment, which shall be approved if City Council determines
the amendment is generally consistent with the original approval but does not qualify for an
insubstantial amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.535.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
creation for Transferable Development Rights, which shall be approved if City Council
determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the established review criteria; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards were met, and
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Minor Subdivision Amendment
Section 2.1.d of Aspen City Council Ordinance #2, Series of 2012 is hereby amended only in
relation to Lot 1. Lot 1 is entitled to 4,200 square feet of Floor Area for a single family home or
a duplex.
Section 2: Transferable Development Rights
Pursuant to the findings set forth above, the City Council does hereby authorize the grant of three
(3) Transferable Development Rights for 119 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, Benedict Cabin Subdivision,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
P184
IX.d
1. 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.
2. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall execute and
deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the property owner and the
property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available
development right of the Sending Site, 119 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, Benedict Cabin
Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, 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.
Section 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 4: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Vested Rights
The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the
development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall
render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the
creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development and
Commercial Design Reviews by the HPC, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the
general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 119 Neale Avenue, Lot 1, Benedict Cabin Subdivision, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
P185
IX.d
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 6: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 4th day of May, 2015 in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 27 th day of April, 2015.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2015.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P186
IX.d
P187
IX.d
P188
IX.d
P189
IX.d
P190
IX.d
P191
IX.d
P192
IX.d
P193
IX.d
P194
IX.d
P195
IX.d
P196
IX.d
P197
IX.d
P198
IX.d
P199
IX.d
RECEPTION#: 589485, 06/01/2012 at
09:37:05 AM,
1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
ORDINANCE #2
Series of 2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO
APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND HISTORIC LANDMARK
LOT SPLIT AND CREATING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 117/119 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 2, AMENDED SHOAF'S
WATERFALL SUBDIVISION, TOGETHER WITH THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON
THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 799 AT PAGE 660, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-53-002
WHEREAS, the property owner, Jeffrey Shoaf, applied for voluntary Historic Landmark
Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split and creation of Transferable Development Rights
TDRs); and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050.030.B of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from
HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the following criteria:
26.415.030.B. Aspen Victorian Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an
individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or
objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of
properties shall be evaluated according to the criteria described below. When designating a
historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the
criteria described below:
a. The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains
structures which can be documented as built during the
19th
century, and
b. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting,
design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall
adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used
by the Councitland Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion; and
WHEREAS, for City Council approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the application shall
meet the following requirements:
26.480.030(A)(2),SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS,LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling
on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the
following conditions are met:
117/119 Neale Avenue
Ordinance #2, Series of 2012
Page 1 of 7
P200
IX.d
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and
bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply
to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;
and
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B); and
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption
pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a): and
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be
granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable
approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to
Chapter 26.470.
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the
office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to
record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City
Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City
Council will be required for a showing of good cause.
f)In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible
for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home,
and
26.480.030(A)(4),SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS,HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
a.) The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and
be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF or 0 Zone District.
b.) The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and
the Zone District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be
noted on the subdivision exemption plat.
c.) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying
Zone District. The variances provided in Paragraphs 26.415.120.B.1.a, b and c are
117/119 Neale Avenue
Ordinance #2, Series of 2012
Page2of7
P201
IX.d
only permitted on the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR bonus
will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel, and
26.415.110(A),BENEFITS
Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth management
quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of designated
historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot
through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information in
Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot
split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.535.070 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for
creation for Transferable Development Rights, which shall be approved if City Council
determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the following criteria:
26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable
development right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
117/119 Neale Avenue
Ordinance #2, Series of 2012
Page 3 of 7
P202
IX.d
a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the
maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall
be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus
two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic
TDR certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence,
as my be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain
floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code,
as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be
acceptable to the City Attorney.
