HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20150915
MEETING CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 24
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 15, 2015
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Minutes - August 24 & 25, 2015
b) Resolution #99, Series 2015 - Police/Community Health Services IGA
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #36, Series 2015 - Timeshare Code Amendment
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #94, Series of 2015 - Policy Resolution - Elevator and Emergency
Access Code Amendment
b) Ordinance #28, Series 2015 - 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
c) Ordinance #31, Series of 2015 - 110 E. Bleeker Transferable Development Rights
d) Ordinance #34, Series 2015 - Housing Credits Code Amendment
IX. Action Items
X. Adjournment
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS ...................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
AGENDA ADDITIONA AND DELETIONS .............................................................................................. 2
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
NOTICE OF CALL UP ................................................................................................................................ 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4
Resolution #86, Series of 2015 – Easement for Pitkin County Courthouse ......................................... 4
Resolution #90, Series of 2015 – Castle Creek Over Crossing Bridge Repair Contract ...................... 4
Resolution #88, Series of 2015 – Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds Generated through the
Renewable Energy mitigation Program ........................................................................................................ 4
Resolution #89, Series of 2015 – Truscott Site improvement and Burlingame Phase 1 Parking –
Construction Contract ................................................................................................................................... 4
Minutes – August 10, ............................................................................................................................ 4
Resolution #87, Series of 2015 – Contract for Security Services ......................................................... 4
CERTIFICATION OF BASE 2 REFERENDUM PETITION ..................................................................... 5
RESOLUTION #93 SERIES OF 2015 – Armory Building Use Ballot Question ........................................ 8
RESOLUTION #92, SERIES OF 2015 – Coordinate November 3, 2015 Election with Pitkin County ...... 9
ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2015 – 110 E. Bleeker – Establishment of Transferable Development
Rights ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
ORDINANCE #32 & #33, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 1-3, Growth
Management Allotments ............................................................................................................................. 10
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2015 – Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Code Amendment . 11
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2015 – Code Amendment – Residential Mitigation Requirements ........ 12
RESOLUTION #85, SERIES OF 2015 – Annexation 705 W Hopkins – To Be Continued to 7/28/2015 . 13
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 – 620 E Bleeker Aspen Historical Society, Lot Split and TDRs ... 14
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place – Rezoning and Minor PD Amendment ........ 14
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment .............................. 14
RESOLUTION #96, SERIES OF 2015 – Reinstating the Base 2 Application ........................................... 16
RESOLUTION #95, SERIES OF 2015 – Ballot Language for Base 2 Question ....................................... 18
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 – 620 e Bleeker – Aspen Historical Society – Lot Split and TDRs
.................................................................................................................................................................... 19
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place – Rezoning and Minor PD Amendment ........ 21
P1
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
2
At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Daily,
Myrin and Frisch present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS
1. Ron Krajian lives at the Aspen Square and handed out pictures of the trees blocking the views in
front of the windows of his second floor corner unit. The City planted trees that are now 40 feet
high and spread out like crazy. He is asking permission per section 21.30.050 to trim the top 12
to 14 feet of the trees. Mayor Skadron said pruning is one thing, loping 10 feet off the top is
another. Mr. Barwick said parks will come by to see what pruning can be done. Councilman
Frisch said he spoke to parks and loping off 10 to 12 feet isn’t trimming. The hierarchy in this
town is trees, buildings, dogs and people. He does not think they were planted to block your
view. We would be opening a big can of worms. Councilwoman Mullins said the pictures are
very effective but they seem to be deciduous so you have the view six months of the year. We
could talk to the forester about thinning the trees.
2. Jim Smith from Concept 600 said they had an owners meeting last Saturday. The owners wanted
to express their appreciation to Community Development and Council for returning their property
rights.
3. Matt O’Reilly, 225 N 6th Street and representing the Victoria Square owners said he is in
opposition of the rezoning, variance and TDR’s for the Historical Society. He is a part time
resident here. He supports staff’s point of view against this. Can the property be rezoned. You
can argue the development rights have been sterilized. None of the Victoria Square residents
received notice about the July 27 first reading. Why go for TDRs and rezoning without
committing to selling the TDRs or building the residence. They may build in the future or they
may sell the TDRs in the future. He supports employee housing, happy to pay the transfer tax,
suggest AHS consider 16 TDRs.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Frisch said the bike race was very well handed. Hats off to parks and special events.
It was mellower and a nice trade off from last year’s start. He thinks it is a great asset for the
town.
2. Councilman Myrin thanked the sponsors of the bike race including Shane Aspen Real Estate,
Aspen Snowmass Related, Aspen 82, Marmot, Aspen Club, Colorado Mountain Express, KSPN,
We Cycle, Aspen Times, Cycling Club and Energy Smart.
3. Councilman Daily seconded the appreciation for everyone associated with the race.
4. Councilwoman Mullins also said the race was great. She mentioned the article in paper talking
about the downsides of the race. She said a follow up work session may be good.
5. Councilwoman Mullins said she was in Anderson Park the other day and one of the buildings is
falling down and one of the other ones is almost falling down. She wants to know why.
6. Councilwoman Mullins met with Eden Vardy of Aspen Tree and what they are doing at Cozy
Point. She encourages everyone to visit.
7. Mayor Skadron concurs with Council on the bike race. It showcases our community and
emphases Aspen as a bike destination. While the television coverage was less extensive as in the
past the marketing impact is worth the financial investment and the inconvenience the community
sustains. He is curious to hear how the community feels about no cars in the downtown core.
AGENDA ADDITIONA AND DELETIONS
Resolution #85, Annexation of 705 West Hopkins will be continued to September 28 after hearing briefly
from the City Clerk.
Ordinance #26, Obermeyer Place Rezoning will be continued to tomorrow, August 25.
Ordinance #23, 620 E Bleeker Aspen Historical Society will also be continued to tomorrow, August 25.
P2
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
3
BOARD REPORTS
1. Councilwoman Mullins stated the Red Brick has a terrific outdoor seating area and a great exhibit
inside. The Plein Air festival two weeks ago was very successful.
2. The Board of health met last week. It is a combined City/County board. They discussed funding
strategies. The health and human service grants are in now. She is representing the City on the
grant committee and will update as they happen.
3. The BOCC met mainly on the landfill. It was alarming information on the short life expectancy
and the effort to divert trash. The City has one staff member that is dedicating 30 to 50 percent of
her time to managing the Rio Grande center.
4. Councilman Frisch said CORE is doing great things and we will hear from Mona with the consent
item.
5. Mayor Skadron stated RFTA met last Thursday. One key issue is corridor access. RFTA has
responsibility with managing the bike trail along the Rio Grande corridor. He is concerned that
there is no global RFTA policy with trail access. There was a request last meeting from Aces and
he voted against it. The second key issues is the integrated transit system and long term strategic
plan. He believe Aspen has met its bus threshold.
NOTICE OF CALL UP
308 S Hunter
Sara Nadolny, community development, told the Council Native Roots is located in the top level and
Little Ollies and Zanes are located in the bottom level. On August fourth, P&Z granted unanimous
approval for reskinning of the building. The applicant is looking to replace the wood siding with ceramic
C channel trim.
Councilman Myrin asked about the lighting for Native Roots and if the backlit sign is allowed. Ms.
Nadolny said the sign was not part of this application and any new sign would have to go through zoning.
She will look in to it.
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of it.
Councilwoman Mullins said she has four questions that are straight out of the guidelines. Does this
material reflect, compliment, and enhance the context of the commercial core or the brick buildings that
are adjacent to it or across the street. Does it reduce the perceived scale of the building. It is compatible
with traditional masonry in town. Does it have proven durability in weathering in this climate. She is not
sure the treatment complies with all or some. Ms. Nadolny replied they see ceramic tiles as a form of
masonry compatible to what is used around town. It is very similar to the L’hostria building a block over.
It was approved with very similar tile. Staff has no issues regarding the scale and how it is perceived as a
larger massing. It softens up the building a bit. It has been proven durable for our weather.
Councilwoman Mullins said it looks out of character with the commercial downtown core. It is going in a
direction she is not sure is in character with the downtown.
Councilman Frisch asked is the concern the guidelines are wrong or the board made the wrong call. She
replied that’s the problem with guidelines. They are not black and white. Is it compatible. Is it
reinforcing the downtown. It does not look thought out but simplistic. Chris Bendon, community
development, said it is not in the historic district. The exterior materials now are grooved plywood. It is
a very simple exterior refreshing of the building not an extensive remodel. We saw this used successfully
at the L’hosteria building. It was a 7 to 0 vote at P&Z. Councilwoman Mullins stated she wants to be
careful since we are seeing more and more of these remodels come through. Mr. Bendon said it might be
different if they were taking the proposed material and replacing it with the grooved plywood.
Councilman Myrin said he would support Councilwoman Mullins to call this up.
Councilman Myrin moved to call up 308 S Hunter; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion
carried.
P3
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
4
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #88 REMP
Mona Newton, executive director
Mayor Skadron said REMP stands for renewable energy mitigation program and gives a property owner a
choice for mitigating for excessive energy use through the installation of onsite renewables or paying into
an impact fee. Annually the funds are distributed. A citizen board reviews applications and makes
applications to the CORE board and City Council and Pitkin County are the final authorizing body. The
combined total is 1.6 million dollars and spread across four programs including the Randy Udall energy
pioneer grant, REACH, energy smart and net zero buildings.
Councilman Myrin said CMC is receiving 75,000 dollars. They have their own district tax and asked if
they can raise that within their district. Ms. Newton replied it will be matching. All of the grants will not
be fully funding a project. They are partial or matching. CMC has already raised some money and will
be matching. They requested 100,000 dollars and CORE is recommending 75,000.
Councilman Frisch said if you build in the City of Aspen you might have to kick in to the REMP. Pitkin
County has the same rules. He asked about Snowmass. Ms. Newton said they have a similar program,
REOP. Since up till recently there has been no building going on in town the fund balance has been low.
Councilman Frisch said he wants to make sure Snowmass is collecting their fair share but is happy to
stick with this for now so CORE is not caught in the middle.
Councilman Daily said some of the approved funding is significantly less, what are the questions to
determine the funding. Ms. Newton said they use a matrix. The requests are scored on community
assistance and affordable housing, cost effectiveness, public visibility and education, market influence,
new technology, energy savings and carbon savings.
Ms. Newton said this is the third year for REACH. It is a rolling grant that supports low to moderate
income families. It provides energy assessment for their home. They provided assessments for 27
homeowners last year. This is only for Pitkin County.
The zero energy incentive program provides up to 10,000 dollars as an incentive to get to zero.
Mayor Skadron said it is exciting and CORE is doing great work.
Resolution #87 security services
Councilman Myrin asked what happens if construction runs early or goes late. It looks like a fixed
amount will there be an adjustment in the amount.
Jack Wheeler, asset, replied it is set for three months but it may come in early and we would negotiate the
contract. It depends on how early. There is a rate schedule tied to the contract.
Resolution # 90 Castle Creek Over Crossing Bridge Repair
Austin Weiss, parks, said this is for the pedestrian bridge by Prince of Peace Church. It was struck by a
truck. Jim True, attorney, said claims have been submitted and insurance will cover it.
• Resolution #86, Series of 2015 – Easement for Pitkin County Courthouse
• Resolution #90, Series of 2015 – Castle Creek Over Crossing Bridge Repair Contract
• Resolution #88, Series of 2015 – Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds Generated through the
Renewable Energy mitigation Program
• Resolution #89, Series of 2015 – Truscott Site improvement and Burlingame Phase 1 Parking –
Construction Contract
• Minutes – August 10, 2015
• Resolution #87, Series of 2015 – Contract for Security Services
P4
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
5
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
CERTIFICATION OF BASE 2 REFERENDUM PETITION
Linda Manning, city clerk, told the Council on June 15 she received an intent to file a referendum petition
for Ordinance 1, Series of 2015 by Ward Hauenstein and Marcia Goshorn. On July 8 they submitted the
petition and it contained about 1300 signatures. She verified the petition contained sufficient signatures.
733 signatures were verified when it was required to have 617. This was the first available Council
meeting after the signatures were verified in which to notify Council.
Jim True, city attorney, stated upon receipt of information that the signatures were verified the applicant
indicated to City Staff he intended to withdraw, vacate, abandon the application. On August 19, 2015 he
sent a letter stating he formally wished to withdrawal the PD application and forfeiture of the associated
approvals. Mr. True said if a vacation, forfeiture, abandonment has legal effect, and he believe it does,
then no further action is required on this item. The charter does state that when a petition is deemed
appropriate for a referendum, Council shall reconsider the referred ordinance by voting its repeal. Our
code does have provisions such as abandonment of an application deemed void and there was clear
vacation and forfeiture of all rights, he does not believe there is any referred ordinance that is
appropriately reconsidered by Council. It is his opinion there is no further action required. There is no
vote required. This application has been effectively vacated, forfeited, abandoned. If however, Council
wishes to take further or different action it is up to Council.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Ward Hauenstein said the successful completion of a petition requires one of two actions of
Council; repeal to go to a vote. Mr. Hunt indicated there would be no election. The solution is
for Council to repeal Ordinance 1 of 2015. It requires 75 percent of Council to repeal. In the
absence of that it automatically goes to a vote. The letter in the packet indicates there is no desire
to go to an election.
2. Maurice Emmer stated he agrees the application may be dead as a legal matter but it is irrelevant.
When Council passes an ordinance and the people raise a petition the Council must repeal the
ordinance or must allow the matter to go to a public vote. The Council should follow the law.
Council needs to stand up and make a choice.
3. Marcia Goshorn said we need to make sure we don’t have unintended consequences in the future.
The ordinance was passed and the ordinance follows the land. If it is rescinded at this point it is
not an unintended consequence that could accidently happen in the future. Get rid of the
ordinance and there is no question of what can happen in the future.
Mr. True said the ordinance has never taken effect under the law. He does not think it is necessary to take
further action. Council could take the action of repealing or setting the election. There is also a
provision that would allow the applicant to ask for the application to be reinstated. He has no problem
with Council taking one of these actions. He is not suggesting the vacation is not ineffective.
Mr. Emmer said the people have spoken and want Council to repeal the ordinance. He said he heard it
said today that some on Council were advised it would be dangerous to repeal the ordinance. If there is
that belief it should be discussed in open meeting.
Councilman Frisch interpreted that as there are two legal options from a legal standpoint but only one
option from a community standpoint. Council should take some kind of action tonight.
Councilwoman Mullins asked for the difference between repeal, rescind or revoke.
Mr. True said the charter says following a petition Council shall reconsider a referred ordinance by voting
its repeal. The proper term is repeal. At this point the application is withdrawn, vacated, abandoned,
forfeited and no further action is necessary. Councilwoman Mullins said in your opinion there is no
P5
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
6
standing ordinance because it did not take effect because of the petition. Mr. True said it never went
into effect and before it ever finished the process to become in effect the applicant withdrew it.
Mr. Hauenstein replied Council did pass the ordinance. It is on the books. Council must repeal or send it
to a vote. Mr. True said he respectfully disagrees. The ordinance did pass but never became effective and
now it has been withdrawn.
4. Mark Hunt said he really did think it was over. He acknowledged there were enough signatures
from the petition and that he sent a letter abandoning the application. From that time he started
reading that the people have spoken but he does not believe the people have had the option to
speak. He always believed in Base and it is the right thing for the community. When it finally
came down to repeal or go to a vote, he thought he was protecting Council. Now there is one of
two choices, send to a vote or repeal. If it is something Council believes in and they still believe
in the project he is willing to take it to a vote. He is a believer that Council should vote for what
they believe in. If he has a right to campaign and take it to the ballot that is his two sense.
Councilman Frisch said we should either repeal or put it on the ballot. Are you suggesting if it were to go
to the ballot you could verbally let the community know or commit to the community you would build the
lodge. Mr. Hunt replied yes I would. If it truly went to a vote and won I would build a lodge. If it went
to an election I would build it if it was approved. Councilman Frisch asked him to add some clarity to the
letter. How would you walk that line of not stirring the pot and championing this project. Mr. Hunt said
it started out with meeting with some of the people involved with the petition. My biggest frustration is
getting the information out. Getting the right information out. We are also working with a bunch of other
applications that we are proud of. I’ve showed them every single property I’m working on down to the
detail.
5. Rubin Sadowsky said he was really bummed when he saw the letter in the paper the project was
over. It is good for the community and people his age. He really hopes it goes to a vote. He
hopes there is a counter voice to it.
6. LJ Erspamer said it was a misdirected process initially. These things should be mitigated
properly. The compatibility is not consistent. Is the application vacated or not. Mr. True said the
letter makes it clear the application is vacated.
7. Peter Fornell asked what is the cost to the community for a special election. This could be a
litmus test for the process. He thinks you will find very little participation. It will be more worth
wile to direct effort to the land use code.
Mayor Skadron close the public comment.
Councilman Myrin said if there is Council support to rescind it would be supportive of the memo from
the applicant and this would be finished. For some reason this has turned into rehashing of the approval
which creates extreme distrust of the leadership at this table. The City Attorney has said the application
has been vacated and he agrees somewhat with him that the ordinance does not go into effect once the
petition process starts. Because we are having this conversation makes it clear we are not being clear
with the community. If there is support at the table he would move to support a motion to rescind the
ordinance. It would keep in line with the expectations out there. Trusting the applicant is the wrong
conversation to have.
Mr. True said we have a resolution repealing Ordinance 1 if that is the direction you want to go. If you
wish to go toward an election it would require further discussion with the applicant and Council. It would
take four to repeal. To put it on the ballot Council would have to make the determination that the
applicant is asking for a reinstatement of the application and it is in the best interest of the City to do so
and direct the community development director to do that. There are risks to do so. There are risks to the
applicant. He believes the applicant is aware of those risks.
P6
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
7
Councilman Daily stated he voted in favor of the project. He thought it was a good one and still do.
There were enough signers to take this to an election. Less than a week ago you submitted a very clear
withdrawal of the application. We don’t have an application before us tonight. You have not reinstated it
tonight. Where does that leave this City Council. I’m not sure it has any further effect. If we were to say
let’s take it to an election I’m not sure what we would be taking to an election. What are you suggesting
this Council do. I’m not sure we have anything to take to the electorate. I have every confidence in our
electorate making the right decision. I don’t see a very clear picture.
Mr. Hunt stated if it’s going to a vote or Council doesn’t want to get in the habit of repealing I would ask
the question of can you withdraw the withdrawal.
Mr. True said part of the dilemma is he submitted the letter vacating it. It would take some action on the
part of the applicant and Council to reinstate the application. I do not recommend you send it to a vote
that would be a hollow vote. The applicant could ask on the record for the application to be reinstated
and it is in the best interest of the city to be reinstated. There are risks associated with reinstating the
application. I do believe Council can take those steps. Mr. Bendon said it would need to be a decision by
Council to accept the reinstatement. There is a provision in code that says no multiple applications for the
same property. Another section states “an abandoned application shall render all previously issued land
use approvals which do not constitute the approval of site specific development plan void unless the
community development director determines that reinstatement of the application is in the best interest of
the city”. It implies that one can reinstate if it is in the best interest of the city.
Councilman Myrin said this goes against our top ten goals of being open and communicate with the city.
We did not ask for this letter or abandonment. Now we are trying to play a game and it is not the right
message to send to the community.
Councilwoman Mullins said the biggest mistake would be to take no action tonight. She said she can’t
support repealing because it muddies the water. The ordinance has not taken effect, the application has
been vacated and there is nothing to repeal. Why add that layer of confusion. The other alternative is to
go to a vote but as Councilman Daily said she has no idea what we would be voting on. Mr. True said it
would clarify the situation if Council would repealed the ordinance.
Mr. Emmer said we had an application and we also have an ordinance. They are separate but related.
The ordinance is put in the world of repeal or put to a public vote. We are caught by the state and city
law that says whenever an ordinance is passed the people may do what they did in this case.
Councilman Frisch said he does not think Council is rehashing the application. The number one issue
facing the community is the land use code and AACP are not matching up. We need more lodging not
retail. His gut reaction is to bring more lodging to the community. We heard from Bert, Maurice and
Marcella that Referendum 1 is not a land use decision but a process. Referendum 1 is saying if Council
gave a variance you must take it to the voter and they will make the right decision. This is as good as an
application that we have seen in a long time. I stand by that decision. There are a lot of people who want
to see it voted on. I think 75 to 80 percent of the community want to vote on it. The up side is the lodge
gets approved and it makes me happy and makes the community much better off. Between now and
November the community can become aware of the options. The downside of a vote is it can become
divisive to the community. Outside of the legal mumbo jumbo he would like to see the community vote
on it. The legal term is to ask for a do over. If we can’t get there we should take action to formally repeal
it. Put it on the ballot or repeal it.
Mayor Skadron said he thinks Maurice is right. There is an ordinance on the books and a decision is
necessary. He also thinks Councilman Myrin is right. This is a case to give voters a chance to compare
principles. When we vote we make the government and community better. Voting is morally significant.
The petitioners asked us to let the people speak and I say we should let the people speak and I think this
should go to a vote.
P7
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
8
Councilwoman Mullins stated she would prefer it go to a vote.
Councilman Myrin said he prefers to repeal it.
Councilman Daily stated he very much supports it going to a vote. He would like a level of confidence
that if the voters vote in support of the project that it will move the project forward in spite of letter we
received.
Mr. True said in order to take it to a vote there will be further action required. We do not have ballot
language or a resolution. There will need to be specific action on Mr. Hunt’s part. It will be appropriate
to ask him to submit his position asking him that his abandonment be rescinded and his application be
reinstated. We should set the matter for tomorrow and have ballot language available and Mr. Hunt can
submit his request to reinstate the application. Council will have to make a determination that reinstating
the application is in the city’s best interest.
Councilman Frisch stated he supports going to a vote.
Councilman Myrin said the Mayor is making us all look like fools as leaders of the community. If we had
not received a letter that withdrew the application, which is very clear then we would not have been
having this conversation. Right now we are discussing if this letter is valid or not valid. My concern was
it is just a piece of paper and things seem to always turn around in this town and that is exactly what
happen. You can’t trust any developer in this town especially Mark Hunt.
Mr. True said the letter very clearly vacated the application and forfeited the approvals. It has legal
effect. He is requesting at this point to request reinstatement. He is requesting that be withdrawn and his
application be reinstated and it lead to a vote at this point.