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; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards for Historic Landmark
Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split and Transferable Development Rights are met, and
recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 11, 2012, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application for Historic Landmark Designation, Historic Landmark
Lot Split, and benefits within their purview, namely an FAR bonus, setback variances and
parking variances, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
unanimously recommended approval by a vote of five to zero (5 to 0), with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
117/119 Neale Avenue
Ordinance #2, Series of 2012
Page 4 of 7
P203
IX.d
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO,THAT:
Section 1: Historic Designation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Aspen City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 117/119 Neale Avenue, Lot 2,
Amended Shoaf's Waterfall Subdivision, Together With The Property Described On The Deed
Recorded In Book 799 At Page 660, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2: Historic Landmark Lot Split
Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby grant a
Historic Landmark Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 117/119 Neale Avenue, Lot 2, Amended
Shoaf s Waterfall Subdivision, Together With The Property Described On The Deed Recorded In
Book 799 At Page 660, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions:
1.A subdivision exemption plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development Department and recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by
City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the
specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council
will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall:
a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code;
b. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the
provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application;
c. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots will conform to the
dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district, except the variances approved by the
HPC; and
d. Be labeled to indicate that the FAR allowance is as follows:
Lot 1 is entitled to 4,200 square feet of Floor Area for a single family house.
Lot 2 is entitled to 1,133 square feet of Floor Area for a single family house (which
includes a 500 square foot floor-area bonus granted by the HPC). 500 square feet of the
Floor Area entitlement can only be used for the creation of two Transferable
Development rights (TDRs), which must be severed and sold to an eligible property.
e. An easement shall be indicated on Lot 1 for the purpose of creating one parking space
dedicated in perpetuity for the use of Lot 2. The curb cut, driveway and/or parking area
on Lot 1 shall meet the City Engineer's requirements for safety.
Section 3: Transferable Development Rights
At the time of issuance of the TDRs, the owner will record a deed restriction permanently
restricting the maximum development of the property (the sending site) to an allowable floor
area not exceeding the allowance for a duplex residence plus a 500 square foot FAR bonus
awarded by HPC, minus five hundred (500) square feet of floor area that shall be converted into
two TDR certificates.
117/119 Neale Avenue
Ordinance#2, Series of 2012
Page 5 of 7
P204
IX.d
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: Vested Rights
The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the
development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall
render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the
creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development and
Commercial Design Reviews by the HPC, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the
general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes,pertaining to the
following described property: 117/119 Neale Avenue, Lot 2, Amended Shoaf's Waterfall
Subdivision, Together With The Property Described On The Deed Recorded In Book 799 At Page
660, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the
date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
117/119 Neale Avenue
Ordinance #2, Series of 2012
Page 6 of 7
P205
IX.d
Section 7: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of February, 2012 in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of January, 2012.
ov •114
1.7 4/P'•4fr
Michael C. Ireland MayorY ,,
AT ' ST:
Kathryn Koch ity Clerk
FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this 27th day of February 2012.
44-
Michael C. Ireland, Mayo
AT ST:
y/1; ii,
Kathryn Koch City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ames R. True, City Attorney
117/119 Neale Avenue
Ordinance #2, Series of 2012
Page 7 of 7
P206
IX.d
ry
J
C
1
N
O .
rsl
m •
d
V
H«
oco
r=
mLy-
5 .
O
9N,
NE$
a>.-
o
a
a,
Qa –
N
O2NUiL
O
o
LLxN
E
Zv.
NC
OO>,
O
U •,
a
i=
QOO
roOc -
YO
8:
2,
i–
g.
J.
a_
Jat
2?_
a
yWad «
0OQ
Wa,
oc
m-
o,,
d
yx n,
m
Z9NC
Y «
0Y.-
m .
O .
aVV,
L-,
O-.
L-
N
O. •
U
Cn
O
Op
L..
I. ¢
Oc`~
ro9-
2
dy
3- _
t
wN
0‘
n•
O
N«
O
L
O
F
3 =
U
d
N
o
c
Q
OQ/ ..
i
IIIIII11111\
G
m -
7
w '
O
E
w
U
a
3
Nal
H
1)
78
o
U
L
v
Q
Z =
C
fa
o
a
oa3 °
aN
o
O
v
v
a
o ,
c
0 •-
Z
MI=
0
m ,-
cl " '
0-) „;-• .(
74 "
4
1-
v)
4-,
1
i ..
4.'
PL4
wrsi ."
a
Q
v
o
v
3
f-
T-
4
glom
0
7:
i
iii
v • -
3
vl :
0
0
3U
ra.