Mayor Skadron asked if it is as black and white as Councilman Myrin just laid it out. Mr. True replied he
went further than I would personally care to go. This was vacated and no further action was needed by
Council and there was nothing left to do. There is a different step by Mr. Hunt at this stage by suggesting
the application be reinstated.
Councilman Daily said the only question is can he legally reinstate. Mr. True said we can look at it
further but we do believe the code allows for reinstatement of an abandoned application.
Mayor Skadron thanked the community for their patience and valuable input. This item will continue at
4:00 pm tomorrow.
RESOLUTION #93 SERIES OF 2015 – Armory Building Use Ballot Question
Jack Wheeler, asset, told the Council this would place a question on the ballot stating which use for the
Aspen Armory site (current City Hall) do you prefer for a long range 50 year plan, choose only one –
renovation for community public use or city offices.
Councilwoman Mullins said she talked a lot last meeting of all the public participation of the last few
years and asked how we disseminate that information so people can vote well informed on this. Mr. True
said there are limitations of participation by governments on any issues submitted to electorates. There is
authority to submit a summary of facts including pros and cons that can be submitted to the electorate.
Council itself is authorized to pass a resolution taking a position on a ballot issue. We do need to be
cognizant of the code restrictions. Mr. Barwick said individual Council Members can take their own
positions as they choose.
P8
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
9
Councilman Frisch said there is a tradeoff between the amount of square feet that is actually built, the
cost, the duration of construction, the efficiency for the workforce and the community. That is the
discussion point. It’s as simple as can be. He supports where we are and looks forward to seeing it on the
ballot.
Councilman Myrin said he is ok with it as is.
Councilman Daily said he respects the direction it is going. He is ok with the ballot question.
Mayor Skadron said he is ok with it too.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #93, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All
in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #92, SERIES OF 2015 – Coordinate November 3, 2015 Election with Pitkin County
Ms. Manning stated this resolution will coordinate with Pitkin County for the November third election.
The intergovernmental agreement lays out what we are responsible for including a minimal financial
responsibility of 1,000 dollars.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #92, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2015 – 110 E. Bleeker – Establishment of Transferable Development
Rights
Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this request is to remove two TDRs. HPC
reviewed the project and Council did not ask for a call up. It is a substantial restoration of the Victorian
house. It has been painted, the front bay window is gone and the porch is enclosed. The owner will put it
back to the way it was originally designed. HPC has given approval for an addition. It leaves 500 sq ft
unused and the applicant has proposed to convert it to two TDRs.
Councilman Frisch asked when an applicant usually ask for the TDR’s. Ms. Simon replied they can ask
at anytime they like. Councilman Frisch asked if it is in the renovation process now. Ms. Simon replied
it is not under construction. Councilman Frisch asked if they have anything by right in terms of TDRs.
Ms. Simon said no.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if they were given the 500 sq ft bonus. Ms. Simon stated yes.
Councilwoman Mullins asked is the purpose of the bonus to turn it into two TDRs. Ms. Simon said just
because they ask for TDRs they should not be ineligible for the floor area bonus. They really have earned
it. It could be argued they are using the bonus for the project and selling other floor area. Councilwoman
Mullins said she thought the bonus was for exceptional restoration not for TDRs. Mayor Skadron said the
program is on the verge of being abused if it isn’t already. We are fabricating a development right. Ms.
Simon replied they could have built a bigger addition. Councilman Frisch said there is some kind of
economic value. Councilwoman Mullins said if the FAR bonus is a monetary incentive that is the way it
should be viewed if that is what it is turning into. Councilman Frisch asked if the TDR program was
taken away how is the community worse. Ms. Simon said the TDR program offers another alternative
P9
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
10
than onsite development. If the program is gone we go back to what we had where a deserving project
asks for a bonus and puts that square footage on the site.
Councilman Myrin said he thinks it is an appropriate conversation for some other time but he will support
this for now.
Councilman Daily said he will also support this proposal tonight. It is timely to revisit TDRs.
Mayor Skadron concurs.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #31, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #31
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING
TWO TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 E.
BLEEKER, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #32 & #33, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 1-3, Growth
Management Allotments
Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the ranger station subdivision is comprised of five lots via
a plat that was created and recorded by the US Forest Service in 2013. The property is located in the west
end off of Hallam, 7th and 8th. In 2013 the City did not object to the subdivision but did note the lots
would need to be developed meeting city requirements inclusive of gaining development rights for each
lots. Two lots have gone through this process and have been granted development allotments. This
application is similar and is requesting three development allotments. The request includes providing
mitigation through cash in lieu or affordable housing credits. One lot is requesting a determination that
the slopes on the site associated with the SI Johnson ditch are man-made. Second reading is proposed for
September 28th.
Councilman Frisch said we treated a couple lots a month ago one way and Staff is asking to continue the
consistency and treat all the lots the same way. Ms. Phelan said the application requests the same
consideration.
Councilman Daily asked if the intent of the mitigation requirements for the affordable housing is for a
physical unit but subject the lots do not permit more than one unit on the property and where is that
restriction derived from. Ms. Phelan replied the underlying zoning only allow one resident per lot so
there is not the opportunity for a second unit for each lot. Councilman Daily has no objections.
Councilman Myrin asked if this requires notice to the neighbors. Ms. Phelan said the notice is 15 days
prior to second reading.
Mayor Skadron asked if determination of man-made slopes result in greater development rights. Ms.
Phelan said it will allow for the lot size to be larger allowing for greater floor area.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #32, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
P10
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
11
ORDINANCE NO 32
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT RIEVIEWS, DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OF MANMADE
SLOPES, AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 1 AND 2, RANGER STATION
SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #32, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #33, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO 33
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, DETERMING THE PRESENCE OF MANMADE SLOPES,
AND VESTED PROEPRTY RIGHTS FOR LOT 3, RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 2015 – Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Code Amendment
Jessica Garrow, community development, told the Council the public hearing is scheduled for September
15th. The proposed code amendment would clarify when and how housing credits are established. There
are six changes including limiting the program to private developers, requirement for units to be built for
credits to be full units, units in a mixed use development to be for sale units or subject to a deed
restriction, section related to fractional units, two options related to category limitations and limitation for
credits for projects created only within the City of Aspen boundaries.
Councilwoman Mullins asked for the category limitations if APCHA is working on a determination of
cash in lieu. Ms. Garrow said they may bring it forward in the future.
Councilman Myrin asked about the letter from Mr. Fornell about the cash in lieu amounts. Ms. Garrow
said it is not in the scope of this amendment. Cash in lieu amounts are not tied to this amendment.
Councilman Myrin said what is important is to listen to the people who may see things differently than
Council and he wants to make sure that voice is heard. Councilman Frisch said he does not thinks
Peter’s letters are specifically addressed to this but the general scope.
Councilman Frisch said ADU has popped up. He does not buy the fact that 25 percent are actually
utilized. What is the dollar amount we are going to be telling people. What number are we talking about.
Ms. Garrow said that is the next item relating to mitigation. Councilman Frisch said the greatest demand
is for category two and three and it needs to be balanced with supply. Do we want to provide housing for
a wide variety of categories. Are we solely focused on a demand problem. It is important for APCHA to
remind us where the demand is.
Mayor Skadron asked for the housing board position on Next Gen’s desire. Ms. Garrow said it will be
included in the second reading packet. They recommended as well as P&Z that the code language allow
credits be established for any category that has cash in lieu rates within the guidelines.
P11
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
12
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #34, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO 34
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER
26.540 – CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2015 – Code Amendment – Residential Mitigation Requirements
Chris Bendon, community development, said this would adopt changes to eliminate voluntary occupancy
ADU’s as mitigation for residential development. It would allow homeowners to remove the ADU with a
replacement mitigation. The requirements will be based on construction and maintenance employment
based on the RRC study. It does not include employee generation from remodel activity. The ordinance
maintains the deferral option for a local working resident to be paid in the future. The current fee in lieu
requirement is just below 80 dollars per sq ft to mitigate with a cash payment. Based on the new figures
at a category two rate it would drop to just below 40 dollars.
There are also changes to the temporary use standards. There may be a desire to delay the adoption of this
ordinance based on the fee in lieu discussion with APCHA. He is suggesting the public hearing be
September 28. APCHA considered the fee in lieu rates and the City is proposing an amendment to the fee
ordinance to synchronize with this ordinance.
Councilman Frisch asked about the specific dollar amount rather than a percentage. Mr. Bendon
suggested there be a way to buy out of your ADU. A property owner could buy out of the requirement by
mitigating for .38 FTEs. They are assuming a roughly 25 percent occupancy rate of ADUs. A typical
unit is somewhere between a studio and one bedroom, housing 1.25 FTEs or .38. At the newly proposed
category two cash in lieu number would be 261,000 dollars or 95,000 dollars. Anything up to 25 percent
occupancy would be a safe assumption. Councilman Frisch asked if this a place for another option for a
certificate. Mr. Bendon replied absolutely. Councilman Frisch stated at the time of ADUs being allowed
it was more than 95,000 to put someone in there. Because the program has not worked the price to buy
out has become really low. The failure of the program has driven down the ability to buy out. If
everyone had the chance at the time to pay 95,000 dollars or put in an ADU they would have all written a
check for 95,000 dollars. Is the success of the program the only way to legally come up with a number to
buy out of a program that didn’t work. Mr. Bendon replied the folks that provided an ADU did so to
provide the required mitigation for the community. If they are going to remove that mitigation what is its
actual value to the community knowing it has a 25 percent occupancy rate.
Councilwoman Mullins asked why are we basing it on the actual occupancy rather than the potential. Mr.
Bendon replied it is hard to base it on the potential when it literally could be zero. There is a 25 percent
chance that the ADU is going to be occupied.
Councilman Myrin said there is an APCHA meeting coming up. Mr. Bendon said they met last week and
considered the fee in lieu rate structure that was considered by Council and chose not to adopt it.
Councilman Myrin asked if there is information about that it in the packet. Mr. Bendon replied no,
APCHA or managers staff will be bringing that forward in the fee ordinance amending the city’s fee
structure bringing the cash in lieu rates out of the guide lines and bringing them in to the fee ordinance.
Councilman Myrin said if we applied the 95,000 dollar with APCHAs numbers what will we get. Mr.
P12
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
13
Bendon said he used the numbers that were reviewed by Council and 20 to 30 percent higher than the
existing APCHA numbers. Councilman Myrin said the 95,000 may be the minimum.
Mayor Skadron asked how did we get to 95,000. Mr. Bendon said if a homeowner has an existing ADU
and would like to get rid of it physically or the deed restriction. It is based on the actual impact of the
housing inventory and based around removing one quarter of a housing unit or .38 FTE. At a category
two level it equals 95,000 dollars.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO 35
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY
OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.520 – ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND
CHAPTER 26.470 – GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #85, SERIES OF 2015 – Annexation 705 W Hopkins – To Be Continued to 7/28/2015
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. Councilman Daily recused himself. Jim True, city attorney,
stated the owners of 705 West Hopkins have petitioned the City for annexation. It is a multi-step process
and this is the second step in the process. The first step was the passing of Resolution 71, Series of 2015
on July 13 found the petition substantially complied with the requirements of the statutes and set this
required public hearing. There were some errors with the statutory notice for this hearing. At this point
Mr. True would like to take testimony from the Clerk to meet the statutory requirements and then
continue until September 28.
Mr. True questioned Ms. Manning about the notice that was published in the paper, the letters that were
mailed to the special districts and the proof of delivery of the notifications. The statutes changed for the
notice requirements and the notices were sent pursuant to Resolution 71 assuming a 20 day notice to the
county, county attorney and school district instead of 25 day notice. We are requesting the public hearing
be continued until September 28.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue to September 28, 2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All
in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch said at some point the community will want to hear actual stuff and the sooner we will
hear what is proposed there the better the community will feel. Tom Todd, representing the applicant,
said it is a parallel step to pursue the annexation and the land use application. They are in the early steps
of the annexation and are working on the land use application. They would expect to have the land use
application submitted by the end of year. Mr. Bendon said there needs to be a certain number of these
formal steps before the City can accept the land use application.
Councilman Myrin said he is not happy with the process. The annexation discussion should not be in
parallel with something we are enticed with or opposed to because of what it is. Mr. True said a zoning is
going to have to be placed on the property that will be subject to referendum. The applicant could
request a condition where if the zoning is not approved the annexation is terminated. At this point we are
P13
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
14
still a ways away from making a decision on this. Councilman Frisch asked if the applicant is not
allowed to show their physical cards until this is done. Mr. True said the applicant submitted with their
annexation petition some description of what they are doing. There is nothing that prohibits them from
submitting it to the public or council. Councilwoman Mullins said they don’t have to be tied together.
The fear is if the city accepts the annexation we accept the application. If the property is annexed it does
not mean the application is approved. Mr. Bendon stated the message is, there are a few initial
administrable steps before we can accept an application. The application will have to go through public
hearings and will have to stand on its own merits. There are many steps that are much more substantial.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 – 620 E Bleeker Aspen Historical Society, Lot Split and TDRs
Councilman Frisch moved to continue to 8/25/2015 at 4:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place – Rezoning and Minor PD Amendment
Councilman Frisch moved to continue to 8/25/2015 at 4:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment
Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow, stated over the years they have received a number of inquires of how
vested project are handled when an amendment is requested as well as what code a project is subject to
when multiple steps are required. This amendment addresses two specific areas including when
amendments are requested to a vested approval and when an application requires multiple review steps.
Vested projects are governed only by the duly adopted laws and regulations in effect at the time the
application is submitted to local government. The act also states vested rights are grated when a project
receives final approval as well as completes it public noticing. During the vesting period a project is
immune to changes to the land use code that occur after the initial application unless those changes are
necessary to public health and safety. Projects are entitled to a minimum of three years of vesting.
The proposed amendment contains minor and major amendments. Major or substantial amendments
currently within a vesting period would be required to come in under the new code that they made the
application under. An example would be the Boomerang. They were approved in 2006 under a 2005
code as a lodge. In 2010 the owners requested an amendment to change from a lodge to a 100 percent
affordable housing project. This would be considered a significant change. It would be processed under
the code in effect at the application date of 2015 as opposed to the code they were vested under in 2005.
A minor amendment would come under the code they received approval under. An example would the
Aspen Club. They received final approval in 2011 with a five year vesting approval. Last year they
applied for an amendment to change the roofing material. The material was an insubstantial change.
Under this code amendment it would be considered a minor change. The Chart House was approved in
2006 and received an extension of vested rights. In the last year they came in to do some material
changes and reconfigure interior changes. These are considered a minor amendment and could continue
under the code they were vested under. The first part of the amendment is to clarify when a vested
project requests an amendment how it is dealt with in terms of the land use code.
The second part of the amendment is changes that require a multi-step review. Within the vested rights
property act it defines what an application is. Within the definition it says “if a local government that has
provided for a review and approval of site specific development plans in multiple stages, application
means the original application at the first stage in any process that may culminate in the ultimate approval
of a site specific development plan”. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. They
are intended to clarify common questions that they get and to codify state law and city policy.
P14
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
15
Councilwoman Mullins said they did a really good job with this and it gets back to how clear major
versus minor is defined. The way it is written will work. What recourse is there if you think it is
substantial and they think it is insubstantial. Ms. Garrow said Council is the final arbitrator.
Councilman Daily said he is OK with it.
Councilman Myrin said it should be two ordinances major versus minor and multi-step review process.
There is value in this but he is not sure it is ready yet.
Ms. Garrow stated they could split the ordinance in two. Mr. Bendon said that both are necessary.
Councilman Myrin agreed that both are necessary but we can then better understand where on the
continuum we are. There is something between minor and major. He would like to see all of those and
where Staff would like to be, where the law allows us to be and where Council wants to be. Councilman
Frisch said the multi-step process is a concern of timing but minor and major isn’t. Councilman Myrin
said he is not clear on what minor versus major is and a list or a range of checklist would help.
Councilwoman Mullins replied one of the reasons a list doesn’t work well is you don’t want to exclude
something. Councilman Myrin said for multi-step he would like to better understand where the law
allows / requires us to go. Ms. Garrow said the state law is fairly clear is stating in a multi-step process
you are subject to the code in effect when the initial application is deemed complete. Councilman Myrin
asked if the state law is already there why do we need this. Mr. Bendon said it was a worth wile policy
discussion.
Councilman Frisch said there was concern a while back about what conceptual was and it did not really
mean anything because all the action was at the end. Now it is conceptual plus, plus, plus. What we
don’t want to have happen is something drawn on the back of an envelope and turned in as a place holder.
Mr. Bendon said they are only accepting full applications. This language is trying to differentiate changes
by review and those should be accommodated and changes just to change stuff. Changes are part of the
review process but it does not authorize other changes.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcella Lawson said she mostly agrees with Mr. True. She sent a letter from her, Mick Ireland
and Howard Wallach asking to reject this outright. The major/minor issue language has
improved from the first draft. It will be helpful to hear examples. There should be a two way
appeal process. The proposal tips the balance in favor of the developers. She applauds council
for taking the time to consider the options. She brought up how Telluride enacts code changes.
2. Maurice Emmer said he fully supports Councilman Myrin’s suggestion of two code amendments.
These are principally for the benefit for the developers not the citizens. Council has the ability to
define a point at which an application is live. This needs work.
Councilwoman Mullins said Marcella’s comments made a lot of sense. She trust Staff to not err on the
side of insubstantial versus substantial. Neighbors should be notified. Mr. Bendon said any substantial
change causes notice. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to hear more about Tellurides policy
code changes.
Mayor Skadron said to come back with the option of breaking out the amendment into two ordinances.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is clearly in the interest of the community and not the developer.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #27, Series of 2015 to October 12, 2015; seconded by
Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried.
P15
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
16
Councilman Frisch moved to continue to 4:00 p.m. August 25, 2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin.
All in favor, motion carried.
At 4:08 p.m. on August 25, 2015, Mayor Skadron opened the continued regular meeting.
RESOLUTION #96, SERIES OF 2015 – Reinstating the Base 2 Application
Jim True, city attorney, presented a letter from Haas land planning to the City. The letter says specifically
that Mr. Hunt wishes based on information and recent events to rescind the substance of the 2015 letter to
vacate, withdrawal and forfeit the approvals and application for ordinance 1 and approvals prior to it. He
then request that City Council consider the reinstatement of all such land use approvals and development
applications. “Mr. Hunt request that to the extent necessary, Chris, as the community development
director and the Aspen City Council determine that a reinstatement of such matters is the best interest of
the city. Given the recent decisions of the need for a public vote regarding Base 2 lodge land use
approvals the community’s need for additional affordable housing, lodging and the stated goals of the
Aspen Area Community Plan”. Resolution 96 acknowledges the receipt of the letter and reinstates the
application and approvals. The second resolution will submit the question to voters. We have a
resolution to repeal as well.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Mark Hunt thanked the Council for having him back. He clarified that he was confused but not
about Base. It was good for the community and it fit the long term goals of Aspen. He heard last
night there were two roads to go down, repeal or public vote. His first instinct was what are we
repealing and what are we sending to a vote. His feelings changed regarding what to do. It is a
slippery slope to go down and start repealing things that were already approved. He presented a
letter today to support the reinstatement of the application of 232 Main and hope it goes to a
public vote. He said he meant it when he sent the original letter. He did not come here to pick a
fight or put a wedge in the community. There is a level of distrust in this community and the only
way to get a real honest answer is to have a public vote.
2. Mario Zulian Talked to Mark two months ago and had a good conversation. This whole process
of political exercise is beautiful. What Mark is doing is great. He congratulated everyone on the
process. He suggested making the gas station a green gas station with a waterless car wash.
There are more solutions than just a bank or a pharmacy.
3. Ward Hauenstein stated everyone in the process is trying to pursue what they feel is best for the
City of Aspen. They collected 1312 signatures which was about 45 to 50 percent of the people
that voted in the last election. It’s a well documented process to overturn an ordinance. It is not
something to be taken lightly and a difficult task. There is no precedent for vacating a
development then reinstating it. I would prefer you not reinstate the ordinance because of the
slippery slope and precedent it sets.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Daily said we got the request to reinstate the application and he is prepared to move ahead
with Resolution 96.
Councilman Myrin stated it is improper to do something without a process in place. What we are doing
tonight is consistent with the whole process and definitely not in the best interest of the City. If the goals
are to reduce affordable housing and parking, and increase FAR we need to tell the community that and
be upfront with them and not do it one variance at a time. His concern is one of fairness. This
application has not been perceived as fair from the beginning. He said he spoke too strongly of all
developers last night. Aspen does have trustworthy developers. We need to project there is a level
playing field. This decision with no criteria or references in the code doesn’t show fairness. There is a
level of distrust. It is not resolved by a vote. We were advised last night this could set us or the applicant
up for litigation. We need to convey to the community where we are coming from. People contacted me
P16
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
17
today and said this is something that could have been planned all along as a way to avoid a November
election and bring it back after the election has passed. He is not clear we have a set process for this. He
is not clear how the meeting is noticed for the resolution to bring the application back. There are a
number of things we could have done better and still have the opportunity to do better if we rescind the
ordinance. He apologized for saying all developers are untrustworthy.
Mayor Skadron said he thought the stated goal the last several months of referendum 1 and the petitioners
is to have the electorate review Council decisions when variances are granted. Councilman Myrin replied
the stated goal of the petition was to have it on the ballot. Once it was withdrawn that no longer is
possible. Mayor Skadron said the stated goal was to have it on the ballot, if so doesn’t Mark’s change of
mind support that goal. If the goal was simply to kill the project, putting your position and beliefs in the
place of Councils, that can still be accomplished by convincing the public your position is right by
sending this to a vote. It’s a matter of a sheet of paper that was dropped off, no action was taken on it, the
applicant changed his mind and were back to where we started four days ago. I think it is overly dramatic
to suggest the entire process is unfair or corrupt or that the shenanigans of council simply because the
outcome you desire isn’t the one that is the majority opinion at the time. Mayor Skadron asked if that is
an unfair statement. Councilman Myrin replied it is unfair. It was very clear what the process is. There
is a referendum on an ordinance. The applicant withdrew, vacated, forfeited but did not abandon it. We
have a process with no criteria. We are making a resolution without the best interest of the town and
created division in the town that is completely unnecessary. Mayor Skadron said what he does not see is
how sending this to a vote and letting the people speak as the petition intended is all of a sudden a bad
thing. Councilman Myrin replied because there is a letter that happened in between. It changed the very
dynamic. We are being dishonest with the voters.