4•.-
1
cn
u
Q
M
cC
d'
fl -
U
p
q
CL
H
ca
u .„ .
crri
rip
C.
7
Q
P
2
0
7
I
X
.
d
r
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 27, 2012
the financial needs of the project. This neighborhood is one of the last affordable middle income
neighborhoods in Aspen. Ms. Kohlberg said she does not feel this development will keep the
area and neighborhood vital.
Mary Ellen Sheridan, property manager for this project, said the existing buildings need to be
replaced and the location needs to be redeveloped. This is a great project and the changes have
all been for the improvement of the project.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Skadron asked if what is happening to the west end is being replicated in this area.
Clauson noted the R -6 zoning in the west end does not allow multi - family development or to
provide for affordable housing. This area is zoned RMF and allows redevelopment that would
include affordable housing. Clauson said this proposal has an increase in the number of FTEs
housed under the affordable housing program. Councilman Frisch said there is probably not a
maximum size free market unit that would insure occupancy. Councilman Frisch said if this
proposal disappears, this issue becomes what might replace it. Councilman Frisch said the
applicants have listened to Council and made changes over the many meetings. Councilman
Frisch said the housing portion mixes livability with affordability; this is a great location in
which to live.
Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2011; seconded by Councilman
Frisch.
Councilman Johnson said there have been improvements, like more open space, larger setbacks,
smaller footprint, and the architecture. Councilman Johnson noted the livability for the
affordable housing has improved, roof top decks are gone, there is improved storage, the parking
situation is better, and there are balconies and decks. The notion of a public /private partnership
is a good one; there will be 27.5 FTEs on site. Councilman Johnson said he feels it is time to
approve this project for this area as it provides things Council wants for the community.
Councilman Torre agreed there are benefits of the project; however, his fear is creating free
market residential in this location that will not serve the community. Councilman Torre agreed
the applicants have listened to Council's comments. Councilman Torre said the underground
parking is a departure from the development of this area.
Councilman Skadron said he will support this project; he does not know what else he could ask
for to make it more palatable. Councilman Skadron said there is an element of reason that needs
to be recognized. Mayor Ireland said he has mixed feelings and does not know if there is
anything the city can do to reverse the darkening of neighborhoods. There are forces beyond the
community that cause that trend. Mayor Ireland said it is frustrating to get 1% reduction at a
time; however, people do give ground slowly.
Roll call vote; Johnson, yes; Frisch, yes; Torre, no; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, no. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2012 — Historic Designation/Lot Split 117 — 199 Neal Avenue
9
P208
IX.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 27, 2012
Amy Guthrie, community development department, noted this site currently contains a single
family house and log cabin, which was moved into the city in the 1960's by the Benedicts to
Stillwater ranch. In the 1990's, the applicant purchased the cabin and moved it to this location,
restored the cabin and turned it into a voluntary ADU. The applicant has requested voluntary
historic designation and a lot split with a 3,000 square foot lot so that the cabin cannot be
substantially added on to. Ms. Guthrie told Council there are several different development
scenarios, all of which add up to the same amount of development. Ms. Guthrie said the steep
slope calculations have to be subtracted and HPC would like to award a 500 square foot bonus
for preserving the cabin. There is 5333 of FAR in total that can be developed and allocated
between the two lots. Ms. Guthrie reiterated all 3 options result in about the same development.
The applicant will probably sell up to 3 TDRs to relieve development pressure on the cabin.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2012, with option 1 and up to 3 TDRs;
seconded by Councilman Skadron.
Mayor Ireland said option 1 allows the least amount of development on the lot and allows sale of
TDRs which would help defray the costs. Councilman Frisch said ADUs had their time and
have not worked successfully and he would like to not approve anymore. Jeff Shoaf, applicant,
said he likes the 3 options because it allows more flexibility. Shoaf noted there is little
difference in the amount of square footage that would be allowed.
Roll call vote; Frisch yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2012 — Subdivision Amendment 320 Lake Avenue
Amy Guthrie, community development department, said this proposal is to remove a condition
of approval placed on a plat for this property from the 1980's. This lot was created through a
subdivision process in 1987. During subdivision review, a lot of concern for the trees on this site
and its proximity to Hallam Lake was expressed. Council created special setback requirements,
especially for the cottonwoods. Ms. Guthrie said there is a proposed redevelopment for the
property; it has received conceptual approval from HPC. The proposal is to demolish a non-
historic addition to the house and replace it; part of the proposal is to move the house over on the
site and in order to do that, the applicant requests the plat note be removed. Ms. Guthrie noted
the cottonwood trees on site have declined; they are decayed and the parks department has issued
a tree removal permit so the requirement for a special setback is no longer necessary. Any
redevelopment will still have to meet the Hallam Lake setback.
Mike Hoffman, representing the applicant, said the request is to amend a subdivision plat to
allow the south side setback to conform to the R -6 zone district rather than a special setback.
Hoffman said in the 1990's Ronnie Marshall requested a subdivision of her property into two
parcels; this is a request for parcel 1. Hoffman showed the plat, the trees subject to the special
setback. The applicants are proposing a revised plat.
10
P209
IX.d
P210
IX.d
P211
IX.d
Floor Area and Cash-in-Lieu Calculations
F ra� all�ifat�a�n �x
Reduetion: br- Tata IIPerm,iitte
,+{ G ss,Lot Area .kccess ,m
Ease .ent feet Lod,Area Floor Area
4
Lot 11,615 1,613 10'10 2 3f,7 G
Lot 5 7,490 7r490 3,449
maximum maximumCash- If,a NR"--IUp:me-nt
Afford' ble in Lieu ll"bMentexisted,the
Hoausiryg Required Req.u':irement M3,ximulm IE=mpl'oVee
>l'via3timum Floor (30x`of TQta!I 1$144,,393 per Houisiinhr�l`itigatio � Fee
Area Permitted Fluor Are,a), FTE Equivalents FTE ou'l 'Be:
Lot 4 3,720 1.,116 2.79 S402,269 529701.498
Lot 5 3;.x#49 1,035 2.59 5373,465 5=27SP795
TOTALS 71.169; 2,151, 5-3a $775,335. $573,20
5/4/2015 Gmail-Ordinance#17-2015 119 Neale Avenue
David Harris <davidharris24@gmail.com>
Ordinance #17 - 2015 119 Neale Avenue
1 message
David Harris <davidharris24@gmail.com> Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:09 PM
To: Steve Skadron <steve.skadron@cityofas pen.com>, Ann Mullins <ann.mull ins@cityofaspen.com>, "Romero,
Dwayne" <dwayne.romero@cityofaspen.com>, Adam Frisch <adam.frisch@cityofas pen.com>, Art Daily
<art.daily@cityofaspen.com>, Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Council. Please reject the subject application for the following reasons:
26.480.090C - Minor Subdivision Amendment -
1. As required under this Minor Subdivision Amendment standard the requested amendment must be "generally
consistent with the original approval". A doubling of density from Single Family to Duplex is not "generally
consistent" with the original approval.
2. The City Council must find that the change "...is minor...". A doubling of density from Single Family to
Duplex is not Minor.
3. The original approval specifically designated a Single Family Home. In the Staff Report, the second
paragraph, Staff Findings states that the Council "...restricted density of the project as well. The restriction was
intentional.
4. The staff report from the February 2012 included 3 options offered as choices, one of which was for a Duplex.
Yet Council chose the Single Family option.
5. Staff now recommends approval in contradiction with the Elected Officials 5-0 vote when the subdivision was
created just three years ago.
6. The only justification is that Staff finds the present request to amend the Subdivision to be "appropriate" and
"fair". Neither of these subjective opinions are standards to be considered under the Minor Subdivision
Amendment provision of the Code.
7. Although the house is a single family home and has never been approved as a duplex, the Staff report states
the property been occupied as a duplex for many years. This important fact was not disclosed in the initial
Historic Land Mark Designation Application, or in the Historic Landmark Lot Split. Staff now suggests that a
benefit of approving the application is to "...resolve what has become an enforcement issue". The difficulty with
this suggestion is indeed apparent. You are now asked to approve a land use application that will reward an
intentional abuse of the Code.
The simple question is -what has changed since the Council spoke in February 2012? The simple answer is
Nothing.