Mr. True said the code doesn’t provide criteria for determining the best interest of the city. It is within the
discretion of Council to determine it at this stage. A resolution of this sort can be placed on the agenda at
any time. It was a request by Mr. Hunt and we are dealing with timeframes with a deadline of September
4th. The code does not have a criteria of dealing with the best interest of the city within this circumstance.
Councilwoman Mullins said 96 is not a discussion of the application. Councilman Frisch made a very
strong argument why we pursued this project. One of the AACP goals is to provide affordable housing in
town. She feels strongly we are following that. We went through the normal process, did not short cut
and no scheming. While the people not in favor are quite loud there were a great number in support of the
project. She was looking forward to a vote and was disappointed when things seemed to change. She is
not in support of repeal since there was nothing to repeal. Going to a vote was not an option last night.
Now with the letter it can go to a vote and that is great. She is not sure why it could be argued it is a bad
process. As a supporter of the process she is looking forward to seeing the outcome of the vote.
Whatever the vote is she will take that direction.
Councilman Frisch thanked Ward for his comments. The incentives in the land use code and those in the
AACP are different. This application went through the normal process until the withdrawal letter. There
are a lot of options for a retail option to have lots of cars with no parking here. He will support this going
to the ballot. We are better off with a moderately price lodge than a retail space. It is unfair for the
Mayor or community development or anyone in city hall to take blame that an applicant had an idea and
somehow people convinced the applicant to try something else.
Councilman Daily said it has been mentioned if Mr. Hunt pursues this and the voters choose to support
this than someone will take it to the courts. What will they be challenging. The decision being made
tonight is Council will determine the reinstatement is in the best interest of the city. He thinks it is a
laudable and marvelous one. It is one the opponents wanted for three months and one referendum 1 was
all about. If the election comes out against it what basis will they litigate. He think it is a red herring.
The standard is if it is determined by Council it is in the best interest it is reinstated. He is looking
forward to giving our electorate a wide open opportunity to make a clean decision.
P17
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
18
Mayor Skadron said he does not see how sending this to a vote and letting the people speak just how the
petitioners intended is a bad thing.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #96, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily.
Councilman Myrin stated he cannot support this. There is no criteria in front of him as to what is the best
interest of the city. The best interest of the city is not to divide the community on an issue that we have
the opportunity to rescind. He respectfully disagrees with Councilman Daily. The city has a record of
failures including Cooper Street Pier. The Brewery has not been rezoned for a restaurant. Caution is in
the best interest of the city. Caution would be to rescind the ordinance.
Mayor Skadron said we often say at the Council table decisions should relate to a set of criteria and move
forward not because the like or dislike of something. Mr. True said the code authorizes the reinstatement
of an abandoned application. It is an appropriate statement that it is equivalent. The determination is it in
the best interest of the city. It is a broad term and a discretionary one. There is no set criteria and but not
an unusual term for Council to consider. This is simply codified and within Councils discretion. Mayor
Skadron said when the Aspen Institute comes through and Mendel Mintz facility came through and the
Aspen Club came through they used SPA and it has subjective criteria that speaks to best use the criteria
asked Council to render a judgment. Mr. Bendon said the attorney read the standard that an application
can be reinstated if it is in the best interest of the city. It grants the authority to me as director and by
extension it is the City Council. The criteria is simple and broad and asks Council in its own
determination what is best for the city. It is analogous that you need to make a decision that is best for the
community.
Councilman Myrin said the abandonment is only one piece of it. He is surprised we don’t have this piece
of code in front of us that says the power is discretionary and neither does anyone in the community.
Mr. Bendon read the section of code 26.304.070f.
Mayor Skadron called the vote. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #95, SERIES OF 2015 – Ballot Language for Base 2 Question
Ms. Manning read the question.
Mr. True said they were asked to write the question to vote yes for the lodge or vote no for no lodge to
avoid confusion about a yes means no vote. Mayor Skadron asked if this would have been more or less
the language if Mr. Hunt had not dropped off the sheet of paper then picked it back up. Mr. True said it
would have been the language. The discussion about section one of ordinance one is what is actually
subject to referendum. There is some technical legal jargon in here. If people vote no, section one is
repealed and the application cannot go forward as submitted.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #95, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
Councilman Myrin said he will vote against this. He said he would have voted against the project as well
and it would have been consistent with that vote.
Mr. Hauenstein said the petition was never about referendum 1 but ordinance 1.
Councilman Frisch said if referendum 1 did not pass, Council would have been the final review. My take
away of referendum 1 is there was enough of the community based on four instances that it should go to a
vote by the community.
Mayor Skadron called the vote. All in favor except Councilman Myrin. Motion Carried.
P18
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
19
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2015 – 620 e Bleeker – Aspen Historical Society – Lot Split and TDRs
Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the request is to memorialize the conditional use as a
museum, grant a lot split to create a 9,000 sq lot from the fathering parcel, grant a side yard set back
variance for the museum due to the proposed new lot, establish 12 TDRs from the newly created lot that
equal 3,000 square feet of allowable floor area that that would be removed from the newly created lot in
the form of TDRs.
She received some late comments and added some to the packet as the last exhibit, now named Exhibit I.
There is also an email that was sent to Council from Sara Garton in support of the request. She included
the public notice as Exhibit J and did check the mailing list and Mr. O’Reilly from last night did receive
notice.
The property is located in the medium density residential zone district. The entire property equals 53,586
sq ft. It was designated a historic landmark in 1973 and purchased in 1969 by Aspen Historical Society.
In 2005 there was discussion to enforce a covenant between the applicant and the Paepcke estate. At the
time the previous city attorney said the city had no role to enforce the covenant.
The first land use review is the conditional use. These are generally compatible with other uses in the
zone district but require individual review of location, design, configuration and density to ensure the
appropriateness with the zone district. It does allow other uses as conditional uses. This property is
substantial in lot size. It provides an example of a late 1800’s Victorian estate. The museum property
hosts a number of functions throughout the year including weddings and fundraisers. It requires
additional services like tents, bathrooms and catering services. Staff feels the expansive site can
accommodate these uses in addition to the museum use.
In looking at what type of residential development could occur on a lot of this size, the allowable square
footage for a single family would be just over 5,600 sq ft or for a duplex just under 6,100 sq ft. The
existing museum and archive building are just around 5,800 sq ft. The request is also for a lot split to
create two lots. The new lot is proposed to be 9,000 sq ft. The applicant is required to ask for a set back
variance due to the location of the existing museum building. The historical society anticipates the
creation of two deed restricted affordable housing units as they have the need for housing employees.
The smaller acreage on the fathering parcel could permit a single family or duplex. The existing buildings
would exceed the allowances for a single family or duplex. When variances are granted there needs to be
a showing of hardship. This is a self-created condition and no unique site conditions for a variance to be
granted.
In regards to TDRs, if a lot is created the TDRs do meet the standards of review. It would allow 4,008 sq
ft of new floor area. 12 TDRs equal 3,000 sq ft of floor area and would leave 1,000 sq ft of floor area to
develop affordable housing in the future.
Overall, the historical society is a great asset and Staff supports its mission. We don’t find the criteria in
regard to conditional use, lot split and variance are met. Staff does not recommend approval of the
project.
Mayor Skadron asked if this is a revenue generator for the historical society.
Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, along with Kelly Murphy the CEO of the Historical Society said
the goal is not to create a lot line and TDRs but a reliable long term source of additional funding for the
historical society. Comdev is not enamored with TDRs and a lot split to get there. We tried to be
proactive with addressing real world concerns with the lot split to get there. He suggest tabling the
discussion about the lot split and TDRs and come to a better solution about funding. They discussed
internally and with staff the historic preservation program needs a long term archivist or a covenant
prohibiting future development or increasing the mil levy. The hope is to begin the discussion tonight.
Mayor Skadron asked why was the first offer on the table in the search for a long term funding to
subdivide and created TDRs. Mr. Haas said there was staff support for it 10 years ago. They are asking
for less now, proactively addressing may of the issues that were on the table then and it seemed like a
reasonable request.
P19
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
20
Sara Oates, legal counsel for historical society, said at the time the mil levy was adopted it was always
meant to be one leg of a three leg stool with grant money and fund raising. The TDR program was
always viewed as a way to add to fundraising. Staff and P&Z supported us.
Mayor Skadron said the historical society is an organization with a funding obstacle to the mission. They
are a taxing entity with taxing as a funding source. Ms. Oates replied they thought they need all three
sources of revenue.
Councilman Myrin said it is an odd tool to come in with a land use application in what he thinks should
be a taxing district conversation. He understandings coming in and looking for different sources of
revenue.
Councilwoman Mullins said she appreciates stepping back a bit. She was somewhat confused by the
memo. It is a really treasured block in town, not just the building. It makes more sense to know that it is
a fundraising question. Her other concern is not discussing the covenant. She is hesitant selling off
development rights when historical society does not have them. Mr. True said he is not saying they are
prohibited from talking about it but try to evaluate the circumstances of the purchase and deed. It is
private and between the grantor and owners of the property. He does not think it is appropriate that the
city can mediate or make a determination of a private dispute.
Councilman Frisch thanked Kelly and staff for all they do. They came in here asking for four things now
you changed your mind and want to open the discussion about something else. You have a funding issue
and an affordable housing issue. There has been a lot of staff time and the neighbors are all riled up. If
you want to have a talk about memorializing the property I’m happy to do it. If you want to talk about
funding you should talk to your board. This was one option and I think you realized this is not the way to
do it. Mr. Haas said he feels he can justify the lot split and TDRs very well. He’s trying to use the time
more constructively. Councilman Frisch replied he is happy to have that conversation after the internal
conversation has happened. He does not think now is the time to have a work session discussion.
Councilman Daily said he supports the idea of putting aside the current land use issues. He agrees that we
don’t really need to dwell on those. Is the city interested in exploring long term funding for the historical
society. Absolutely. He would like to explore those more fully before the land use. He is not excited
about reducing the size of the parcel the museum sits on. What are the taxing district conversations. He
is prepared to work very closely with them but they need help identify what they have been exploring.
Ms. Murphy said she feels like she is being scolded a little bit. She does not want council to think it was
not well thought out. She still stands behind their application.
Mayor Skadron said he is open to tabling this item and have them come back with a more direct proposal
for a funding request.
Councilman Myrin said he would like to see a long term plan.
Ms. Phelan said through a land use review process tabling provides one year to look at it. They would
need to renotice. Mr. Bendon said they did approach the application with full honesty and integrity
around the request. There may be services or relationships with the historical society that may have
benefits with the city.
Councilman Frisch said there are more and more questions at the first reading level to flush out where
everyone stands right away.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is thrilled to hear let’s talk about something else. She was really
disturbed about the application. She likes the Mayor’s idea of the work session.
P20
VI.a
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 2015
21
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Steve Falendar, his wife Debbie wrote the letters. He agrees it is important for the historical
society to have viable long term funding. That discussion should happen. Memorialize the use of
the property. It is a fee simple determinable deed. TDRs are the wrong way to go.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to table Ordinance #23, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Councilman Myrin apologized to Ms. Murphy for making her feel like she was scolded.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place – Rezoning and Minor PD Amendment
Sara Nadolny stated there was an issue with the notice and recommended continuing to October 12.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue to October 12, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 6:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P21
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Richard Pryor
THRU: Steve Barwick
DATE OF MEMO: 8/24/2015
MEETING DATE: 9/15/2015
RE: IGA for Services between Aspen PD and Community Health
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
This is a request for Council to approve an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City
of Aspen (Police Department) and Community Health Services Inc. If approved, the police
department will provide one (1) employee for eight (8) hours per week to write emergency
operations plans (e.g. Ebola response plan) for Community Health Services, and Community
Health Services will reimburse the City for those hours.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
None
BACKGROUND:
Community Health Services Inc. has obtained grants to fund a temporary position through
December 2016, for the purpose of writing health related emergency operations plans. In
looking for qualified personnel to complete these tasks, Community Health contacted the Aspen
Police Community Relations Specialist, and in the course of discussions, realized the mutual
benefit in the Community Relations Specialist assisting Community Health in the development
of the plans.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed IGA (please see attachment “A”) would enable the police department Community
Relations Specialist to provide services to Community Health Services Inc. The current
Community Relations Specialist for the police department:
• Is qualified in emergency planning and response matters.
• Is the Emergency Support Function (ESF) “Lead” for the Pitkin County public
information group.
• Is the public information officer for the Aspen Police Department and Pitkin County
Incident Management Team.
• Understands the planning and response components of emergency incidents.
P22
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
This is a mutually beneficial opportunity for Community Health Services Inc., and the police
department to share a valuable resource, develop needed materials and provide for career
development for a valued employee. It assists in obtaining a qualified individual for Community
Health Services Inc., to fill the grant funded position, with a minimum of delay.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The police department will provide one employee for 8 hours per week (416 hours/year) to
Community Health Services Inc. Community Health Services Inc. will reimburse the police
department for the full cost of those hours (base pay plus benefits.)
2015 cost of 112 hours of services @ $40-70/hr. ~ $4,558
2015 revenue to be received ~ $4,558
2016 cost of 416 hours of services @ $46-63/hr. ~ $19,400
2016 revenue to be received ~ $19,400
Community Health Services Inc. will be invoiced quarterly by the police department.
The terms of this agreement expire at the end of calendar year 2016.
The police department will budget the revenue as a “Refund of Expenditure.”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
No environmental impacts or benefits expected.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council approval of the attached Resolution and IGA between the City of Aspen (Police
Department) and Community Health Services Inc.
ALTERNATIVES:
If Council does not wish to approve the staff recommendation, the police department will not
provide services to Community Health Services Inc.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution # 99, approving the IGA between the City of Aspen Police
Department and Community Health Services Inc.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Aspen and Community Health
Services Inc.
B. Resolution # 2015 - 99
P23
VI.b
ATTACHMENT “B”
RESOLUTION # 99
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., 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 an
intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aspen and Community Health
Services, Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as “Attachment
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 the
intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aspen and Community Health
Services, Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and
does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the
City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 15th day of September 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, September 15th 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P24
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF
SERVICES TO COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES INC.
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA, the “Agreement”) is made
this __day of ____, 2015, by and between Community Health Services Inc., and the City of
Aspen, Colorado, as the Participating Members.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the agreement is entered into pursuant to, inter alia, C.R.S. §§ 29-1-201, et seq.,
and Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Participating Members have not previously entered into an agreement,
WHEREAS, the Participating Members in the performance of their governmental
functions, furnish health /or law enforcement public safety services to the citizens and
residents within the boundaries and areas of their respective service areas, and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into an agreement to enable the development
of emergency operations plans;
WHEREAS, the Participating Members do hereby collectively determine and declare that
this IGA is necessary, proper and convenient for the continued fostering and preservation
of the public peace, health and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the respective covenants
and undertakings of the parties, as herein set forth, IT IS AGREED UPON as follows:
P25
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
2
ARTICLE I – TERM AND EFFECT
1. Effect of IGA. Except as expressly provided herein, this IGA shall replace and
supersede all prior agreements of any kind between all or any of the Participating
Members.
2. Term. The term of this IGA shall commence on September 16th, 2015 and expire on
December 31st, 2016 subject to the provisions of “Article V, Default, Termination &
Withdrawal,”
ARTICLE II – SERVICES
1. The Aspen Police Department shall assign an employee to work eight (8) hours of time
per week, or 416 hours per calendar year, to Community Health Services Inc. for the
development of emergency operations plans.
2. Routine paid time off or extended sick leave may count towards the 416 hours of work.
3. The employee shall be administered and supervised by the Police Chief, or otherwise
designated position by the City of Aspen.
4. The employee shall remain as a City of Aspen employee, subject to all City of Aspen
personnel policies and procedures, and eligible for all City of Aspen employee benefits
available to like employees.
5. If the assigned employee should separate from employment with the City of Aspen, this
agreement will become null and void.
6. The City of Aspen shall have fiduciary responsibility for the employee and shall be its
fiscal agent.
7. The City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, along with the administrative, financial, and
management policies, procedures, regulations, and ordinances of the City of Aspen
shall apply with respect to the management of the employee.
P26
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
3
ARTICLE III – CHARGES FOR SERVICES
1. Payment for Services. Community Health Services Inc. agrees to the payment for
services provided by the City of Aspen.
2. Calculation of Fees. Fees have been determined at a rate equivalent to the base hourly
rate plus benefits of the current Community Relations Specialist.
3. Collection of Fees. The City of Aspen will invoice Community Health Services Inc. on
a quarterly basis. Payment is due 30 days from invoice date.
ARTICLE V – DEFAULT, TERMINATION & WITHDRAWAL
1. Notice of Default. In the event Community Health Services Inc. fails to pay its
invoice when due, or is otherwise in default under its obligations per this IGA, the City
of Aspen shall cause written notice to be given to the defaulting Community Health
Services Inc.’s legislative body, or other authority that approved this IGA, of the City’s
intention to suspend performance of Services under this IGA unless such default is
cured within twenty (20) days from the date of such notice. Such notice shall set forth
in reasonable detail, with the nature of the default and the required action to cure the
same.
2. Suspension of Performance. Upon failure to cure said default within the said twenty
(20) days period, performance of services under this IGA shall be immediately
suspended by the City of Aspen.
3. Termination. If, after committing default under this IGA which necessitates a
suspension of services as discussed above, Community Health Services Inc. continues
to fail to correct any default under the performance of this IGA for an additional period
of three months, the City of Aspen may provide Community Health Services Inc. with
a notice of intention to terminate the IGA upon the end of the current fiscal and
calendar year. Such termination shall effectively eliminate any and all rights
Community Health Services Inc. may have to rely on the provision of any services.
P27
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
4
4. Withdrawal. If Community Health Services Inc. wishes to withdraw from this
agreement, a three month written notice must be submitted to the City of Aspen stating
such intentions. Community Health Services Inc. will receive no repayment for any
moneys, which were expended for the purchase of such services under either this IGA,
as such agreement now stands or may be amended from time to time.
ARTICLE VI – GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Waiver. The failure of any party to exercise any of its rights under this IGA shall not
be deemed to be a waiver of any rights provided for under this IGA.
2. Appropriation of funds.
a. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the obligations of each
individual Participating Member under this IGA shall be, where appropriate,
subject to the annual appropriation by that Participating Member’s governing
body, of funds sufficient to meet those obligations provided herein. In the
event that sufficient funds are not so appropriated by any Participating
Member, this Agreement may be terminated by said Participating Member.
b. Nevertheless, no Participating Member shall be permitted to terminate or
withdraw from this IGA prior to the end of a fiscal or calendar year due to
such non-appropriation of funds, and in no circumstances shall any portion of
any type of contribution of the Participating Member failing to so appropriate
sufficient funds be returned or pro-rated due to such non- appropriation.
c. No obligation provided in this IGA is intended to, or shall be interpreted to,
constitute a multiple year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation
whatsoever within the meaning of the Constitution or laws of the State of
Colorado.
3. Notice. Any notice or communication given pursuant to this IGA shall be given in
writing, either in person, by electronic means or by certified mail, return receipt
requested to the addresses listed in Addendum B, Notification and Contact
Information, to this IGA, which is subject to modification from time to time. If given
P28
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
5
in person, notice shall be deemed given when actually given. If given by electronic
means, notice shall be deemed given upon receiving notice. If given by certified mail,
notice shall be deemed given at the time indicated on the duly completed return
receipt.
Any Participating Member may change the address to which notices, requests,
consents, approvals, written instructions, reports or other communications are to be
given by a notice of change of address given in the manner set forth in this paragraph.
4. No Benefit to Inure to Third Parties. This IGA does not, and shall not be deemed
to, confer upon or grant to any third party any right to claim damages or to bring any
lawsuit, action or other proceedings against any Participating Member because of any
breach hereof, or because of any terms, covenants, agreements or conditions contained
herein.
5. Modifications. No modification or waiver of this IGA, or modification of any
covenant, condition, or provision herein contained, shall be made unless duly executed
by all of the parties hereto.
6. Agreement. This IGA constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the
Participating Members on the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any prior
agreements or understandings relating to the subject matter of this IGA, except for
other written agreements and understandings referred to herein.
7. Benefit. This IGA shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto, their successors or assigns.
8. Severability. All agreements and covenants contained herein are severable, and in the
event that any such agreement or covenant is held invalid, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, this IGA shall be interpreted as if such invalid agreement or covenant
were not contained herein.
9. Governmental Immunity. No Participating Member hereto intends to waive,
P29
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
6
expressly or implicitly, by any provision of this IGA, the monetary limits or any other
rights, immunities and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity
Act, Section 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended from time to time, or any other
privilege or immunity provided by law.
10. Attorney's Fees. If an action is brought to enforce this IGA, the prevailing party shall
be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
11. Applicable Law. This IGA shall be interpreted in all respects in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado. Venue shall only be proper in Pitkin County, Colorado.
12. Paragraph Headings. Paragraph headings are inserted for convenience only and in
no way limit or define the interpretation to be placed upon this IGA.
13. Indemnity. All actions or omissions by any Participating Member, and/or its
designated representative, in the course and scope of its performance of any
obligations, responsibilities, or duties under this IGA, shall be insured by the insurance
policies and coverage to be obtained by the City of Aspen. However, any and all
actions or omissions by any Participating Member, and/or its designated
representative, outside of the proper course and scope of its performance of any
obligations, responsibilities, or duties under this IGA and/or as a member of the Board
(hereinafter referred to as “non-authorized acts or omissions”), shall be the sole
responsibility of the Participating Member, and/or its designated representative.
Accordingly, each Participating Members hereto shall, without waiving governmental
immunity, fully indemnify, to the extent permissible under Colorado law, for all
injuries to person or property as are directly or indirectly caused by any such non-
authorized acts or omissions of that Participating Member or a representative of such
Participating Member, which result in any damages, claims, costs or liability of any
manner, including without limit reasonable attorneys fees, each and every other
Participating Member.
14. Insurance. Regardless of the obligation for the City of Aspen to carry all proper and
necessary insurance to provide appropriate coverage for its operations, all Participating
P30
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
7
Members hereto shall also be required to maintain insurance coverage at a minimum of
the limits for liability set forth by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section
24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended from time to time.
15. Hold harmless. Community Health Services Inc. shall hold harmless the City of
Aspen, its officers, employees, and agents against the loss of any service due to
circumstances beyond the control of the City.
16. Individual obligations. Each Participating Member is required to carry out and
perform all the obligations of a Participating Member under this IGA independently of
the actions of any and all other Participating Members. No Participating Member shall
be responsible or liable for the failure of any other Participating Member to perform its
obligations herein.
ARTICLE VIII – EFFECTIVE DATE & EXECUTION
In accordance with CRS §29-1-203(1), this IGA shall not become effective as to any party
unless and until it has been approved by all Participating Members hereto. Accordingly,
the initial term of this IGA and the rights and obligations inuring there under shall run
concomitantly for all Participating Members hereto, regardless of the date of signature of
any one Participating Member.
This IGA may be executed in counterparts. Execution of this IGA by fewer than all parties
shall be governed by this Article.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto, acting under authority of their respective
governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above
written.
P31
VI.b
“ATTACHMENT A”
8
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF
SERVICES TO COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES INC.
CITY OF ASPEN
By______________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Date_______________________
COMMUNITY HEALTH INC.
By______________________________________
Date_______________________
P32
VI.b
Code Amendment – Timeshare Development
1st Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Timeshare Code Amendment
First Reading, Ordinance 36, Series of 2015
DATE: September 15, 2015
PH: September 28, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance would amend the City’s Land Use Code to update requirements and for
Timeshare Development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance, on First Reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the first reading of proposed code amendments related to the Timeshare chapter of the
Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review
authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the 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:
In December 2014, City Council approved a Policy Resolution (Resolution 136, Series 2014)
related to lodging in Aspen. The first implementation priority from that Resolution was to
implement a Small Loge Preservation Program, which was passed by City Council earlier this
year. The Policy Resolution also included direction to amend various city requirements related
to lodging, including to the Timeshare regulations, in an effort to simplify the overall city
process. This code amendment focuses on simplifying the Timeshare review process and
eliminating redundancies and conflicts the current Timeshare regulations have with other code
sections.
The Timeshare regulations outline the process by which a lodge or dwelling unit can be divided
into multiple time-span estates. Timeshare is defined by the State as a form or style of
ownership, which means the City cannot attach new regulations or conditions upon a lodge
converting its ownership style to timeshare. Below is a summary of the key proposed changes to
the Timeshare Development requirements Chapter 26.590).
P33
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare Development
1st Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 2 of 5
Staff has also researched how other communities handle timesharing. There appears to be a
trend toward simplified regulations. Staff will provide a detailed summary of how other
Colorado communities address timeshare requirements as part of the second reading packet.
Types of Timeshare: The code currently includes different timeshare processes for traditional
timeshare lodge projects and for the timesharing of single-family or duplex development. The
code has an administrative process for “Exempt Timesharing,” which is the timesharing of
single-family, duplex, or multi-family units with six (6) or fewer units in the complex. All other
timeshare projects are required to go through a full subdivision and Planned Development
review. Staff is proposing to rename the different types of timeshare as “Timeshare lodge” and
“Timeshare residence.” Timeshare lodge development would include the timesharing of lodge
or multi-family residential units and Timeshare residence development would include the
timesharing of single-family or duplex units.
Timeshare Estates: The current code has different processes depending on the type of
timesharing. Timesharing in single-family, duplex, and small multi-family complexes (6 or
fewer units) is limited to a maximum of six (6) time-span estates. All other timesharing is
limited to a minimum of seven (7) time-span estates.
Staff is proposing to maintain the current limitations for single-family and duplex development
to ensure those units continue function more like a typical residential unit. All other timeshare
development (multi-family complexes of any size, and lodge units) would be limited to a
minimum of 6 estates per unit. This would allow seasonal usage of timeshare units, as well as
more typical 2-4 week twice-a-year intervals. According to timeshare operators and developers,
1/8 to 1/10 estates are most common, but certain owners/visitors would prefer longer stays that
would be accommodated by the proposed 1/6 estates.1
Occupancy limitations: The current code limits owner stays in traditional and timeshare hotel
units to thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or ninety (90) days within a calendar year. There
are no occupancy limitations for “exempt timesharing.” Staff is proposing to maintain the
current limitations for single-family and duplex development to ensure those units continue
function more like a typical residential unit. All other timeshare development (multi-family
complexes of any size, and lodge units) would be limited to the current limitation of 30
consecutive days and no more than 90 day in a calendar year.
Dwelling Units: The current timeshare regulations allow residential units and lodging units to
be converted to timeshare ownership. Staff’s initial proposal had been to prohibit residential
units from being converted to timeshare ownership, as they are able to operate as vacation
rentals. After working with the Attorney’s Office, it became clear that this kind of restriction is
not acceptable under state law. Therefore, staff is proposing new limitations on the timesharing
of residential units, including a requirement that if a multi-family unit wishes to convert to
timeshare ownership that the entire complex convert. Staff believes this will encourage greater
1 1/6 estates is approximately 8.5 weeks a year; 1/8 estates is approximately 6.5 weeks; 1/10 estates is approximately
5 weeks
P34
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare Development
1st Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 3 of 5
compliance with the timeshare requirements, and will enable other issues such as required
housing mitigation to be more appropriately addressed.
In addition, the current regulations limit the zone districts where timesharing can occur.2 This is
carried forward in the current draft while staff continues to work with the City Attorney’s Office
to determine if this limitation can remain in the code. The Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended that the location limitation be removed because timesharing is similar to Vacation
Rentals, which are allowed in all zone districts.
Multi-Family Replacement Requirements: The current timeshare regulations require any
multi-family unit that converts its ownership structure to a timeshare go through the City’s
Multi-Family Replacement provisions. This is required because the use pattern of the unit
changes from the providing long-term rentals for residential usage, to providing shorter-term
tourist accommodations. The intent of the Multi-Family Replacement regulations is to ensure
that any multi-family residential unit that has provided housing to a local working resident is
mitigated though the provision of affordable housing when that unit is demolished, combined, or
converted. Staff recommends retaining this requirement in the Timeshare Regulations to ensure
mitigation for lost residential units is accounted for. The Lodge Policy Resolution approved by
City Council (Reso 136, Series 2014, Exhibit B) includes direction to update the multi-family
replacement requirements. Staff recommends any changes to the program and it’s applicability
to timeshare units be discussed as a separate code amendment and associated policy discussion.
Planned Development & Subdivision Requirements: The current regulations require
Timeshare projects to be reviewed as a Planned Development and as a full Subdivision. This
requirement applies even if a project conforms to all zoning requirements and the land is not
being subdivided. This is counter to the City’s goal of reserving heightened reviews for projects
which are requesting variations. With the proposed amendments, projects would continue to be
subject to all existing requirements, including design review, but would not be forced to request
a Planned Development unless the project requests variations from underlying zoning or use or a
full Subdivision unless actual land is being subdivided. Timeshare units would continue to be
subject to an administrative subdivision review that ensures all the required condominiumization
and/or interval-estate documentation is submitted.
Review Criteria: Currently, the review criteria include redundant requirements – timeshare
projects must pay taxes, comply with State Statute, comply with the City’s zoning and building
codes, comply with affordable housing requirements, etc. These requirements already apply to
all new development. The criteria then go on to recite various sections of the land use code,
often times in conflict with what those very sections actually require. For example, the
timeshare chapter requires 100% agreement of an entire HOA and all mortgagees of the
individual units for any change to the timeshare plan. This conflicts with the City’s requirements
for all other land use applications and likely conflicts with present-day State Statute. The
proposed changes remove these redundant and conflicting requirements.
2 Lodge, Ski Base, Commercial Lodge, Commercial Core, and Lodge Preservation.
P35
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare Development
1st Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 4 of 5
In addition, the City’s timeshare chapter sets forth requirements that are not traditional City
interests, and are not required for any other project. For example, the chapter requires disclosure
of closing costs. While this is commonplace in real estate transactions, this is not a City-
managed issue. The current chapter specifies how an owner’s agent can proxy vote on behalf of
an owner on HOA issues. Again, the City does not manage internal HOA voting rules. The
proposed changes remove all “non-city” issues from the chapter.
Finally, staff proposes to simplify and strengthen the review criteria for timeshare development.
All proposed timeshares would be required to meet the same set of criteria, including a
requirement for on-site reception and services, a management plan, a requirement to be available
to the general public when not used by an owner, and a recognition of other code requirements
such as housing mitigation and parking requirements. With the proposed changes, only the
physical requirements, such as on-site reception, may be varied through a special review with the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff met with the Planning & Zoning Commission on May 19th to get feedback on the potential
code amendment. A copy of the staff memo and meeting minutes are attached as Exhibit D.
P&Z supported all the proposed changes. They encouraged allowing residential units to be
timeshared in an effort to encourage greater usage. The also supported simplifying the review
process by removing the requirements for a full subdivision and planned development review
when no land is being subdivided and the project complies with underlying zoning. They
suggested requiring timeshare units to be available for nightly rentals within any HOA
documents. While the City is not involved in HOA documents, the City can include such a
requirement within the timeshare approval. This requirement has been included in the code
amendment.
Staff also met with a number of timeshare developers and operators to get a better sense of how
the current regulations work on the ground. They agreed with staff’s general sense that the
current timeshare regulations could use simplification. They supported simplifying the review
process with the City, particularly because there are additional state requirements. They made a
number of suggestions that staff did not bring forward into the code amendment, including the
potential to allow up to 1 unit to be used as a “model unit” for marketing purposes, as well as
removing the 30-consecutive day occupancy restriction. The group suggested that the occupancy
limitation be removed, or be expanded to 60-days to allow for “seasonal use.” Staff agrees that
the occupancy limitations should be longer for single-family and duplex development in an effort
to continue the more residential nature of the property. However, because traditional timeshare
units are considered lodging, staff believes they should be subject to the same occupancy
limitations as traditional hotel units. The group also suggested that up to 1 “model unit” per
available room type be set aside from the mandatory rental requirements. While staff
understands the interest in having a “model unit” to show for marketing purposes, staff does not
believe that any units should be withheld from the rental pool.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance on First Reading.
P36
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare Development
1st Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 36, Series of 2015, approving a code amendment regarding
Timeshare Development, on First Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Council Resolution 136, Series 2014
Exhibit C – Code Amendment Redlines
Exhibit D – P&Z memo and meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit E – Fractional Occupancy Report, 2011
P37
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 1 of 9
ORDINANCE No. 36
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING LAND USE CODE
AMENDMENTS TO RELATED TO TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF
ASPEN.
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 related to the Timeshare Development 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 with the Planning &
Zoning Commission, through surveys and small group meetings as part of the Fall 2014 lodging
outreach, developer and operators of timeshare developments, and through the Community
Development Department newsletter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on December 8, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2014, by a five to
zero (5 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to implement a Lodge Incentive Program; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.590 – Timeshare
Development; 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: Chapter 26.104.100, Definitions, Timeshare development or unit, shall be amended as
follows:
Timeshare lodge, development or unit. A lodge development, building, or unit, or dwelling
unit the title to which has been, divided either into interval estates or time-span estates as defined
P38
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 2 of 9
at Section 38-33-110, C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time, and that has been approved
pursuant to Chapter 26.590, Timeshare Development.
Section 2: Chapter 26.104.100, Definitions, Timeshare lodge, shall be deleted:
Section 3: Chapter 26.104.100, Definitions, Timeshare use, shall be amended as follows:
Timeshare use. A contractual or membership right of occupancy (which cannot be terminated
at the will of the owner) for life or for a term of years, to the recurrent and exclusive use or
occupancy of a dwelling or lodge unit on some periodic basis for a set period of time that has
been allotted from use or occupancy periods into which the dwelling or lodge unit has been
divided.
Section 4: Chapter 26.480.050(B), Administrative subdivisions, Exempt Timesharing, shall be
amended as follows:
B. Timesharing. A subdivision necessary to establish, amend, or vacate time-span estates
that comply with the requirements of Chapter 26.590, Timeshare Development, shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director if the
requirements of Chapter 26.590 are met. Any plat shall be in a style and format as prescribed in
Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards, Plats. This form of subdivision shall not be used to
create any additional lots or dwelling units.
Section 5: Chapter 26.590, Timeshare Development, shall be amended as follows:
Chapter 26.590
TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
26.590.010 Purpose and intent
26.590.020 Applicability
26.590.030 Prohibitions
26.590.040 Procedure for review
26.590.050 Timeshare Review Standards
26.590.060 Application Contents
26.590.070 Timeshare documents
26.590.080 Amendments
26.590.090 Appeals
26.590.010 Purpose and intent
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the procedures and standards by which timeshare
development may be permitted within the City. It is the City's intent to establish timeshare
regulations that provide for the protection of the character of Aspen as a resort community and
that help to promote increased tourism and vitality within the City, while also preserving
community character.
26.590.020 Applicability
P39
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 3 of 9
The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to the division of a development, building, lodge
unit, or dwelling unit into time-span estates. These requirements shall be in addition to all other
applicable requirements set forth in this Title 26 and those set forth in the Colorado Statutes.
A. Types of timeshare development. There are two types of timeshare development that may
be permitted within the City, as follows:
1. Timeshare lodge. This is the basic form of timesharing permitted in Aspen, and applies
to any application to convert lodge units or multi-family residential dwelling units to
timesharing or to develop new units for timesharing. Timeshare lodge development is
permitted where established prior to adoption of Ordinance ___, Series 2015, and in all
zone districts that permit lodging as a use.
2. Timeshare residence. This is a more limited type of timesharing permitted in Aspen.
The only units eligible are single-family dwelling units, or condominiumized duplex
dwelling units. This form of timesharing is permitted in the Lodge (L) and the Ski Area
Base (SKI) Zone Districts.
26.590.030 Prohibitions
The owner of a time-span estate in a timeshare lodge development shall not be permitted to
occupy that estate for any period in excess of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or ninety (90)
days within a calendar year. Occupancy periods for a person with no ownership interest shall not
exceed ninety (90) days within a calendar year. Exchanges are not considered an ownership
interest occupancy.
The owner of a time-span estate in a timeshare residence shall not have an occupancy limitation.
26.590.040. Procedure for Review
An application to establish or amend a timeshare lodge or timeshare residence shall be reviewed
pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter and the Common Development Review
Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304.
A. Administrative Review. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the application based on the standards of review in Section
26.590.050(A), General Review Standards.
B. Variations. The Planning & Zoning Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing,
shall review a recommendation from the Community Development Director and shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variation in a timeshare
development based on the standards of review in Section 26.590.050(B), Timeshare
Variations Standards. This requires a one-step review process as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Timeshare Variation
approval.
2. Process: The Planning & Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application after considering the recommendation of the
P40
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 4 of 9
Community Development Director and comments and testimony from the public at a
duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of review: The proposed timeshare shall comply with the review standards
of Section 26.590.050.
4. Form of decision: Planning & Zoning Commission decision shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, and the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood
Outreach.
C. Associated Reviews. Unless waived by the Community Development Director, after
consultation with the applicant, an application for a variation from the timeshare standards
shall be combined with development applications for all other associated land use reviews,
pursuant to Section 26.304.050(B)(1), Combined Reviews. The Community Development
Director shall inform the applicant during the pre-application conference if combining
associated reviews shall be required and if any redundant submission requirements may be
waived.
Whenever a proposed timeshare lodge or timeshare residence development or is subject to
review under the City's Growth Management Quota System (Chapter 26.470), the
development shall be considered to be a "Tourist Accommodation" or a "Lodge" under that
system.
26.590.050. Timeshare Review Standards
A. General Standards. All timeshare lodge development shall comply with the following
review standards. A timeshare residence development shall comply with standards 2 through 7.
1. Onsite reception. Onsite reception area is required for all timeshare development in a
multi-family building, a mixed use building, or a lodge building.
2. Management plan. A property management plan shall be submitted for a multi-family
building, a mixed use building, or a lodge building. Detached and duplex dwelling units
shall comply with Section 26.575.220.D.3, Vacation Rental Standards, and provide a
local owner representative. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to
review and approve any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the
timeshare development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that
management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately. The applicant shall
also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that the proposed timeshare
development will be properly maintained throughout its lifetime.
3. Rental by the public. Timeshare estates shall be made available for short term rental to
the general public when not in use by the owner or owner’s guests. The covenants of the
homeowners association shall permit rental of units to the general public.
P41
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 5 of 9
4. Minimum number of estates per unit. A maximum of 6 estates per unit are created per
dwelling unit for a timeshare residence development. A minimum of 6 estates are created
per lodge unit for a timeshare lodge development.
5. Complex-wide requirement. All residential units within a multi-family building, mixed
use building, or a duplex building shall be developed as timeshare estates.
6. Physical upgrades. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a timeshare
development shall be upgraded and improved to meet current Building Code
requirements, which includes at a minimum the physical upgrades necessary to comply
with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. An inspection by the
Chief Building Official shall be required.
7. Parking requirements. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall
be calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge
uses. The parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of
proposed lock off rooms, or keys, in the development. The parking requirement for
timeshare residential development shall be calculated by applying the parking standard
for the underlying zone district for the applicable residential use. The owner of a
timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a parking space on-site
when the owner is not using that estate.
8. Affordable housing requirements. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required
to provide affordable housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by
applying the standards for lodge uses. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit
that meets the definition of residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply
with the provisions of Section 26.470.070(5), Demolition or redevelopment of multi-
family housing, even when there is no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling
unit. No other Growth Management Reviews shall be required.
9. CC Timeshare Lodges. A timeshare lodge in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District
shall not have any lodge rooms located on the ground floor. Instead, a timeshare lodge in
the CC Zone District shall contain at least one of the following elements: publically
accessible bar, restaurant or retail facilities. The elements provided shall be located along
the street front, shall be accessible from the street and shall be designed to serve the
public, not just the occupants of the timeshare lodge.
B. Timeshare Variations Standards.
Only variations to standards 1 (Onsite reception), 5 (complex-wide requirement), 6 (Physical
upgrades), and 7 (Parking requirements) outlined above in Section 26.590.050(A) is permitted.
An applicant requesting a variation shall demonstrate that the provision requested to be varied is
not applicable to the proposed development or cannot be met and shall demonstrate that the
proposed variation is reasonable, would not be contrary to the public interest and better
implements the purpose and intent of these timeshare regulations than the codified requirement.
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed variation will result in a successful short-term
P42
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 6 of 9
rental product. The following characteristics shall be considered in meeting this standard. A
project need not meet all of the following characteristics:
1. The development contains a sufficient level of on- or off-site recreational facilities (such
as exercise equipment, a pool or spa or similar facilities) and other amenities (such as a
lobby, meeting spaces and similar facilities) to serve the occupants, or provides such
amenities through off-site method such as gym privileges at local work-out facilities.
The extent of the facilities provided should be proportional to the size of the
development. The types of facilities should be consistent with the planned method and
style of operating the development.
2. The project includes commercial operations, or services available to the general
community.
3. The timeshare units will use a standard palate of décor that has been established for the
property.
4. The proposal maximizes the potential for short-term occupancies through design and
operational characteristics, for instance by isolating larger residential units from high
activity uses.
5. The proposal provides lock-off configurations to enable flexible unit configurations that
may be attractive to a broader segment of guests.
6. The application shall demonstrate how the operation provides short-term occupancies to
the general public. The City may require an annual audit to ensure operation provides
accommodations to the general public and is not operating as a private residence,
pursuant to Section 26.575.210, Lodge occupancy auditing.
7. Nightly rental rates are standardized and established by a Management Company rather
than individual owners.
8. The management and marketing plan provides for a standard management and marketing
strategy, either through Stay Aspen Snowmass, or other entity.
9. Any changes to Section 26.590.050(A)(7), Parking requirements, shall meet the
requirements of Chapter 26.515, Off-Street Parking.
26.590.060. Application Contents
In addition to the general application information required in Section 26.304.030, the application
for timeshare lodge development shall include the following information.
A. Review criteria. A written response to each of the review criteria in Section 26.590.050.
B. Timeshare use plan: A detailed description of the basic elements of the proposed timeshare
use plan. The use plan shall describe the number of estates being created in each unit, the total
P43
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 7 of 9
number of estates to be created, the expected price for each estate and whether a purchaser is
buying a specific unit for a specific time, a specific unit for a floating time or whether there is no
specific unit but just a specific time. It shall also describe whether owners will be able to
participate in an exchange program and if so, in which programs they will be eligible to
participate.
C. Management plan. A plan for how the timeshare development will be managed, describing
whether the applicant will manage the project or if it will be managed by a management
company, a branded company or other entity and describing how the project will be operated.
Single family and duplex buildings choosing to convert to a timeshare residence are required to
submit documentation of a local owner’s representative in compliance with Section
26.575.220(D)(3), Vacation Rental Standards.
D. Developer's registration. A copy of the Developer's registration with the Colorado Real
Estate Commission. If the Developer has not so registered at the time of submission of the
application, then this information shall be submitted at the time the timeshare documents are
submitted for recordation, pursuant to Section 26.590.090 of this Code.
E. Architectural drawings. Floor plans and elevations for the existing and proposed
development. A depiction of the on-site reception areas, as applicable, is required. Any physical
upgrades proposed to meet current building codes, as applicable, is required.
26.590.070. Timeshare documents
A timeshare development agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Approval Documents. In addition to the
requirements of Chapter 26.490, as applicable, the development agreement shall include the
following:
1. A statement that the proposed development will comply with all applicable
requirements of Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S. Upon request from the City, the applicant
shall provide a copy of the documents submitted to the State for the registration and
certification of the timeshare developer.
2. Requirement that a homeowners association be established. Responsibility for
maintenance of the development shall reside with the association.
3. A statement ensuring the timeshare estates shall be made available for short term
rental to the general public when not in use by the owner or owner’s guests, including
a description of the protocol for member reservations. The statement shall
acknowledge that the public rental requirement is subject to occasional compliance
audits by the City of Aspen.
4. A stipulation by the owner of the timeshare interest irrevocably designating the
homeowners association as an agent for the service of legal notices for any legal
action, proceed or hearing pertaining to the timeshare interest or for the service of
process (in a manner sufficient to satisfy the requirements of personal service in the
state, pursuant to Rule 4 C.R.C.P., as amended).