David Harris
117 Neale Avenue
Aspen, CO 81612
davidharris24@gmail.com
(970) 379-1513,
https://mai I.google,com/mai I/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5e890l eec3&view=pt&search=sent&th=14d2Of9bd3adc396&sim l=14d2Of9bd3adc396 1/2
i
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: TBD Eighth Street,Aspen, CO -Lots 4 and 5,Ranger Station
Subdivision (formerly part of the USFS property 816/896 W.Hallam St.)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 4,2015
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, Kayla S. Hall, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby
personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E)
of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a
paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public
hearing.A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community
Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not
less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was
composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen
(15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20to and
including the date and time of the public hearing.A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is
attached hereto.
X Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development
Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the
Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand
delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within
three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names
and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as
they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing.A copy of
the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and
attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035,
Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the
method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the
public is attached hereto:
(continued an next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to
affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the
initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral
estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,
Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new.Planned Unit Developments,
and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be
changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever
the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title
and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate
survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived.
However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such
amendments.
�49--
ka, S. Hall
Signature
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 17th day of April, 2015,
Kayla S. Hall.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL p� ¢---
My commission expires: 41`fib - 1
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL
COPY OF THE NOTICE
PAULA S. RICCERI
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID#20094002983
My Commission Expims January 26,2017
i
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Lots 4 and 5,Ranger Station Subdivision
(formerly part of the USFS property 816/896 W.Hallam St.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 4,
2015, at a meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, in the City
Council chambers, City Hall, to consider an application submitted by Mike Hoffman on
behalf of Aspen Dragonfly Partners 11I, LLC and Aspen Dragonfly Partners IV, LLC
(C/O Garfield and Hecht PC, 601 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen CO 81611). The Applicant
requests two growth management allotments, a Planned Development Amendment and a
five year vesting period to develop lot 4 with a single-family residence or duplex and lot
5 with a single family residence. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the
City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)
920.5090,Jennifer.Phelan@cityofaspen.com
S/Steve Skadron,Mayor
Aspen City Council
s/ City of Aspen
Publish in The Aspen Times on April 23, 2015
5 STRING LLC 834 WEST HALLAM ASSOCIATES LLC 949 WEST SMUGGLER STREET LLC
PO BOX 1709 200 E MAIN ST 3489 W 62 AVE
GATLINBURG,TN 37738 ASPEN,CO 81611 DENVER,CO 80221
ANDERSON ANGUS A BECKLEY JOHN W&MARY ANN P BENDON CHRISTOPHER J
277 WILLITS LN 16818 FALLS RD 920 W HALLAM ST
BASALT,CO 81621 UPPERCO,MD 21155 ASPEN,CO 81611
BLANZ JAMES M BOSKO DANIEL A BOURKE MICHAEL&JANINE
6344 NW 50TH ST PO BOX 9171 716 FRANCIS ST
CORAL SPRINGS,FL 33067 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611
BOYE CAROL BRADY KAREN KAY CHOUMAS JOHN JAMES&PATRICIA G
7 TEPEE ST 15 CASTLE HARBOR IS 1601 E OLYMPIC BLVD STE 313 BLDG 300
HAMPTON BAYS,NY 119461736 FORT LAUDERDALE,FL 333086011 LOS ANGELES,CA 90021
COHEN SANDRA REV TRUST CRITERION HOLDING CO LLC CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN
901 W FRANCIS ST 790 W HALLAM ST #10 726 W FRANCIS ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816111157 ASPEN,CO 81611
ECKART CHARLES F FARRELL EMILY FRANCIS STREET LLC
910 W HALLAM ST APT 5 790 W HALLAM ST PO BOX 1365