5. Instruments for the interval estate or time span estate including:
P44
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 8 of 9
a) The legal description, street address or other description sufficient to identify the
property.
b) Identification of timeshare time periods by letter, name, number or combination
thereof.
c) Identification of the timeshare estate and the method whereby additional
timeshare estates may be created.
d) The formula, fraction or percentage of the common expenses and any voting
rights assigned to each timeshare estate.
e) Any restrictions on the use, occupancy, alteration or alienation of timeshare units.
26.590.080 Amendments.
Amendments shall be processed pursuant to Section 26.590.040, Procedures for review.
26.590.090 Appeals.
An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding
administration of this Chapter may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter
26.316.
Section 6: All references in Title 26, Part 700, Zone Districts, to “Exempt Timeshare,” “Exempt
timesharing,” and “Timeshare lodge” shall be deleted. All other references in Title 26 to
“Exempt Timeshare” or “Exempt Timesharing” shall be changed to “Timeshare residence.”
Section 7: Scrivener’s Errors.
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 8: 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 9: 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 10: 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 11:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the __th day of ______________, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
P45
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
First Reading Ordinance 36, Series 2015
Page 9 of 9
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
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
P46
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare Development
1st Reading – 9/15/2015
Exhibit A
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 code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It updates the Timeshare
Development chapter to remove areas that conflict with other portions of the Land Use Code as
well as eliminating redundant requirements. It simplifies the review process to focus on the main
characteristics of a timeshare lodge, rather than focusing on what gifts are given or how an HOA
operates. 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 calls for replenishing the declining lodging base with an
emphasis on a balanced inventory and diverse price-points (Managing Growth Policy IV.2). The
AACP also states there should be more certainty in the land use process (Managing Growth
Policy VIII.2). This code amendment updates the timeshare requirements to ensure existing and
new timeshare development meet a clear set of easy to understand requirements. It also
eliminates the requirement that all timeshare development be reviewed as a Planned
Development, even if there are no variations to underlying zone district dimensions or uses.
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 update and simplify the city’s Timeshare Development
regulations. Staff finds that this objective is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose of
Title 26. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P47
VII.a
RESOLUTION NO. 136,
SERIES OF 2014)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING CODE
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO LODGING IN ASPEN.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department
received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to the creation of a lodging
incentive program to bolster the bed base in both traditional hotel units and condominium units; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department conducted existing conditions research to
understand Aspen's existing lodge inventory, the occupancy and rate characteristics of Aspen's bed base,
the economics of upgrading, expanding, or developing lodge products, the latest visitor demographics,
and the types of lodging product most in demand; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department
conducted extensive Public Outreach with community members, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association,
condominium and lodging owners, managers, and stakeholders, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the
Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council regarding a lodge incentive program code
amendment; and,
WHEREAS, implementing a Lodge Incentive Program that bolsters the bed base has been a City
Council Top Ten Goal for two (2)years; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Lodge Incentive
Program; and,
WHEREAS, City Council approved a Lodge Incentive Ordinance (Ordinance 19, Series 2014) on
August 11, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, City Council voted to rescind Ordinance 19, Series 2014 on August 18, 2014, and
directed staff to conduct additional outreach on the topic and return with a new Policy Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, City staff conducted additional outreach in the form of small group meetings, online
surveys, and a telephone survey, receiving comments from over 400 people; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended adoption of code amendments to
assist lodges and condominiums available for short-term rentals; 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
December 1, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136,
Series of 2014, by a five to zero (5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to implement a Lodge Incentive
Program; and,
Resolution No 136, Series 2014
Page 1 of 4
P48
VII.a
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 implements the City's goals related
replenishing and diversifying the lodging inventory, as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan;
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 Objectives
The goals and objectives of the code amendments are to:
a. Recognize that the bed base, particularly the small lodges, is a critical part of the City's overall
infrastructure.
b. Ensure the Aspen bed base provides a number, diversity, and quality of lodging options to be
attractive and welcoming to the next generation of visitors.
c. Encourage investment in existing lodges and short-term rental condominiums to meet visitor
expectations.
d. Strive for lodging being the"highest and best'use in the lodging zone.
e. Make sure the bed base continues to be compatible with community character.
f Focus on small and economy/moderate lodge investment first.
g. Reduce or eliminate city process and fee barriers to investment in existing lodge and short-term
condominium properties.
Section 2: Small Lodges
The lodge code amendments should reduce improvement barriers for small lodges by offering:
a. Free building code and energy audits,
b. Building permit and impact fee reductions for remodels and minor expansions,
c. An "express lane" in building and planning,
d. Lodge ombudsman to assist small lodges through the process,
e. Possible need-based loans for small lodges,
f. Possible grants for small lodges, and
g. Free or reduced cost street parking passes.
Section 3: Height
No changes to allowed heights shall be proposed as part of the lodge code amendments.
Section 4: Parking
No changes to required parking shall be proposed as part of the lodge code amendments.
Section 5: Floor Area
The existing overall floor area caps in all the zone districts shall be unchanged in the lodge code
amendments, with some minor changes in the allowed floor area for lodge uses. For instance, increasing the
allowed lodge floor area in all zone districts to the same as the overall floor area cap to make it easier for a
property owner to build an entire lodge project. These changes to floor area caps shall not affect allowed
heights.
Resolution No 136, Series 2014
Page 2 of 4
P49
VII.a
Section 6: Maximum Residential Unit Size
Maximum unit sizes for residential units shall remain unchanged in the lodge code amendments. Unit size
limitations should be added for vacation residences.
Section 7: Maximum Lodging Unit Size
The lodge code amendments should include lodge unit sizes caps of 1,500 sq ft with the ability to expand
beyond that through a Special Review.
Section 8: Condominium Units
The lodge code amendments should include implementation of an "express lane" in building and planning for
small condominium projects and fee rebates for building permit and impact fees for condominium units that
are available for short-term rentals. This must include adequate assurance that the rental requirements will be
met.
Section 9: Vacation Residences
The lodge code amendments should include the creation of a new land use type called Vacation Residences
that are required to be available for short-term rentals at least six (6) months in a calendar year. This must
include adequate assurance that the rental requirements will be met.
Section 10: Citv Process and Fees
The lodge code amendments should simplify the city process, including: Timeshare regulations, Growth
Management, and possible amendments to Multi-Family Replacement. In addition, create an "express
lane" for building permits and land use review for small projects. The code amendments should include
analysis and accounting of the costs of enhanced services and fee reductions to ensure the annual budget
and service levels reflect community goals. A sunset provision for fee reductions should be included.
Section 11: Affordable Housing Requirements
The lodge code amendments should not intend to reduce affordable housing requirements "across the
board,"but some flexibility for small lodge and condominiums may be necessary.
Section 12:
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 13:
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.
FINALL7L,.adop ed this 8th day of December 2014.
Steve adron, ayor
Resolution No 136, Series 2014
Page 3 of 4
P50
VII.a
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Linda Manning, City Cle k Iames R True, City Attorney
Resolution No 136, Series 2014
Page 4 of 4
P51
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 1 of 13
Exhibit B – Timeshare Redlines
26.104.100. Definitions.
As used in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be defined as
follows:
Timeshare lodge, development or unit. A lodge development, building, or unit, or dwelling unit the
title to which is or is to behas been, divided either into interval estates or time-span estates as defined
at Section 38-33-110, C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time, and that has been approved
pursuant to Chapter 26.590, Timeshare Development.
Timeshare lodge. A development or a unit that has been approved for timesharin g, pursuant to Chapter
26.590 and has the characteristics of a timeshare lodge, as specified in Section 26.590.060. Each unit
in a timeshare lodge shall be subdivided into no less than seven (7) time span or interval estates. A
timeshare lodge unit may contain a kitchen and still be considered to be a lodge unit (not a residential
dwelling unit) for purposes of this Land Use Code (although the City's adopted building codes will
consider a unit with a kitchen to be a dwelling unit and the City may, therefore, require it to comply
with the applicable provisions of those codes for a dwelling unit).
Timeshare use. A contractual or membership right of occupancy (which cannot be terminated at the
will of the owner) for life or for a term of years, to the recurrent and exclusive use or occupancy of a
dwelling or lodge unit on some periodic basis for a set period of time that has been allotted from use
or occupancy periods into which the dwelling or lodge unit has been divided.
26.480.050. Administrative subdivisions.
B. Exempt Timesharing. A subdivision necessary to establish, amend, or vacate time-span
estates that comply with the requirements of Section Chapter 26.590.030, Exempt
TimesharingTimeshare Development, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the
Community Development Director if the requirements of Section Chapter 26.590.030, Exempt
Timesharing, are met. Any plat shall be in a style and format as prescribed in Title 29 – Engineering
Design Standards, Plats. No subdivision agreement need be prepared or entered into between the
applicant and the City unless the Community Development Director determines such an agreement is
necessary. This form of subdivision shall not be used to create any additional lots or dwelling units.
Chapter 26.590
TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
26.590.010 Purpose and intent
26.590.020 Overview of timeshare developmentApplicability
26.590.030 Exempt timesharingProhibitions
26.590.040 Procedure for review of timeshare lodge development application
26.590.050 Contents of applicationTimeshare Review Standards
26.590.060 Characteristics of a timeshare lodge developmentApplication Contents
26.590.070 Review standards for timeshare lodge developmentTimeshare documents
26.590.080 Business license and sales tax paymentsAmendments
26.590.090 Timeshare documentsAppeals
P52
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 2 of 13
Editor's note—Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 repealed former Chapter 26.590, which pertained to similar
provisions and enacted a new Chapter 26.590 as herein set out. Former Chapter 26.590 was derived
from Ord. No. 5-1988 § 2 as amended by Ord. Nos. 55-2000 § 17 and 51-2001 § 2.
26.590.010 Purpose and intent
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the procedures and standards by which timeshare
development may be permitted within the City. It is the City's intent to establish timeshare regulations
that provide for the protection of the character of Aspen as a resort community and that help to promote
increased tourism and vitality within the City, while also preserving community character.
Specifically, the City intends that new timeshare projects in Aspen will implement the goals of the
Aspen Area Community Plan and will help to achieve the following public purposes:
Increased vitality. Timeshare developments can provide the opportunity for increased tourism to
Aspen, can add to the level of community vitality and can help to create a more sustainable local
economy. This can be accomplished by expanding the number and variety of "hot beds" available to
visitors, raising occupancy levels in the accommodations sector and attracting "new trials" to Aspen,
from persons who have not previously visited this community.
Preserve and enhance lodging inventory. Aspen's tourist accommodations inventory has for some
time included a significant percentage of traditional lodges. The community would like to preserve
and enhance this lodging inventory, by encouraging timeshare units to be contained in projects that
look and operate in a manner similar to Aspen's traditional lodges. These regulations have been
designed to accomplish this purpose by establishing standards for the physical and operational features
of timeshare lodges, to ensure that new and re-developed timeshare lodges maintain Aspen's lodging
traditions.
Upgrade quality of accommodations. It is important to Aspen's tourist economy that its
accommodations are kept up-to-date. Timeshare development offers the opportunity to infuse capital
into the short term accommodations inventory, so facilities can be modernized. It is equally important
to ensure that once facilities are upgraded, the facility is managed to provide a quality visitor experience
over time. These regulations are intended to ensure that timeshare lodges are properly maintained over
the life of the development.
Maintain community character. Aspen has a valued reputation as a quality resort community. The
City intends to regulate timeshare marketing and sales practices, to ensure that the way timeshare
estates are marketed and sold is consistent with the character of this community and to minimize the
potential for practices that would create an inappropriate image of Aspen. The City also intends to
provide protection for its long term residential neighborhoods, to ensure that the impacts of timeshare
development do not adversely affect the character of these residential areas, by limiting this use to the
City's lodge and selected commercial zone districts.
(Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 [part])
26.590.020 Overview of timeshare developmentApplicability
Applicability. The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to the division of a development, building,
lodge unit, or dwelling unit into time-span estatesall timeshare development within the City. These
requirements shall be in addition to all other applicable requirements set forth in this Title 26 and those
set forth in the Colorado Statutes.
A. Types of timeshare development. There are two types of timeshare development that may be
permitted within the City, as follows:
P53
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 3 of 13
1. Timeshare lodge development. This is the basic form of timesharing permitted in Aspen, and.
It applies to any application to convert lodge units or multi-family residential dwelling units to
timesharing or to develop new units for timesharing, except for those applications that are
eligible for an exemption, as described below. Timeshare lodge development is permitted
where established prior to adoption of Ordinance ___, Series 2015, and in all zone districts that
permit lodging as a use.a permitted use in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR), Commercial
Lodge (CL), Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP), Commercial Core (CC) and Ski Area Base
(SKI) Zone Districts. To obtain approval of a timeshare lodge development, an applicant shall
follow the procedures outlined in Section 26.590.040 below and shall comply with the
applicable characteristics of Section 26.590.060 below and the applicable standards of Section
26.590.070 below.
2. Timeshare residence. This Exempt timesharing is a more limited type of timesharing
permitted in Aspen. The only units eligible for this exemption are single-family dwelling units,
or condominiumized duplex dwelling units. and condominiumized multi-family dwelling units
within any individual condominium complex or condominium project that contains no more
than six (6) such units. This form ofExempt timesharing is a permitted use in the Lodge/Tourist
Residential (L/TR) and the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone Districts. To obtain approval for exempt
timesharing, an applicant shall follow the procedures outlined in Subsection 26.590.030.B
below and shall comply with the standards of Subsection 26.590.030.C below.
(Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 [part])
26.590.030 Prohibitions
The owner of a time-span estate in a timeshare lodge development shall not be permitted to occupy that
estate for any period in excess of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or ninety (90) days within a
calendar year. Occupancy periods for a person with no ownership interest shall not exceed ninety (90)
days within a calendar year. Exchanges are not considered an ownership interest occupancy.
The owner of a time-span estate in a timeshare residence shall not have an occupancy limitation.
26.590.030 Exempt timesharing
A. Eligibility for exemption.
1. The following types of dwelling units are eligible to apply for this exemption:
a) Single-family dwelling units;
b) Condominiumized duplex dwelling units; and
c) Condominiumized multi-family dwelling units within any individual condominium
complex or condominium project that contains no more than six (6) such units.
2. To be eligible to apply for the exemption, the single-family, duplex or multi-family dwelling
units must be located in the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) Zone District or the Ski Area
Base (SKI) Zone District.
B. Minimum requirements to obtain exemption.
1. No more than six (6) estates may be created in any dwelling unit via this exemption. An
applicant wishing to create more than six (6) estates in any unit may do so only via an
application for a timeshare lodge development.
2. The ownership interests that may be created pursuant to this exemption shall be limited to "time-
span estates" as defined in Section 38-33-110, C.R.S., where the annually recurring exclusive
right to possession and occupancy is determined by a schedule or formula.
P54
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 4 of 13
3. Applications for exempt timesharing shall be processed as a subdivision exemption, pursuant
to Subsection 26.480.030.A.5 of this Code.
4. The minimum application contents for the subdivision exemption application shall be as
follows:
a) The applicable portions of the information described in Subsections 26.590.050.A, B, F and
G; and
b) The general application contents required in Section 26.304.030, Application and fees.
C. Review standards for exemption. An applicant for exempt timesharing shall demonstrate
compliance with each of the following standards. These standards are in addition to those standards
applicable to the review of the subdivision exemption.
1. The proposal shall not conflict with any applicable deed restrictions or private covenants or
with any provisions of the Colorado Statutes. If the proposal is for a condominium, it shall
comply with the applicable provisions of Subsection 26.590.070.I of this Code.
2. All units to be converted to timesharing shall comply with the City's adopted Fire, Health and
Building Codes. If any unit does not comply with said Codes, then no sale of an interest in that
unit shall be closed until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued that brings the unit into
compliance.
3. All dwelling units to be converted to timesharing shall comply with the requirements of the
zone district in which they are located and all other applicable standards of this Code or with
the requirements of any PUD or other site specific development approval granted to the
property.
4. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the definition of residential multi-
family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of Section 26.470.070(5),
Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, even when there is no demolition of the
existing multi-family dwelling unit.
5. The marketing, sales, management and operation of the timeshare estates shall comply with the
provisions of Subsection 26.590.070.F and 26.590.070.J, of this Code.
6. A wall sign shall be mounted on each building stating that it has been approved by the City for
timesharing and providing the name and phone number of a management entity or local contact
person who can be called in the event of an emergency or to respond to neighborhood concerns.
The sign shall comply with the requirements of Subsection 26.510.030.B.22 of this Code.
7. Development shall be in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision requirements in
Chapter 26.480 when new lots or units are created.
(Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 [part]; Ord. No. 36-2013, §13)
26.590.040. Procedure for Rreview of timeshare lodge development application
All timesharing that is not eligible for an exemption shall be processed as follows:An application to
establish or amend a timeshare lodge or timeshare residence shall be reviewed pursuant to the
procedures and standards in this Chapter and the Common Development Review Procedures set forth
at Chapter 26.304.
A. Administrative Review. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application based on the standards of review in Section 26.590.050(A),
General Review Standards.
P55
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 5 of 13
B. Variations. The Planning & Zoning Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall
review a recommendation from the Community Development Director and shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application for variation in a timeshare development based on the
standards of review in Section 26.590.050(B), Timeshare Variations Standards. This requires a
one-step review process as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for Timeshare Variation
approval.
2. Process: The Planning & Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application 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 proposed timeshare shall comply with the review standards of
Section 26.590.050.
4. Form of decision: Planning & Zoning Commission decision shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3, and the requirements of Section 26.304.035 – Neighborhood Outreach.
A. PUD Review Required. Timeshare lodge development shall be processed as a Planned Unit
Development (PUD), pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of this Code.
B. Detailed Planned Development Review. The Community Development Director may
determine that because a timeshare lodge development is a conversion of an existing building or
because of the limited extent of the issues involved in the proposal, the project can proceed directly
to a Detailed Review. The Community Development Director is also authorized to waive certain
submission requirements or review standards of the Planned Development review procedures that
are not applicable to a proposed timeshare development.
C. Subdivision review. Timeshare lodge development shall also require subdivision approval.
Review of the subdivision application may be combined with Planned Development review, as
authorized by Subsection 26.304.060.B, Combined reviews.
C. Associated ReviewsGrowth Management Quota System review. Unless waived by the
Community Development Director, after consultation with the applicant, an application for a
variation from the timeshare standards shall be combined with development applications for all
other associated land use reviews, pursuant to Section 26.304.050(B)(1), Combined Reviews. The
Community Development Director shall inform the applicant during the pre-application conference
if combining associated reviews shall be required and if any redundant submission requirements
may be waived.
Whenever a proposed timeshare lodge or timeshare residence development or exempt timesharing
is subject to review under the City's Growth Management Quota System (Chapter 26.470), the
development shall be considered to be a "Tourist Accommodation" or a "Lodge" under that system.
Authority to grant variations. Variations from the requirements applied to timeshare lodge
development may be authorized by the City Council. An applicant requesting a variation shall
demonstrate that the provision requested to be varied is not applicable to the proposed development or
cannot be met and shall demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable, would not be contrary
P56
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 6 of 13
to the public interest and better implements the purpose and intent of these timeshare regulations than
the codified requirement.
(Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 [part]; Ord. No. 36-2013, §14)
26.590.050. Timeshare Review Standards
A. General Standards. All timeshare lodge development shall comply with the following review
standards. A timeshare residence development shall comply with standards 2 through 7.
1. Onsite reception. Onsite reception area is required for all timeshare development in a multi-
family building, a mixed use building, or a lodge building.
2. Management plan. A property management plan shall be submitted for a multi-family building,
a mixed use building, or a lodge building. Detached and duplex dwelling units shall comply
with Section 26.575.220.D.3, Vacation Rental Standards, and provide a local owner
representative. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve
any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare development, to
provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that management/assessment fees will be
applied and used appropriately. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve
fund to ensure that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout
its lifetime.
3. Rental by the public. Timeshare estates shall be made available for short term rental to the
general public when not in use by the owner or owner’s guests. The covenants of the
homeowners association shall permit rental of units to the general public.
4. Minimum number of estates per unit. A maximum of 6 estates per unit are created per dwelling
unit for a timeshare residence development. A minimum of 6 estates are created per lodge unit
for a timeshare lodge development.
5. Complex-wide requirement. All residential units within a multi-family building, mixed use
building, or a duplex building shall be developed as timeshare estates.
6. Physical upgrades. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a timeshare
development shall be upgraded and improved to meet current Building Code requirements,
which includes at a minimum the physical upgrades necessary to comply with current
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. An inspection by the Chief Building
Official shall be required.
7. Parking requirements. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be
calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The
parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock off
rooms, or keys, in the development. The parking requirement for timeshare residential
development shall be calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone
P57
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 7 of 13
district for the applicable residential use. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited
from storing a vehicle in a parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate.
8. Affordable housing requirements. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to
provide affordable housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the
standards for lodge uses. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the
definition of residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions
of Section 26.470.070(5), Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, even when
there is no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit. No other Growth Management
Reviews shall be required.
9. CC Timeshare Lodges. A timeshare lodge in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District shall
not have any lodge rooms located on the ground floor. Instead, a timeshare lodge in the CC
Zone District shall contain at least one of the following elements: publically accessible bar,
restaurant or retail facilities. The elements provided shall be located along the street front, shall
be accessible from the street and shall be designed to serve the public, not just the occupants of
the timeshare lodge.
B. Timeshare Variations Standards.
Only variations to standards 1 (Onsite reception), 5 (complex-wide requirement), 6 (Physical
upgrades), and 7 (Parking requirements) outlined above in Section 26.590.050(A) is permitted. An
applicant requesting a variation shall demonstrate that the provision requested to be varied is not
applicable to the proposed development or cannot be met and shall demonstrate that the proposed
variation is reasonable, would not be contrary to the public interest and better implements the purpose
and intent of these timeshare regulations than the codified requirement. The applicant must
demonstrate that the proposed variation will result in a successful short-term rental product. The
following characteristics shall be considered in meeting this standard. A project need not meet all of
the following characteristics:
1. The development contains a sufficient level of on- or off-site recreational facilities (such as
exercise equipment, a pool or spa or similar facilities) and other amenities (such as a lobby,
meeting spaces and similar facilities) to serve the occupants, or provides such amenities through
off-site method such as gym privileges at local work-out facilities. The extent of the facilities
provided should be proportional to the size of the development. The types of facilities should
be consistent with the planned method and style of operating the development.
2. The project includes commercial operations, or services available to the general community.
3. The timeshare units will use a standard palate of décor that has been established for the property.
4. The proposal maximizes the potential for short-term occupancies through design and
operational characteristics, for instance by isolating larger residential units from high activity
uses.
5. The proposal provides lock-off configurations to enable flexible unit configurations that may
be attractive to a broader segment of guests.
P58
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 8 of 13
6. The application shall demonstrate how the operation provides short-term occupancies to the
general public. The City may require an annual audit to ensure operation provides
accommodations to the general public and is not operating as a private residence, pursuant to
Section 26.575.210, Lodge occupancy auditing.
7. Nightly rental rates are standardized and established by a Management Company rather than
individual owners.
8. The management and marketing plan provides for a standard management and marketing
strategy, either through Stay Aspen Snowmass, or other entity.
9. Any changes to Section 26.590.050(A)(7), Parking requirements, shall meet the requirements
of Chapter 26.515, Off-Street Parking.
26.590.0650. Contents of Application Contents
In addition to the general application information required in Section 26.304.030, Application and fees
and those application contents for Planned Development and subdivision, the application for timeshare
lodge development shall include the following information. It is expected that this information will be
provided in a preliminary manner during the Project Review and in a precise manner during Detailed
Review.
A. Review criteria. A written response to each of the review criteria in Section 26.590.050.
A.B. Timeshare use plan: A detailed description of the basic elements of the proposed timeshare
use plan. The use plan shall describe the number of estates being created in each unit, the total number
of estates to be created, the expected price for each estate and whether a purchaser is buying a specific
unit for a specific time, a specific unit for a floating time or whether there is no specific unit but just a
specific time. It shall also describe whether owners will be able to participate in an exchange program
and if so, in which programs they will be eligible to participate. The use plan shall also provide a
specific description of how the development will comply with the requirements of Section 26.590.060,
Characteristics of a timeshare lodge.
B. Summary of disclosure statement and timeshare instruments. A detailed summary of each of
the key points that will be included in the disclosure statement and the timeshare development
instruments. (See Section 26.590.090) if the project receives approval from the City.
C. Management plan. A plan for how the timeshare development will be managed, describing
whether the applicant will manage the project or if it will be managed by a management company, a
branded company or other entity and describing how the project will be operated. Single family and
duplex buildings choosing to convert to a timeshare residence are required to submit documentation of
a local owner’s representative in compliance with Section 26.575.220(D)(3), Vacation Rental
Standards.
C.
P59
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 9 of 13
D. Marketing plan. The marketing plan for the timeshare development, including information on
proposed sales techniques (including a description of gifts, premiums or promotions to be offered),
sales packaging and whether a sales office will be established off-site.
E. Budget. A planned budget for the proposed homeowners/condominium association estimating the
proposed costs and expenditures for the management and maintenance of the timeshare development.
F. Upgrading plan. For any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a timeshare lodge
development, the applicant shall submit a plan of how the project will be physically upgraded and
modernized.
G. Tax collection. A statement indicating the manner in which real estate transfer taxes and sales
taxes will be collected.
D. Developer's registration. A copy of the Developer's registration with the Colorado Real Estate
Commission. If the Developer has not so registered at the time of submission of the application, then
this information shall be submitted at the time the timeshare documents are submitted for recordation,
pursuant to Section 26.590.090 of this Code.
E. Architectural drawings. Floor plans and elevations for the existing and proposed development.
A depiction of the on-site reception areas, as applicable, is required. Any physical upgrades proposed
to meet current building codes, as applicable, is required.
26.590.0790. Timeshare documents
A timeshare development agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490, Approval Documents. In addition to the requirements
of Chapter 26.490, as applicable, the development agreement shall include the following:
1. A statement that the proposed development will comply with all applicable requirements of
Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S. Upon request from the City, the applicant shall provide a copy
of the documents submitted to the State for the registration and certification of the timeshare
developer.
2. Requirement that a homeowners association be established. Responsibility for maintenance
of the development shall reside with the association.
3. A statement ensuring the timeshare estates shall be made available for short term rental to
the general public when not in use by the owner or owner’s guests, including a description
of the protocol for member reservations. The statement shall acknowledge that the public
rental requirement is subject to occasional compliance audits by the City of Aspen.
4. A stipulation by the owner of the timeshare interest irrevocably designating the homeowners
association as an agent for the service of legal notices for any legal action, proceed or
hearing pertaining to the timeshare interest or for the service of process (in a manner
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of personal service in the state, pursuant to Rule 4
C.R.C.P., as amended).
5. Instruments for the interval estate or time span estate including:
P60
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 10 of 13
a) The legal description, street address or other description sufficient to identify the
property.
b) Identification of timeshare time periods by letter, name, number or combination thereof.
c) Identification of the timeshare estate and the method whereby additional timeshare
estates may be created.
d) The formula, fraction or percentage of the common expenses and any voting rights
assigned to each timeshare estate.
e) Any restrictions on the use, occupancy, alteration or alienation of timeshare units.
At the same time the applicant submits final development plans and a Development Agreement to the
City for recordation, pursuant to Section 26.490, Approval Documents, or submits the necessary
documents to record the subdivision exemption, the applicant shall also submit the following timeshare
documents in a form suitable for recording. The Community Development Director may require the
applicant to submit a draft version of these timeshare documents at the time of submission of the Project
Review
A. Disclosure statement. The applicant shall submit a disclosure statement that contains the
following information:
1. The name and address of the developer of the timeshare development as well as a summary of
the developer's business experience, including all background and experience in the
development of timeshare development and the present financial condition of the developer.
2. The name and address of the manager/management company for the development, if any and a
description of the manager's/management company's responsibilities, powers, duties, authority
and business experience. All information on the manager's background and experience
specifically related to timeshare development shall be provided.
3. The names and addresses of the marketing entity and the listing broker and a statement of
whether there are any lawsuits pending or investigations that have been undertaken against the
marketing entity or listing broker and if so, a description of the status or disposition of said
lawsuits or investigations. A summary of the marketing entity's business experience including
all background and experience related to timeshare development.
4. A description of the timeshare units, including the developer's schedule for completion of all
buildings, units and amenities, with dates of availability.
5. If the timeshare plan consists of a condominium or a similar form of ownership, a description
of the development and any pertinent provisions of the condominium instruments.
6. Any restraints on the transfer of the purchaser's interest in the timeshare units or plan.
7. The timeshare use plan, which shall include a description of the rights and responsibilities under
the plan.
8. Notice of any liens, title defects or encumbrances on or affecting the title to the units or plan
and, if there are encumbrances or liens, a statement as to whether, when and how they will be
removed.
9. Notice of any pending or anticipated legal actions that are material to the timeshare units or
plan of which the applicant has or should have, knowledge.
10. The total financial obligation of the purchaser, which shall include the initial price and any
additional charges to which the purchaser may be subject in purchasing the unit.
11. An estimate of the dues, maintenance fees, real property taxes, sales taxes, real estate transfer
tax and similar periodic expenses and the method or formula by which they are derived and
P61
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 11 of 13
apportioned, which shall include whether maintenance fees are determined by unit, time of year
or prorated share of the overall maintenance costs or any other means utilized to compute
maintenance fees.
12. A statement demonstrating the manner in which management/assessment fees will be held,
utilized and accounted for.
13. A description of any financing offered by the applicant.
14. The terms and significant limitations of any warranties provided, including statutory warranties
and limitations on the enforcement thereof or on damages.
15. A statement that the proposed development will comply with all applicable requirements of
Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S. Upon request from the City, the applicant shall provide a copy of
the documents submitted to the State for the registration and certification of the timeshare
developer.
16. The extent to which a timeshare unit may become subject to a tax or other lien arising out of
claims against other timeshare owners of the same timeshare unit.
17. The minimum percentage of units the developer will require be sold before the developer will
proceed with the completion of the timeshare development.
18. A description of the maintenance to be supplied to the timeshare development, including how
and when such maintenance will be provided.
19. Whether any or all the units in the proposed development will be available for participation in
an exchange program. The applicant shall disclose which exchange program(s) the timeshare
estate owners will be eligible to utilize.
20. A description of all insurance covering the property.
21. A description of the on-site amenities and recreational facilities which are available for use by
the unit owners. All on-site amenities shall be owned by the homeowner's association and the
developer shall not be allowed to charge any additional fees for use of the amenities. If there
are any off-site facilities that are related to the property, these shall also be described, including
a summary of any fees that timeshare owners would have to pay to use those off-site facilities.
22. A statement that any timeshare interest shall be expressly subject to all requirements and
representations set forth in the disclosure statement.
23. For any timeshare development that is a conversion of an existing project, a statement shall be
provided by the developer, based on a report prepared by an independent architect or engineer,
licensed by the State, describing the present condition of all structural components and
mechanical and electrical installations material to the use and enjoyment of the timeshare units.
The statement shall also provide a list of any outstanding notices of uncured violations of
Building Code or other municipal regulations, together with the estimated cost of curing those
violations.
B. Timeshare development instruments. The applicant shall submit the following timeshare
development instruments:
1. Instruments for the interval estate or time span estate including:
a) The legal description, street address or other description sufficient to identify the property.
b) Identification of timeshare time periods by letter, name, number or combination thereof.
c) Identification of the timeshare estate and the method whereby additional timeshare estates
may be created.
d) The formula, fraction or percentage of the common expenses and any voting rights assigned
to each timeshare estate.
P62
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 12 of 13
e) Any restrictions on the use, occupancy, alteration or alienation of timeshare units.
f) Any other matters that the applicant or the City Council deems reasonably necessary.
2. All timeshare development instruments shall provide for the following:
a) That a homeowners association shall be established. Responsibility for maintenance of the
development shall reside within the association. The association shall designate a managing
agent. The management contract with the managing agent shall allow for either party to
terminate, for cause, upon thirty (30) days notice. In the event the manager is terminated,
a new managing agent shall be designated as quickly as possible by the association. Any
management agreement shall specify the managing agent's duties and responsibilities to
maintain the development.
b) A stipulation by the owner of the timeshare interest irrevocably designating the homeowners
association and/or the managing agent as an agent for the service of legal notices for any
legal action, proceeding or hearing pertaining to the timeshare interest or for the service of
process (in a manner sufficient to satisfy the requirements of personal service in the state,
pursuant to Rule 4 C.R.C.P., as amended).
c) Each timeshare interest with a multiple ownership shall be required to designate one
managing agent as the spokesperson and voter for all of the owners involved.
d) That the association shall have the ability to compel a timeshare owner to pay maintenance
fees and if any owner's fees are not paid, his or her interest shall be subject to a lien and
foreclosure or other divestment. In the event an owner or his or her guests violate the rules
and regulations of the association, the association shall have the right to enjoin the violation
and the prevailing party in such suit shall be awarded his or her court costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.
e) Provisions addressing reconstruction or repair of all or a portion of the timeshare
development following its willful or non-willful destruction. Provisions should also be
included addressing termination of the association, including the percentage of owners that
must agree for the termination to become effective, what happens to the common elements
in the event of a termination and how the proceeds shall be distributed in the event the
property is taken due to condemnation or eminent domain.
3. Updating and filing.
a) The developer and his or her successors and assigns (other than individual unit purchasers)
shall have a continuing duty to update the disclosure statement and file with the City all
amendments to the timeshare development's instruments. Such amendments shall comply
with the requirements of this Section. No amendment which shall significantly alter the
physical elements or operational practices of a timeshare lodge shall be effective unless
approved and accepted by the City. All amendments shall be initially submitted for review
to the Community Development Director who shall have authority to either approve a
proposed amendment as in compliance with the requirements of this Section or refer the
proposed amendment for appropriate subdivision or PUD approval.
b) The condominium association and/or the homeowners association or both if there be
multiple associations and not individual unit owners shall have the continuing responsibility
to submit to the City any amendments to the condominium documents and/or timeshare
development instruments that would alter any condition imposed by the City or any prior
representation made by the applicant to obtain approval of the timeshare development.
Once the condominium association has been formed, the City shall not accept any
amendments for review without prior approval thereby.
P63
VII.a
Code Amendment – Timeshare
Exhibit B – Redlines
Page 13 of 13
1. Before transfer of a timeshare unit and no later than the date of execution of any contract of
sale, the applicant or any other seller of a timeshare unit shall provide the intended transferee
with a copy of the disclosure statement and any amendments thereto, except this requirement
shall not apply to the owner of a single timeshare estate in a development who is attempting to
sell the estate.
2. Conveyance of a timeshare interest shall be subject to the condominium declaration which shall
include the disclosure statement as an exhibit thereto.
(Ord. No. 21-2002 § 1 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 36 -2013, § 17)
26.590.080 Amendments.
Amendments shall be processed pursuant to Section 26.590.040, Procedures for review.
26.590.090 Appeals.
An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding
administration of this Chapter may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316.
P64
VII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015
RE: Timeshare Code Amendment
SUMMARY:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code
amendments to the City’s Timeshare regulations (Chapter 26.590).
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT:
Staff is proposing amendments to the Timeshare Chapter to simplify the review process and
eliminate redundancies and conflicts with other code sections. This work is an outgrowth of
direction from City Council related to updating the lodging codes. The timeshare regulations
outline the process by which a lodge or dwelling unit can be divided into multiple time-span
estates. Timeshare is defined by the State as a form or style of ownership. This means the City
cannot attach new regulations or conditions upon a lodge converting its ownership style to
timeshare.
Timeshare Estates: The current code has different processes depending on the number of
estates created. A timeshare project with 8 estates per unit goes through a different process than
the same project with 6 estates per unit. This creates confusion and does not seem to serve any
larger purpose. The proposed changes unify the process for creating various numbers of shares
or “interval estates.” In addition, the proposed changes would allow no less than four (4) estates
to be created from a single unit.
Dwelling Units: The current timeshare regulations allow residential units and lodging units to
be converted to timeshare ownership. Staff is recommending that residential units not be
allowed to be converted to timeshare ownership, as they are able to operate as vacation rentals.
Staff is working with the attorney’s office to determine if this prohibition is acceptable under
state law. If not, staff is proposing some new limitations on the timesharing of residential units,
including a requirement that if a multi-family unit wishes to convert to timeshare ownership that
the entire complex convert. Staff believes this will encourage greater compliance with the
timeshare requirements, and will enable other issues such as required housing mitigation to be
more appropriately addressed.
Planned Development & Subdivision Requirements: The current chapter requires all
Timeshare projects to be reviewed as a Planned Development and as a full Subdivision. This
requirement applies even if a project conforms to all zoning requirements and the land is not
being subdivided. This is counter to the City’s goal of reserving heightened reviews for projects
P65
VII.a
which are requesting variances. With the proposed amendments, projects would continue to be
subject to all existing requirements, including design review, but would not be forced to request
a Planned Development or Subdivision.
Review Criteria: Currently, the review criteria include redundant requirements – timeshare
projects must pay taxes, comply with State Statute, comply with the City’s zoning and building
codes, comply with affordable housing requirements. These requirements already apply to all
new development. The criteria then go on to recite various sections of the land use code, often
times in conflict with what those very sections actually require. For example, the timeshare
chapter requires 100% agreement of an entire HOA and all mortgagees of the individual units for
any change to the timeshare plan. This conflicts with the City’s requirements for all other land
use applications and likely conflicts with present-day State Statute. The proposed changes
remove these redundant and conflicting requirements.
In addition, the City’s timeshare chapter sets forth requirements that are not traditional City
interests, and are not required for any other project. For example, the chapter requires disclosure
of closing costs. While this is commonplace in real estate transactions, this should not be a City-
managed issue. The current chapter specifies how an owner’s agent can proxy vote on behalf of
an owner on HOA issues. Again, the City should not manage internal HOA voting rules. The
proposed changes remove all “non-city” issues from the chapter.
Finally, staff proposes to simplify and strengthen the review criteria for timeshare development.
All proposed timeshares would be required to meet the same set of criteria, including a
requirement for on-site reception and services, a management plan, a requirement to be available
to the general public when not used by an owner, remittance of all required taxes, and a
recognition of other code requirements such as housing mitigation and parking requirements.
With the proposed changes, only the physical requirements may be varied through a special
review with the Planning & Zoning Commission.
REQUEST OF P&Z:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code
amendment.
P66
VII.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Credits
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
5) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower.
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow’s
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
P67
VII.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Mr. Gibbs added that allowing houses to timeshare may encourage higher occupancy which he
supports. Mr. Mesirow added he would support changes to allow higher occupancy as well.
CC / C-1 Clarifications
Ms. Levy provided the background regarding the impacts to free market residential units located in CC
and C-1 zone districts with the enactment of Ordinance 25, series 2012. Permitted uses on the fourth
floor are not addressed in the code, despite the existence of several buildings with four floors above
ground level in both districts. The City has received requests from owners of the fourth floor units who
wish to upgrade or expand their units. The current code allows the units to continue to exist, but
consider them units of non-conforming use and therefore subject to the non-conforming portion of the
code. The owners of the units experience difficulties obtaining financing and building permits based on
the non-conforming status.
Staff is proposing to amend the code to clarify the free market residential units established prior to
Ordinance 25, series 2012 continue in CC and C-1 as conforming as long as they do not expand.
Currently there is a 10% cap for a 12 month period to improve or maintain a non-conforming unit.
One of the properties impacted is the Concept 600 building located at 600 E Main St.
Mr. Bendon explained the non-conforming portion of the code needs a complete review and upgrades.
He also explained at the time Ordinance 25, series 2015 was approved, emphasis was placed on
reducing height to 28 ft and eliminating new penthouses and not necessarily realizing the impacts to
existing units. He is aware there is a substantial number of units impacted by this ordinance. He also
feels the 10% cap does not make sense for the residential units.
Mr. Bendon then stated this was not technically a public hearing but was aware of members of the
public at the meeting who may want to provide comment if allowed.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked for members of the public to provide comment if they wished.
Mr. Jim Smith lives at the Concept 600 building is also president of the homeowners association. He
stated he became aware of the issues when he attempted to obtain a building permit six months ago to
expand their porch. He stated they would like to see the long existing free market resident units
recognized as conforming. He reviewed old meetings in an effort to determine the focus of the efforts to
approve Ordinance 25, series 2012 which he feels focused on future development instead of the existing
units. He also feels it was an unintended consequence. He would like the code to be clarified to allow
units to be maintained, upgraded and improved as needed as well as allow other provisions available
prior to the ordinance.
Ms. Lindsey Smith also lives at the Concept 600 building. She described the type of tenants in the
building including long term renters, short term renters, and locals. The free market units are not
separated from the renters. She feels the building represents a cross section of the visitors and residents
of Aspen. Many improvements have been completed to the building to meet safety and ADA
requirements. She reiterated the same requests as Mr. Smith.
Mr. Bill Sterling is a commercial user of the building as of 1978. He is troubled by the non-conforming
status and feels it may negatively impact the real estate market values and impede financing. He would
like the ordinance to be amended to allow flexibility to maintain and upgrade the units. He feels the
ordinance had unintended consequences.
Page 4
P68
VII.a
1
ASPEN'S FRACTIONAL TIMESHARE LODGING
November 17, 2011
Background
In 1997, faced with an abundance of lower quality lodging dating back to the early 1950s, the City of
Aspen held several public hearings on a new Lodge Preservation Program. The goal of the program was
to provide an opportunity for the aging lodges to either upgrade or redevelop in an effort to stimulate
new bed base. The program was intended to eliminate those lodges that were marginal while allowing
wholesale renewal of others into new, upscale lodging.
Approved in 1997, the program (with GMQS incentives) was generally successful as the City was
approached by a number of developers wanting to develop high-end luxury accommodations on former
lodging and condominium sites. None of the proposed lodging projects were proposed as traditional
hotels; every project was proposed as "fractional units" and timeshares.
Timeshares typically are created when multiple people join in to purchase a single accommodation unit
or the right to "share" the time available in that unit, usually by having specific weeks allocated to them
(no deed). Two such timeshare projects (Prospector and Shadow Mountain Lodge at Aspen) were
developed years before, under the original timeshare regulations, and pre-date the Lodge Preservation
Program. Fractional ownership is somewhat different in that an entire property is made available and a
purchaser is given specific weeks each year in a unit (most units are identical). Owners can also use
other times of the year, if a unit is available. These are sometimes referred to as Residence Clubs which
also allow an owner to "exchange" their unit time for another time in another location. Hyatt, St. Regis
and the Ritz Carlton allow such "exchange" programs within their corporate structures and owners of
these fractions can trade them on a separate private network.
The Ritz Carlton Residence Club, located at the base of the Highlands Ski Area, became the first
fractional to enter the Aspen market. It pre-dated the City's Lodge Preservation Program and its revised
timeshare regulations (which were adopted as Ordinance 2002-21 on June 24, 2002). The Ritz Carlton
was approved in the County, and subsequently annexed into the City of Aspen, thus developing in
accordance with County regulations.
The second fractional project that came in with a development application was the Aspen Mountain
PUD, renamed the "Hyatt Grand Aspen" project. It, too, preceded the revised timeshare regulations, so
much of the PUD entitlement process centered around the issue of "fractional timeshares" and whether
they "contributed" to the bed base or were actually condominium residences.
At that time, the City's timeshare regulations were extremely dated and did not do much to address the
issues surrounding a new fractional product. Council concerns during the PUD review included:
availability of rooms for the general public; less sales tax/lodging tax generation from these "ownership"
units; and limited ability to regulate the units to ensure they don't become a "commodity" and thus
subject to SEC review. Being such a new product, the City had to research and rely on information about
P69
VII.a
2
the product from the applicants, whose purpose was to "sell" the project to the decision-makers by
suggesting they were providing the City with those elements they coveted most: high occupancy, new
visits, appeal to affordable markets, available to the public through rental, and higher sales tax.
The emphasis was on HOT (high occupancy turnover) beds to introduce new visitors to Aspen, while
allowing the general public access to the units when they weren't occupied by owners. The City was
told that fractional timeshare units would have a significantly higher occupancy and more positive
economic impact on the community. Don Schuester of the Aspen Skiing Company was an advocate of
this type of lodging product and was enlisted to make presentations to City Council on behalf of the
Hyatt Grand Aspen developer.