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
GARDNER TODD GILES NATHAN R GOLD RUSH LLC
2148 AABC NOURIAN NASIM 204 PARK AVE#1K
ASPEN,CO 81611 1380 W AUTO DR BASALT,CO 81621
TEMPE,AZ 85284
GORTAN TIZIANO&ENRICA U GRUTA LIVING TRUST HEATH SHANTA K
260 COLUMBINE CT 2353 BROOKSHIRE LN 790 W HALLAM ST#9
BASALT,CO 81621 LOS ANGELES,CA 90077-1340 ASPEN,CO 81611
HENDERSON CHRISTOPHER J&CHANTAL N HERMAN LLOYD KOSFIELD ASPEN LC
5342 HWY 133 320 N 7TH ST 100 SE SECOND ST#2800
CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81611 MIAMI,FL 33131
LRG PROPERTY TRUST MADSEN GEORGE W JR&CORNELIA G MARKEY PETER&CHRISTINE
1100 CAMELLIA BLVD#201 931 W FRANCIS ST 922 W HALLAM
LAFAYETTE,LA 70508 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
MATKIN SALOISE MCTAMANEY ROBERTA 111 2012 FAMILY MG DUPLEX LLC
PO BOX 8644 TRUST 825 W NORTH ST
ASPEN,CO 81612-8644 KUKIO 72 124 LAE KIKAUA MAUKA ST ASPEN,CO 81611
KAILUA KONA,HI 96740
MICROPLAS MGMT CO - MILLER ANN F OK SMUGGLER LLC
790 W HALLAM#10 715 W SMUGGLER ST 735 W SMUGGLER ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
OTT JOHN&CAROL M PARELMAN ALLEN G REV TRUST POWELL WILLIAM EUGENE TRUST 04/1992
129 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE 734 W SMUGGLER 11 LYNN BATTS LN#100
SNOWMASS,CO 81654-9318 ASPEN,CO 81611 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78218
i
i
RATNER DENNIS F TRUST RUECKERT WILLIAM SANCHEZ ANDY L&MICHELLE MAINS
1577 SPRING HILL RD#500 850 HULLS FARM RD PO BOX 1801
VIENNA;VA 22182 SOUTHPORT,CT 06890 ASPEN,CO 81612
SANZONE SHERI A SAXON FAMILY DELTA TRUST SCHUHMACHER ASPEN PARTNERSHIP NO II
920 W HALLAM ST 6677 S EVANSTON CIR LTD
ASPEN,CO 81611 TULSA,OK 74136 505 N 8TH ST
ASPEN,CO 81611
SCHWAB ROBERT AND LOUISE FAMILY TRUST SHANE STEVEN DAVID&CLARE EVERT SHARP DESIGNS INC
10940 WILSHIRE BLVD#2250 117 S MONARCH ST 936 W FRANCIS
LOS ANGELES,CA 90024 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
SIMMONS W JUNE TRUST 55% SMUGGLER LLC ST GEORGE INVESTMENTS LLC
BIXBY NEENA B 45% 1044 OLIVE ST 601 POYDRAS STE 2625
4128 RHODES AVE DENVER,CO 80220 NEW ORLEANS,LA 701306043
STUDIO CITY,CA 91604
STRASSBURGER SARAH E TALENFELD ELIZABETH G WAGAR RICHARD H
910.W HALLAM ST 915 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 9063
APT 3 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612
ASPEN,CO 81611-1158
WATERS SOMERSET WEINGART JAMES B&PATRICIA L WEST HALLAM STREET LLC
1311 MILLBROOK SCHOOL RD 55 GREENTREE 210 AABC STE MM
MILLBROOK,NY 12545 CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 ASPEN,CO 816113513
WYLY CHERYL R MARITAL TRST
3905 BEVERLY DR
DALLAS,TX 75205
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: TBD Eighth Street,Aspen,CO-Lots 4 and 5,Ranger Station
Subdivision (formerly part of the USFS property 816/896 W.Hallam St.)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 4,2015
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, E. Michael Hoffman, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby
personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E)
of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a
paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public
hearing.A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
X Posting of notice: By posting.of notices on each of the lots which are the subject of the
application, in the forms obtained from the Community Development Department,which was
made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing scheduled
for the 4t' day of May, 2015, to and including the date and time of the public hearing.
Photographs of the posted notices(signs)are attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development
Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the
Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand
delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within
three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names
and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as
they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of.the public hearing.A copy of
the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and
attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035,
Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the
method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the
public is attached hereto.
e
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to
affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the
initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral
estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,
Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments,
and new Specially Planned Areas,are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be
changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever
the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title
and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate
survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived.
L
er, th roposed nin map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
d ng al in ss ours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such
nts.