At the same time it became evident that the City's timeshare ordinance would need to be entirely re-
written to address the concerns of the fractional type product. A new ordinance was not adopted until
after the Hyatt Grand Aspen was approved. The regulations clarified how realtors could use the
products to entice potential purchasers, and served to address consumer protection. However, it also
provided for some measures to ensure sales/lodging taxes were collected and "impact fees" for
mitigation of the fractional projects was paid. The remaining fractional projects that came in under this
new set of timeshare regulations included:
The Residences at Little Nell;
The St. Regis Residence Club;
The Innsbruck Inn; and
The Dancing Bear Lodge.
The above four fractional timeshare projects, together with the Hyatt Grand Aspen, are the primary
subjects of this fractional timeshare study.
Study Questions to be Answered
This study is not intended to determine the success of the fractional type product on the Aspen
economy. That would be an extensive study, possibly worth investigating as a follow-up to this brief
investigation. This investigation is to evaluate if the fractional timeshare product has performed and
operated as was expected when the projects were originally approved. This assessment is based on
primarily anecdotal information gathered from key persons in the accommodations and real estate
industries and is qualitative rather than quantitative (due to the lack of primary and secondary data).
The fractional timeshare "story" in Aspen is being told in this report by attempting to answer the
following specific questions:
1. What are the Occupancy Trends for fractional projects in Aspen?
How do these compare with traditional ownership lodges?
With fractionals in similar resorts?
P70
VII.a
3
2. Are fractionals operating as lodges?
Do fractionals rent to the public?
How easy/hard is it to get a room if you are not an owner?
Why do they rent to the public? Does it make business sense?
What is the public occupancy portion of their business?
3. How many unsold timeshare units are there now? Is this a glut? and
4. Is there a recommended process or system for routine measuring of timeshare utilization?
Study Process
This study began with an inventory of the five subject properties, using approving ordinances,
certificates of occupancy and Community Development Department records to determine the amount
of fractional lodging products in Aspen. Please see Exhibit A for the inventory of fractional units.
Ordinance language for each project addressed the desire of the City Council to ensure "high occupancy
turnover" (or HOT beds), by including conditions that the units would need to be available to the general
public, and that a central reservation service would need to be used.
The author then corresponded and/or conducted interviews with several key persons in the
accommodations and real estate business to help get a handle on the operational side of the fractional
products. Bill Tomcich, Stay Aspen Snowmass (SAS), provided confirmation that all five of the fractional
projects did indeed use the SAS central reservations service to advertise available lodging.
Don Taylor, City of Aspen Finance Director, provided aggregate sales and lodging tax information from
five of the fractional properties (excluding the Little Nell but including the Ritz Carlton) from 2008
forward and total sales and lodging tax. This information tells us that 4.5% to 5% of lodging tax is
contributable to the fractional properties, an indication that some units are indeed being rented out as
short-term lodging. (Note: Lodging tax is not collected when an owner, their guest, or an "exchange"
guest occupies the property, nor on units where a stay is 30 days or more). Scott Writer notes that
industry data suggests that timeshare visitors spend 16% more per capita than hotel guests, thereby
generating more in sales tax.
In a phone conference with Bill Tomcich and MTRIP co-founder Tom Foley, the data collection of
lodging occupancy in Aspen and other resort communities was discussed. MTRIP is a third-person
agency that collects monthly occupancy data from fifteen (15) lodging properties in Aspen, including St.
Regis, Little Nell, and Frias Properties (one of the largest property management companies who
specialize in fractional product rentals). MTRIP also collects lodging occupancy data (traditional lodging
and fractional properties collectively) in 14 other resorts (Copper Mountain, North Lake Tahoe,
Telluride, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Park City, Vail, Breckenridge, Mammoth Lakes, Winter Park, Central
Summit County, CO, Mt. Bachelor, Steamboat Springs and Snowmass Village). To preserve
confidentiality in the MTRIP reports, resort names are hidden. The information presented in the reports
clearly indicates high occupancy and average daily rates in Aspen as compared with other resorts,
P71
VII.a
4
though Aspen is not always the highest. What this tells us is that Aspen's lodging accommodations tend
toward upper-end lodging establishments.
In a meeting with Chuck Frias, Owner/Realtor, Frias Properties, we generally discussed the sales and re-
sale of the fractional units, and why owners choose to rent their un-used time. He could not provide
information on sales/re-sales but suggested the County Clerk and/or Assessor may be able to provide
accurate information. He opined that the first major fractional timeshare project, the Ritz Carlton, was
probably about 95% sold out; that the Dancing Bear Lodge was 50% sold out; and that the Hyatt Grand
Aspen (with its 1/20th shares of time) was probably the least sold out. When asked about why owners
would be willing to short-term rent their available time, he indicated that many purchasers have found
that they occupy their units maybe 2/3 of the time only, and realize that they can make cash off of
renting their timeshare to offset expenses when they can't be here to vacation.
He also informed the author that the "rules and regulations" for some projects may preclude the rental
of units, though again SAS reports that five of the five fractional properties are available for short-term
rental. Mr. Frias also provided the names of contacts at some fractional projects whom he believed may
be willing to provide occupancy figures for the fractional units.
In e-mail correspondence with Scott Writer, Developer of Hyatt Grand Aspen, he points out that
fractional products bring in more first time visitors than hotels. Purchasers in other locations often
"exchange" their units to come to Aspen for "free" lodging, and often visit during non-prime-time
seasons. He also points out, anecdotally, that the average fractional owner spends more per capita than
the average hotel guest, somewhere in the 15% - 30% range, because they feel they can "live it up" since
they have already paid for their lodging.
A meeting with the County Assessor's Department provided information on sales of timeshare
properties (through the Clerk & Recorder's website, easily sorted because all fractional timeshares are
transferred under a Special Warranty Deed). Unfortunately, a key piece of information (unit number
and fractional weeks) was often missing from the tables, requiring a substantial amount of further
research to determine original sales from re-sales. This research was not completed due to the limited
amount of time allocated to this study.
Input from the General Managers of fractional timeshare properties was also sought by phone and/or e-
mail. A short series of six questions regarding general occupancy and renting to the public was
developed for this purpose (see Exhibit C). At the time of this writing, only two of the GMs responded,
but a third property provided confidential occupancy information on the condition that it not be
reported as attributable to it. To be clear, most lodging properties consider occupancy proprietary
information and are unlikely to share, so the confidential information provided to the author will serve
as the best source of occupancy information available.
The author also solicited responses from Other Resort Communities regarding their success with
fractional projects. Some resorts have yet to see their first fractional project (Crested Butte) while
others have fractional projects, but occupancy trends have not been studied. Telephone and e-mail
conversations were held with Community Development/Planning Directors Mark Wardlaw from
P72
VII.a
5
Mammoth Lakes, Tyler Sinclair with Jackson, WY, George Ruther with Vail, and Thomas Eddington
(reported by Shauna Stokes for Mr. Eddington) with Park City, UT. There are mixed reviews from these
resources as to the effectiveness of the fractional timeshare product in the other resort communities.
The author did find out that Whistler is undergoing a similar study, though no results are available at this
time. Exhibit B provides the e-mail responses from various Resort Communities.
Finally, in an attempt to determine the ease with which "renting a room" was possible, the author acted
as a "secret shopper" by personally going into a handful of the fractional properties and requesting a
future room reservation and/or going on-line to rent a room. These findings are presented in more
detail in the section below.
Analysis/Findings
The author analyzed the information gathered to determine general perceptions/observations of trends
in occupancy and use of the fractional products. These findings were intended to answer the specific
questions to be answered by the study, and are presented below each question.
1. What are the Occupancy Trends for fractional projects in Aspen?
In order to understand occupancy trends of both fractional and traditional lodging, it is important to
work with a baseline of data representing total lodging within the community. MTRIP data provides the
best source of total lodging available in Aspen. Together with the Inventory of fractional timeshare
properties attached as Exhibit A, a "snapshot" of Aspen's lodging is provided.
According to confidential MTRIP data, Aspen has a total of 2,304 lodging units, representing
approximately a total maximum occupancy of 9,385 (sometimes referred to as "pillows"). As of the end
of July 2011, it was estimated that 790 of the 2,304 units are not part of the MTRIP reporting,
representing approximately 34% of lodge units and approximately 43% of pillows not being reported
through MTRIP.
Exhibit A indicates that 198 fractional units came on line between approximately 2000 and 2009,
including the Ritz Carlton project approved in Pitkin County. However, MTRIP data of total lodging
indicates that 288 fractional timeshare units (1,529 pillows) exist, including the Ritz Carlton but
excluding Dancing Bear Lodge (this does not show up as available lodging on the MTRIP data).
Eliminating the 9 Dancing Bear units from Exhibit A for comparison purposes brings the total fractional
unit inventory to be 189. The difference between 288 units (MTRIP) and 189 (Exhibit A) can be
presumed to be 99 "lock-off" rooms that are counted as units in the MTRIP data. Therefore, 288
"units/rooms" of the 2,304 total lodging units represents approximately 13% of the total Aspen lodging
inventory being made up of fractional timeshare units/rooms.
As mentioned earlier, occupancy trends of fractional projects are difficult to determine. Only the
management of the fractional projects have that information and since it is proprietary, few are willing
to share it. The author contacted the General Managers at the properties by phone and/or e-mail to
P73
VII.a
6
generally inquire about occupancy and sales/re-sales of fractional timeshare units (see Exhibit C for
Questions asked of the General Managers). Only two properties responded to the survey and a third
property provided actual occupancy information.
Anecdotally, there are few other methods to determine "use" or occupancy of the fractional timeshare
lodging products. Even as a function of lodging tax collected (as discussed below), it does not equate to
occupancy as fractional timeshares are often occupied by owners, their guests or through exchange
programs where no lodging tax is collected. So to summarize "occupancy" of the fractional timeshare
units based on the limited information provided to the author (through SAS and other sources), the
author was able to determine the following:
Occupancy "averages" approximately 60%-65% year round.
During "high seasons" (typically July and January/February), occupancy can be in the 80-95%
range
During "off-season" (April/May and November) occupancy drops to the 20-25% range
It is perceived that occupancy in fractional units is slightly higher on average over traditional
lodging.
How do these compare with traditional ownership lodges?
It is also difficult to compare traditional lodging with fractional/timeshare lodging, other than as
presented below as a function of lodging tax collected. By comparing the lodging tax generated for the
five timeshare properties (including Ritz Carlton but excluding the Residences at Little Nell) against the
lodging tax collections for all lodging in Aspen, we can determine that on average, the five fractional
properties generate approximately 4.5 to 5% of total lodging tax (again, the fractional properties
represent about 13% of all lodging in Aspen). The reverse of this would be that the remaining lodging
tax collected (95% or approximately $958,629 of a total $1,009,083 in lodging tax collected in 2010)
would be from traditional lodges and other property owners (condos or single-family) who report
sales/lodging tax to the City. This could also include an aggregate amount reported by a property
management company such as Frias (which may include fractional units) or properties available through
VRBO (Vacation Rentals By owner), for example. Also of note is that the lodging tax generated by the
Residences at Little Nell are aggregated with those of the Little Nell Hotel and are included in the 95% of
lodging tax collected. This information only tells us that more lodging tax is generated by traditional
lodging products. However, the fractional timeshare products may generate more Real Estate Transfer
Tax (RETT), a lodging mitigation fee, and/or sales tax (by owners spending up to 30% more per capita on
restaurants and purchases according to Scott Writer) as a comparison.
The other comparison that can be made is that if we know that 13% of the total Aspen lodging inventory
represents fractional/timeshare units and the timeshare properties collectively generate approximately
5% of total lodging tax, that much of the fractional unit inventory may be used by owners, their guests,
or as "exchange" time within the Residence Club, thus not generating any lodging tax.
MTRIP reports provide some insight into traditional lodging occupancy. Presuming the MTRIP data
provided is reporting only traditional lodging, the following general conclusions can be made in terms of
2011 occupancy compared with 2010 actual bookings:
P74
VII.a
7
o Bookings in 2011 have been higher than that in 2010 (this is consistent with what some
GMs reported).
o Bookings are highest over the weekends (Friday and Saturday) and lowest mid-week.
o The highest summer bookings for 2011 (approx. 95% occupancy) were Food & Wine and
4th of July Weekends, approximately 5% higher than 2010 bookings.
o Off-season actual occupancy in October and early November 2010 was lowest at
approximately 8% and highest at about 48%.
o As of August 31, 2011, future Winter bookings are generally tracking higher than 2010
future Winter bookings. In other words, more lodging reservations have been made
already for the 2011-2012 ski season as compared with future bookings at that point in
time for the 2010-2011 ski season.
To summarize, 83% of all Aspen lodging is considered "traditional" lodging, while 13% is considered
fractional timeshare lodging. MTRIP occupancy reports represent traditional lodging only.
Approximately 4.5 to 5% of lodging tax is generated by fractional timeshare l odging as compared with
95% of lodging tax generation by traditional lodging. Fractional timeshare lodging produces other taxes,
such as RETT and some portion of sales tax that is not reflected in this study. On average, it appears that
fractional timeshare properties perform slightly higher than traditional lodging in terms of occupancy.
How do these compare with fractionals in similar resorts?
It does not appear that any other western ski resort communities collect data on timeshare use. Other
than the timeshare study being conducted by Whistler, there does not appear to be any comparable
resort timeshare use information available to compare with the limited occupancy information on
Aspen's fractional timeshare properties. Notwithstanding the lack of information, resort planning
departments have reported perceptions that fractional timeshare units have been both a boon and a
detriment to their communities.
For instance, Mammoth Lakes indicated that the Westin property completed in 2007 has substa ntially
increased their Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). This may be because the majority of the community's
existing bed base is composed of 1970s and 80s stock of condominiums and the Westin is perceived as a
newer, up-graded property with more desirable as accommodations. Jackson, WY reports their
perception that occupancy is substantially lower than traditional lodging, and that they contribute less
liveliness to the street (less lights on). To be clear, Jackson's regulations do not require a manned front
desk or retail space as is required by both Aspen's and Vail's regulations. Further, Jackson is in the
process of updating their community plan and a balanced approach to lodging (both traditional and
fractional timeshare) is being discussed. They also report that apparently fewer bankers are now lending
on fractional timeshare projects than was the case in the early 2000s.
The consensus from these conversations and e-mail correspondence was that fractional timeshares do
contribute to a higher year round occupancy, though none of those cities/towns have done any data
collection verifying this perception.
2. Are fractionals operating as lodges?
P75
VII.a
8
The fractional timeshare properties do operate as lodges and do rent to the general public through a
variety of distribution channels, one of which is SAS. According to Bill Tomcich, all four timeshare
projects approved under the revised Timeshare Ordinance (The Residences at Little Nell, The St. Regis
Residence Club, The Innsbruck Inn, and The Dancing Bear Lodge) along with the Hyatt Grand Aspen
currently are registered with Stay Aspen Snowmass (SAS) central reservation service. The Ritz Carlton is
not, and clearly operates as a private Residence Club with no known public booking opportunity.
Do fractionals rent to the public? How easy/hard is it to get a room if you are not an owner?
The author was able to book larger units (2 to 3 bedroom units as opposed to a lodge room) by internet
in all but two properties.
To further quantify the ease with which a non-owner can "rent" a unit/room, the author walked into
four different fractional timeshare properties looking to book a three-bedroom unit for a "girls
weekend" in late October. One property was closed until November, but could be booked for a future
date on-line. One property allowed the author to book a room as a "walk up" customer. The other two
required that another property manager needed to be consulted about renting a unit on a short term
basis, though one of those could be booked directly on-line.
In summary, the author can confirm that all of the fractional timeshare properties operate like
traditional lodges by allowing the general public to either walk up and book a unit or to book a unit
through the internet or by phone.
Why do they rent to the public? Does it make business sense?
According to Chuck Frias, it does make business sense for owners to allow their unused weeks to be
used by a short-term renter. Owners rarely use all of the time they are allocated and have found that it
makes economic sense for them to make money off of the unused portion of their timeshare. Further,
Mr. Frias elaborated that over the last 30 years he has seen a trend that when economic times are
challenging, more rental units become available. It may be that owners have less time to vacation as
they are working harder during these periods, that they are trying to subsidize their incomes, or that
they cannot afford to take a vacation.
He further explained that fractional owners' rental inventory is accepted by management companies for
periods that they (management) believe they can rent. They turn down inventory during periods when
there is an oversupply, like January or early December. Fractional owners tend to want to use their
space the same periods as everyone else and the shoulder periods of the season are typically in less
demand. He noted that the City lost significant condominium rental inventory over the years as real
estate prices increased, and these residential properties went off-line with new owners purchasing and
remodeling their units. Today, condo owners want the flexibility of using their property last minute,
and they do not like the wear and tear and the incremental revenue generated by renting out their
property--they may not think it is worth the wear and tear or lack of flexibility to keep it in a rental
program. Condo owners also have more of a personal attachment to their property than fractional
owners have to their units.
P76
VII.a
9
Further, the GMs report that some owners purchased their interest with the intent of always renting it,
while others opt to rent out only when they cannot use it. It was also reported that one week of rental
can pay for an entire annual assessment(homeowner's dues). According to one GM, the rental market is
an important part of their business model (they can collect up to 40% of the rental revenue), but owners
have the option to rent their units on their own.
What is the public occupancy portion of their business?
The "public" occupancy portion of the fractional business is impossible to determine since fractional
properties don't distinguish occupancy by "owners" vs. "renters", they simply report "occupancy". This
was confirmed by Mr. Frias, who confirmed that the Ritz Carlton only tracks that a unit is occupied, and
does not distinguish whether it is occupied by an owner or a renter. By contrast, MTRIP reports the
aggregate occupancy information reported by the member lodging establishments for paid occupancy
only. E-mail correspondence from MTRIP indicates that reports reflect "Units available for paid
occupancy only, and does not include units that are exclusively for owners / guest of owners / comp
stays, closed for >30 days, etc. The number is dynamic and changes month to month".
Fractional timeshare occupancy is considered proprietary information and is not directly available, even
through a third party reporting source such as MTRIP. SAS does not have access to any occupancy data
either, other than aggregated occupancy of reporting properties (traditional lodges) through MTRIP.
Therefore, it is not possible to report on the "public" occupancy portion of the fractional business.
3. How many unsold timeshare units are there now? Is this a glut?
A better question to ask is how many fractional timeshare units have been sold or re-sold. This
information is available through public records in the Clerk and Recorder's office, but would require a
substantial amount of further research to determine original sales from re-sales because a key piece of
information (unit number and/or fractional weeks) is often missing from the tables. Further, some of
the tables indicate that no "consideration" was paid or that no "sold to" information was provided,
making the "sales" difficult to quantify. This research was not completed due to the limited amount of
time allocated to this study. However, the table below does provide general information on total sales
and re-sales since the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, but should not be used as an indication of
how often a property is resold without more research being concluded.
PROPERTY TOTAL SALES/RE-SALES FRACTIONAL UNITS C of O ISSUANCE
Dancing Bear Lodge 40 9 2009
Grand Aspen Hyatt 173 51 2007
Innsbruck Inn 82 17 2008
Residences at Little Nell 174 24 2009
St. Regis Residence Club 385 24 2005
Ritz Carlton Club 1,008 73 2001
Total 1,573 198
P77
VII.a
10
One conclusion that can be derived from this information is that, generally, the longer the property has
been on the market, the more sales/re-sales have been made. Sales were approximated by some
reporting GMs to be between 42%-73%, with re-sales being less than 10%.
4. Is there a recommended process or system for routine measuring of timeshare utilization?
This is perhaps the easiest question to answer. Discussions with Bill Tomcich and Tom Foley indicate
that MTRIP would be the most logical third party agency to be able to collect and report the aggregate
occupancy of fractional timeshare units in Aspen. Currently, three entities (Little Nell, St. Regis, and
Frias Properties) already report their occupancy of hotel rooms to MTRIP. If these and the remaining
fractional properties are willing to confidentially report their occupancies, then with some limited
programming changes, MTRIP could likely provide timeshare utilization information. If this reporting
structure were created, it should collect data on both "owner" and "public" occupancy.
The issues with putting this fractional timeshare reporting system into place would include who would
pay for the additional set-up of the program and getting the fractional projects to agree to participate in
the subscription service. Bill Tomcich recommends that the City arrange a meeting with all of the
fractional properties' representatives to determine if they are willing to participate in such a reporting
system. He further suggests that Tom Foley be available by phone to answer any questions (particularly
on confidentiality) that may be raised.
Summary/Conclusions
To summarize, the author has been able to determine that, generally, the fractional timeshare product
has performed and operated as was expected when the projects were originally approved. Further, the
author can verify that all of the fractional timeshare properties are available to rent to the general
public, thus closely functioning like traditional lodges. Interestingly, it appears that fractional projects
have a slightly higher occupancy than traditional lodging, but because owners tend to occupy their units,
less lodging tax is generated by the fractional properties, though other taxes (e.g. RETT) are collected.
As compared with other resort communities' fractional projects, it is unclear how they perform in terms
of occupancy, though Whistler is undergoing a study to help determine the effectiveness of their
timeshare products. What is understood from MTRIP data is that Aspen's traditional lodging properties
clearly indicate high occupancy and high average daily rates as compared with other resorts, though
Aspen is not always the highest. What this tells us is that Aspen's lodging accommodations tend toward
upper-end lodging establishments.
Recommendations
The author believes that tracking fractional timeshare occupancy in Aspen would provide the clearest
perspective on the effectiveness of the fractional timeshare product. It would appear that the MTRIP
reporting service may be the most efficient and effective way to collect this information by the third
party agency. That being said, the author agrees with Bill Tomcich and recommends that the City
P78
VII.a
11
arrange a meeting with the fractional timeshare properties to gauge their interest in participating in
such a data collection method.
Further, the author believes that lodging tax collection is not an accurate depiction of how effective the
fractional timeshare product is within the community. For instance, lodging tax paid by property
management companies is usually aggregated and not reported by specific properties. Further, lodging
tax collections only reflect those that report their "sales", and it logical to presume that some rentals are
not reported to the City.
Finally, the author believes that additional research, such as the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
collected on sales/re-sales of the fractional timeshare products, could provide some insight as to the
financial benefit these properties bring to the City. This information should be collected as part of a
broader study that would evaluate all the pros and cons of this type of product. But before taking this
on, the City should begin with facilitating the collection of occupancy data (including who is occupying
the unit).