Michael Hoffman
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this 17`h day of April,2015, by
Michael Hoffman. -
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: h U 1 J/
Notary Public `
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
RACHAELPUDLO
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE POSTED NOTICES(SIGNS) Notary Public
State of Colorado
Notary 10 20144025126
My.Commission Expires Jun 24,2018
P ' -
' rig -
r -
PUBLIC NOTICE
Date "A Mit
Time,4o Fw
Place."cam.(Nr--•
CRj N6.t k b tali►a E!
Purpose:
AW*n Cry Cc.�traps.ar
PPPW~a�h NCw
LA 11I k+M W !,
4Gv�rnrR Re.gw psyti,J
Vrnvy pK�4!�]O i.JuJ lay�,�
PUBLIC NOTICE
Date : May 4, 2015
Time, , 4:00 PM
Places. city Council Chambers,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena St
Purpose : -
Aspen Counckwill consider
application submitted by Aspen
Dragonfly Partners III,LLC (c/o
Garfield & Hecht,601 E. Hyman AV
Ashen, CO 81611 ) for this site. To
develop the lot with.a residence or
duplex, a_pplicant requests Growth
Management Review, Planned
Development Amendment_ and a
vested prppertLr rig_ht._Contact Aspe
Planning Dept 97 20-5090 for ' .
Y
NOTICEPUBLIC
PUBLIC NOTICE
Date : May 4, 2015
Time : 4:00 PSI
Place : City_Council Chambers,
CitaHall. 130 S. Galena St
Purpose :
Aspen Cit. Counovv'
_�II_consider an
application submitted _by Aspen
Dragonfly Partners_IV,LLC (c/o
Garfield & Hecht,601 E. H man Aver
Aspen, CO 81611 y for this site. To
develop the lot with a residence
applicant requests Growth
Management Review,Planned _
Development Amendment and a
vestedo_ro ,0y right. Contact Aspen
Planning_ Det p 20-50910 for info. .
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
8 14q�/��1 SY , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
1`1mrt�c�► � ® �T r► ,201j'
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
(name,please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section.of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A�copy of the publication is attached hereto.
-Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials,,,Which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one.inch in
height. Said notice waspostedat least fifteen(I5)'days prior to the pulilic hearing
on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing.-;of,notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.-3.04-06-0� (E)(2) o th„e`Aspen LandFUse Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
{ t the'pubM hearing, notibe was Mand delivered or mailed by first class postage
mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
yproperty subject sto the development application. The names and addresses of
Jia;it+>_it..s�;-10_�R.�f
7 ,6�;r, P;,,;propert'� ers shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
gra, t, gfcui t appeared no,more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
_ . .... r
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
t
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public ,hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral esthte1owners shall be_tliose;q,Jthe current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PVDs that
create more than one. lot,,new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to•this notice,'regiaire' ienti '
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title,and enactment of a new land use,regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of pan accurate survey crap or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments. -
Signature
The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this-20 day
of21AS ,by ,v�`E'.Q`.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE:Lots 4 and 5,Ranger Station Subdhrision
(formerly part of the USFSproperty M commission expires:
81SM96 W.Hallam St) Y p
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Monday,May 4,2015,at a meeting
to begin at 4:00 p.m.before the Aspen City Coun-
cil,in the City Council chambers,City Hall,to con.
sider an application submitted by Mike Hoffman on
behalf of Aspen Dragonfly Partners III,LLC and No ary Public •-'......�
Aspen
Dragonfly Garfield
anHecht PCI01 Partners Hyman Ave., KAREN REED PATTERSON
81611).The Applicant requests two growth man- NOTARY PUBLIC;.
agement allotments,a Planned Development
Amendment and a five year vesting period to de-
velop lot 4 with a single-family residence or duplex NOTARY ID#19964002787
and lot 5 with a single family residence.For further
information,contact Jennifer.Phelan at the City of
As
Community Development Department,130 CACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE' My Commission Expires February 15,2016
S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970)920.5090,Jenni- _
fer.Phelan@cityotaspen.com I
ZSteve Skadran Mavor `EICATION
Aspen City Council . . THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
P City of Aspe
(11107663) e Aspen Times on April i 6 2015, .
Publish in T ERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
.
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3