Attachments:
Exhibit A Inventory of Fractional Lodging Products
Exhibit B Resort Community Responses
Exhibit C Questions asked of the Fractional Timeshare General Managers
_________________________________
About the Author: Julie Ann Woods, President of the Elk Mountains Planning Group authored this study
in September/October 2011. She is the former Community Development Director for the City of Aspen
(1998-2004) and was directly involved in the drafting of the revised Timeshare Ordinance and served as
case manager on several fractional timeshare projects in Aspen in the early 2000s.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this study is primarily from second and third party sources and
provides non-conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of the fractional timeshare product. However,
any errors or inconsistencies with the information presented here should be directed to the author at
elkmtnplan@aol.com or by calling 970-948-0802.
P79
VII.a
EXHIBIT A INVENTORY OF FRACTIONAL UNITS IN ASPEN‐‐DRAFT ONLY‐‐NOT FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION
10/19/2011
PROJECT FRACTIONAL UNITS ORDINANCE/DATE CO DATE
Dancing Bear Lodge 9 29‐2003; 8/11/2003 7/16/2009
Grand Aspen Hyatt 51 52‐2001; 12/17/2001 1/9/2007
Innsbruck Inn 17 32‐2004; 9/27/2004 5/2/2008
Residences at Little Nell 24 30‐2004; 10/12/2004 11/19/2009
St. Regis Residence Club‐‐Bldg. A/B 24 25‐2003; 5/12/2003 5/12/2005
St. Regis Residence Club‐‐Bldg. C025‐2003; 5/12/2003 5/12/2005
Ritz Carlton Club 73 NA NA
Totals 198
St. Regis received approval to convert 98 of 257 existing hotel rooms into 24 timeshare units and one residential unit
and to modify 22 approved but unbuilt hotel rooms into 20 hotel rooms (Building C)
Residences at Little Nell PUD indicates 24 timeshare units, 8 hotel rooms, 2 condo units and 8 AH,
but CO indicates 26 residential units and 8 lodge rooms; presume 2 units are condos
Innsbruck had CO issued for 8 one‐bedroom units; ten two‐bedroom units; probably includes manager's unit
**Information from Building Dept. Certificates of Occupancy (CO)
P80
VII.a
EXHIBIT B
E‐MAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM OTHER RESORT COMMUNITIES
Below is the e‐mail sent by the author to the list of Community Development/Planning Directors in
other resort communities, followed by responses:
Hello Resort Planners!
WOW! It's been a long time since I last updated this list (2008?!!), so I'm going to take a chance and hope that
some of you are still with your respective towns. I've eliminated the names of folks that I know are no longer
where they were, and added a few new ones I'm aware of.
At any rate, I am writing for two reasons. First, I think it is time to update our contact list (see attached). I will
depend on all of you to make corrections to your info as well as pass along the names of new directors/planners
who have replaced ones on the list‐‐please just forward directly to me and I will update the master list and re‐send
it out when updates are complete. Remember, this list is intended to be used judiciously by us collectively, and
should not be openly shared except as appropriate. Please get me changes to the list‐‐just make the changes on
the attached word document and forward to me‐‐by next Friday, Sept 23rd.
Second, (and this is the real reason I am writing you) I am working with the City of Aspen to complete a quick
investigation into fractional unit use in Aspen and comparable resort communities.
We are trying to figure out occupancy trends of fractional units as opposed to standard lodging units. It has been
about 6 years since Aspen approved a number of fractional units, and to date, Aspen has not been able to garner
this "proprietary" information (occupancy) from the fractional projects. Are any of your communities able to track
occupancy in fractional units? If so, how do you do it?
Can any of you provide me with any information you may have regarding occupancy of fractional units in your
communities? We had been told that if owners of fractional units decline to use their units during scheduled times
that the units would be placed in a "pool" for use by the general public. We have some units that do that, but
others that have not. We had been told that such projects contribute "hot beds" to the community, but we
haven't been able to "prove" this assertion. What has been your experience?
In the very least, could you please share your thoughts as to whether you view the fractional units as "short‐term
lodging" that contributes to your community's bed base? If not, why not?
I'd like to incorporate your responses into my report, and will provide you with a copy of the final findings after
City Council reviews it.
Thanks in advance for any information you can share.
Julie Ann Woods, AICP/ASLA
Elk Mountains Planning Group, Inc.
____________________________________________
Mail: Location:
PO Box 5318 4000 Brush Creek Rd #4
Snowmass Village, CO 81615‐5318 Snowmass Village, CO 81615
970‐948‐0802 www.elkmountainsplanning.com
elkmtnplan@aol.com julie@elkmountainsplanning.com
P81
VII.a
_____________________
Julie Anne,
John Hess passed the second half of your question to me. The Town of Crested Butte has no fractional
units currently approved within the Town so we have no track record. However, when a project was
proposed several years ago we drafted an ordinance to address submittals and approvals and tried to
anticipate all the issues with fractional that were out there at the time. One of the things we are
requiring is a yearly report that details monthly occupancy rates that delineate who is using the units. If
you want to look at our ordinance it is on‐line. Section 16‐7‐160 is the most pertinent to the question.
Hope this helps.
Bob Gillie
_____________________
Hi -
First, only one name correction: Mark Wardlaw (not Mike).
Second, we do not yet track occupancy or frequency of rental. We are ramping up or TOT enforcement
program and intend to develop tracking and reporting tools through the effort.
Mark Wardlaw
Director
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 1609
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Phone: (760) 934-8989 ext. 238
FAX: (760) 934-8608
Email: mwardlaw@ci.mammoth-lakes.ca.us
_____________________
Good Afternoon Julie‐
Good to hear from you as well.
You pose some really great questions in your email. Questions that I do not have answers to off the top
of my head. We too were sold one thing but ‘m not certain we really got back what we were sold. Let
me dig around a bit and see if I can pull up some factual information for you. I have my opinions and
suspicions but nothing concrete. Can we talk next Thursday or is that too late? Let me know.
Thanks,
George Ruther, AICP
Director
Community Development
P82
VII.a
970.479.2145
970.376.2675
vailgov.com
twitter.com/vailgov
_____________________
Hi Julie Ann. I am still at Whistler. Phone numbers and email are accurate. My title is General Manager
of Policy and Program Development. I’ll get back to you on the fractional enquiry, as we have
commissioned some work on how different ownership models behave.
Mike Vance [mvance@whistler.ca]
_____________________
. . .With respect to you fractional share question, the City of Durango contemplated adopting some
fractional share ownership regs, but the bottom fell out of the market before we began serious
consideration of them, and there has been absolutely zero interest in them since, so we have nothing to
help you out with.
All the best to you,
Hoch, Greg [HochGS@ci.durango.co.us]
_____________________
P83
VII.a
Exhibit C
Survey of Fractional Timeshare Properties' General Managers
Timeshare Project Name: ____________________________________
We don't need specific figures. We are just trying to gauge your observations.
1. What are the year‐round Occupancy Trends for the fractional units at your property? Please
provide a ball park % of occupancy of units during high season and off‐season.
2. How do you think the occupancy of these units compare with traditional hotels/lodges? Do you
think the occupancy is higher, lower or about the same?
3. Approximately what percentage of units/fractions have sold since the property came on‐line?
4. Approximately what percentage of units/fractions have been re‐sold since the first round of sales
occurred?
5. Does your establishment allow the fractional timeshare units to be available for short‐term lodging
by the general public? If so, how is this done? Central Reservations Service? Walk‐up? Phone
reservations only?
6. Why do you think owners may want to allow short‐term rental of their units to the public? Does it
make business sense? Or is it done just to comply with city regulations?
7. Other comments /observations about fractional units?
Thanks for your feedback. All information will be held strictly confidential.
P84
VII.a
Code Amendment – Elevator and Emergency Access
Policy Resolution – 9/15/2015
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Policy Resolution: Elevator and Trash/Delivery Access Code Amendments
Resolution 94, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: September 15, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for amendments to the land use code to
update requirements for building access. The proposed code amendment addresses internal building
access in elevators, as well as external access to delivery areas, and trash/recycling areas.
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends
the regulations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the land use code related to building access.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
The land use code addresses building access requirements, as well as requirements related to
trash and delivery areas. Over the past few years, projects or remodels have been proposed that
do not provide clear access to alley facing trash and delivery areas. Other projects have
proposed elevators that do not access all levels, requiring retrofits just a few years after the
building was constructed. Staff is proposing a number of changes to address these issues
1. Elevator Access. Currently there are no requirements related to elevator access in
commercial buildings. If an owner wished to put an elevator in to access an upper floor
commercial space they are not required to include access to any other commercial level.
This creates a problem when a basement commercial space receives inventory or needs to
P85
VIII.a
Code Amendment – Elevator and Emergency Access
Policy Resolution – 9/15/2015
Page 2 of 3
take out trash/recycling. If they do not have an elevator they are forced to use the stairs.
Staff proposes a code amendment that any commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building that
includes an elevator provide access to all building levels and all commercial tenants of
the space. This ensures elevator ADA access to all spaces (as opposed to a chair attached
to stairs), and provides more usable commercial spaces. The code amendment would
continue to allow separate elevators for exclusive use of a specific building unit or use.
2. Delivery Areas. Staff proposes clarifying that a delivery area is required for all
commercial, mixed-use, and lodge buildings. While delivery areas are integral to long-
term business and building functionality, this requirement is not explicitly included in the
code today. The amendment would require truck loading to be integrated into the
building and would encourage shared facilities. It would prohibit alleyways from being
used as the building code required pedestrian pathway to the delivery area.
3. Trash and Recycling Areas. Staff proposes clarifying that all building levels and units
in a commercial, mixed-use, or lodge building have access to the trash and recycling area.
It would prohibit alleyways from being used as the building code required pedestrian
pathway to the trash/recycling area. All other trash requirements (size, location, etc)
would continue to be governed by the Environmental Health Department.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19, 2015, and the Commission
supported the direction of the proposed amendment. A copy of their minutes is attached as
Exhibit B. Staff has also coordinated this amendment with the Building and Environmental
Health Departments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. 94, Series of 2015, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
Elevator and Trash/Delivery Access.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 19, 2015
P86
VIII.a
Code Amendment – Elevator and Emergency Access
Policy Resolution – 9/15/2015
Page 3 of 3
P87
VIII.a
Elevator and Trash/Delivery Access Policy Resolution
Resolution No. 94, Series 2015
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE RELATED TO ELEVATOR,
TRASH, AND DELIVERY ACCESS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the land use code to ensure
access to building elevators and to trash/recycling and delivery areas; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to subscribers of the community development
department newsletter, and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Miscellaneous Regulations Chapter 26.575 of 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 September 15, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 94, Series of
2015, by a __-__ vote, requesting code amendments to 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
Council hereby provides direction to the Community Development Director to amend
Chapter 26.575, Miscellaneous Regulations, of the Land Use Code. The objective of the
proposed Land Use code amendment is to ensure access to elevators, trash/recycling areas,
and delivery areas in commercial, lodge, and mixed-use buildings.
Section 2:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
P88
VIII.a
Elevator and Trash/Delivery Access Policy Resolution
Resolution No. 94, Series 2015
Page 2 of 2
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this ___ day of __________, 2015.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P89
VIII.a
Code Amendment – Elevator and Emergency Access
Policy Resolution – 9/15/2015
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Over the past few years, staff has seen new buildings constructed that lack equal access to all
levels of the building. For instance, buildings have been constructed with an elevator that does
not access the basement. This means the building has to be retrofitted to allow access to the
basement storage areas. In addition, developers have attempted to limit access to trash and
recycling areas by not providing an ADA compliant access path other than the alley, where there
will inevitably be pedestrian/car conflicts. Staff proposes the amendments to ensure that all
users of a building are provided equal access to levels and required areas (such as recycling and
trash areas). Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan calls for ensuring clarity in the land use process
(Managing Growth Policy VIII.2). This code amendment clarifies the rules related to access
within buildings, and ensures that all tenants, residents, and customers have quality access to the
building. 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 objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to ensure equal access to all portions of
a building. This is in harmony with Title 26 and the building code. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
P90
VIII.a
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Other Business – Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight’s meeting.
Elevators in Commercial / Mixed-Use Buildings
Ms. Garrow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add a requirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or mixed-use
building. Currently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a requirement for separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap building as an example of item a). The elevator does not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commented the elevator in the Gap building does reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space which eliminated access to the elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement for storage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access provided to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to avoid situations requiring retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for a building.
Ms. Tygre noted there are existing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode feels requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The commission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questioned
the requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council’s previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non-profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
P91
VIII.a
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
September 8, 2015
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Second Reading of Ordinance #28, Series 2015
MEETING DATE: September 15, 2015
APPLICANT:
City of Aspen, Capital Asset Department
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning
Services, INC.
LOCATION & PARCEL ID::
540 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611.
2737-073-24-003. The lot is a parcel of land
within the East Aspen Townsite Addition.
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
The zoning for this property is
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI),
Commercial (C-1) and Commercial Core
(CC). The City of Aspen Parking
Department operates on the lot.
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
The Applicant proposes to rezone the
property to Public (PUB) Zone District.
There is no proposed use change.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests to rezone the property
to the Public (PUB) Zone District.
Redevelopment is not being considered in the
Application; however, as a City asset, the
PUB Zone District is an appropriate one and
clears up the mix of zone districts. The
property is designated historic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to
rezone the subject property to the Public
(PUB) Zone District.
Figure A. 540 E. Main St./City Parking Dept.
Figure B. 540 E. Main St./City Parking Dept.
facing south towards Aspen Mountain
P92
VIII.b
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
September 8, 2015
Page 2 of 7
CHANGES SINCE FIRST READING:
The First Reading of Ordinance No. 28, Series 2015 was on August 10, 2015. Council raised
concerns regarding the following issues: loss of SCI Zone District area, current Zone District
compatibility with future development, and dimensional requirements. The minutes from this
meeting can be found in Exhibit F.
Loss of SCI Zone District Area
Council expressed concern regarding the loss of the SCI Zone District Area at First Reading. The
subject property is owned by the City of Aspen. Currently the property has housed the City
Parking Department. Rezoning the property from SCI to PUB does not displace existing business
space. Opportunities for suitable uses within SCI are not reduced because the City intends on
utilizing the parcel for municipal facilities. Staff has calculated the current area of the SCI Zone
District and compared those figures to the area of the SCI portion of the subject property. The
figures provided in Table 1 are not indicative of the total developable area within the SCI Zone
District nor the existing floor area of the structures within the SCI Zone District.
Table 1. SCI Zone District Area
Current Area 12.3 acres 536,048 sf
Area within Subject Property 0.3 acres 16,523 sf
Reduction of SCI Area -3% change
The current area, calculated in GIS, is 12.3 acres/536,048 sf. The subject property represents 0.3
acres/16,523 sf. This represents a 3% decrease of area in the SCI Zone District, a small
percentage of the available land within SCI.
Current Zone District Compatibility
The purpose of the Public zone district is “to provide for the development of governmental,
quasi-governmental and nonprofit facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other nonprofit
purposes. Permitted uses in the Public zone district include essential governmental and public
utility uses, facilities, services and buildings.
The intent of the SCI Zone district is to preserve and enhance locale serving primarily non retail
small business areas while preserving light industrial and service uses. Permitted uses in the SCI
Zone District, while various, do not include either office, governmental or public use.
The purpose of the Commercial Core Zone District is to allow for the use of land for retail,
service commercial, recreation and institutional uses to enhance the business and service
character in the historic central business core of the City. While Commercial Core allows for
office, these uses are only permitted on the second floor unless those uses are set back 40’ from
the street. While this promotes vitality of the core, this creates an unworkable solution for a
government facility, of which a large component may be office use. The Commercial Zone
District is to provide for mixed–use buildings including commercial uses with opportunities for a
residential affordable housing component. The Commercial Zone districts permit office use on
all floor without restriction. Both Commercial and Commercial Core allow for arts, cultural and
civic uses on all but the third floor, which is restricted to lodging. Due to the use restrictions by
floor, the Commercial and Commercial Core zone districts would preclude many of the
P93
VIII.b
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
September 8, 2015
Page 3 of 7
governmental uses essential to serving City functions as outlined in the Dimensional
Requirements section below
Dimensional Requirements
The dimensional requirements of the Pubic Zone District are determined through Planned
Development Review. This is to allow for the flexibility to provide for adequate facilities for
government offices. There are several areas throughout the City currently zoned Public. While
not intended to be a comprehensive list, the uses of the current City-owned properties in the
Public Zone District outlined below are various and as such, the dimensional requirements of
each vary greatly.
Marolt Ranch Employee Housing
Aspen Golf Course
The Thrift Shop
Mountain Rescue
Holden Marolt Barn
Water Treatment Plant
Rubey Park Transit Facility
Aspen Ice Garden
Rio Grande
City Hall
Water Place
Yellow Brick School
Aspen Airport Business Center
The Planned Development review is an exhaustive process to vet the project to ensure it meets
the intent of adopted regulatory plans, desirable development patterns, preservation of natural
and cultural features, efficient use of land, public and government facilities, safe and convenient
transportation. The review also ensures the incorporation of public input in the planning process
to ensure sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood, community goals and objectives. The
planned development must consider several review criteria, including but not limited to site
planning and dimensions. Through the planning process, with the input of the public, a suitable
development solution with appropriate dimensional tolerances and site planning, meeting both
the needs of the Police Department and the community, shall be met.
Alignment with the Goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan
Implementation Steps of the AACP provides guidance on goals to carry out the AACP. One of
the steps to preserve and enhance our non-profit and quasi-public facilities and spaces (VI.3.a,
Appendix – 10) states “Address the potential future loss of civic buildings and spaces through a
variety of methods, including public-private partnerships”. Rezoning the property to Public
would allow for preservation of civic space by allowing the entirety of the parcel to be
redeveloped for government use. While a development is not being considered at this time, the
City is pursuing redeveloping the Subject Property as a future home for the Police Department.
It is not Staff’s intent to analyze the need for this space nor the suitably of the site for the
potential programming, rather it is to address the imminent need for civic space locations to
provide offices for adequate municipal function.
The City Police Department was located at the County owned Courthouse and has since been
temporarily relocated to Obermeyer Plaza. The need for replacement of the lost civic space is a
direct result of lost lease space. Capital Asset addressed the requirements of the Police
Department relocation, in addition to other civic space needs, in a July 29th 2015 memo to
Council (Exhibit G). In this memo, Capital Asset noted that finding a solution to the loss of
P94
VIII.b
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
September 8, 2015
Page 4 of 7
downtown leases held by the City is a top priority of City Council. Additionally, addressing the
civic space relocation addresses Goal 8 of the Department to “achieve direction from City
Council on a solution for the loss of downtown police and municipal office spaces”. Capital
Asset has estimated that the new Police Department will require approximately 14,900 sf of floor
area to address current and longer term needs. Capital Asset is also considering employee
housing at the subject property. Neither the number of units nor the floor area is known at this
time. Rezoning the subject property is a mechanism that both addresses the goals of the AACP
and the one of Council’s top ten goals.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval:
• Rezoning – pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.060, Rezoning – Procedure for
Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with determining if the
application meets the standards for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and
to provide a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
540 E. Main St. is located just north of the Commercial Core between Main St. and Rio Grande
Pl. The parcel measures approximately 27,000 square feet/0.6 acres in size and the City Parking
Department is located on the property.
Figure C. Project Location & Vicinity. Subject property is indicated by a white boarder and star.
P95
VIII.b
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
September 8, 2015
Page 5 of 7
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within
the Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District, while the Commercial Core (CC) and
Commercial (C-1) Zone Districts do allow for Public use on the ground floor. The City Parking
Department office is located on the front portion of the property in the former residence within
the CC Zone District.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022.A, Zoning of Lands Containing More Than One Zone
District; when a proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed
on land in which it is a permitted use. As shown in Figure D, the Parking Department office
building falls within the CC Zone District. The accessory building to the rear, which is located in
the SCI Zone District, is used by the Parking Department for storage of department cars and
appurtenances. The accessory building is considered an accessory use to the Parking Department
office and is permitted as a use in the SCI Zone District. To bring the entire lot into conformance
and to allow for the future expansion of City facilities, the Applicant is initiating an amendment
to zone districts of the subject property from CC, C-1, and SCI to Public (PUB).
Figure D. Subject Property Site Programming
At this time, no development is proposed on the subject property; however, the parcel is being
considered for expansion of future City facilities. The PUB Zone District requires a Planned
Development when development occurs on the property. The dimensional characteristics of the
parcel will be determined through the Planned Development Review process. At this time, the
Applicant does not wish to pursue a Planned Development designation on the Official Zone
District Map. Should the property be redeveloped with new City facilities; the Official Zone
P96
VIII.b
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
September 8, 2015
Page 6 of 7
District Map shall be amended to reflect a Planned Development designation upon approval of
an Ordinance approving the Planned Development review.
The subject property received historic designation in Ordinance 34, Series of 1992. At that time the
property was addressed as 600 E. Bleeker St. The property received the designation because of three
19th century cabins, known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins, located on the southern portion of
the property; shown in Figure E and Figure F. Should a Planned Development review be pursued
by the Applicant, the Historic Preservation review process may be combined with the review.
Figure E. Historic photo of the site, date unknown Figure F. One of the historic outbuildings today
STAFF COMMENTS:
The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department and provides some parking
for the City Police Department. As shown on Figure C, the adjacent County property to the west
of the subject property is zoned PUB. The surrounding uses to the west of the property include
the Concept 600 Building, zoned C-1 and Obermeyer Place, Zoned SCI/Planned Development
(PD). Both Concept 600 and Obermeyer Place are mixed use buildings housing a variety of uses
and providing various services. Public zoning of the subject property will allow necessary civic
functions in a central location near other government facilities and is consistent with the current
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
The site is being considered for future expansion of City facilities; however, no development is
proposed as part of this Application. Impacts created by new development to public facilities
such as transportation, utilities and the natural environment shall be evaluated in the Planned
Development application process.
A memo was provided to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on June 10th, 2015 to
inform them of the Application and to solicit comments. This memo can be found in Exhibit A.
The Application received a positive endorsement from HPC. A small amount of public comment
was received and comments generally regarded concern for how the property may be developed.
Public comments may be found in Exhibit B.
P97
VIII.b
540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Staff Memo
September 8, 2015
Page 7 of 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds the application to be consistent with the applicable review
standards as found in the City Land Use Code and in Exhibit C. Staff is recommending approval
of this request.
PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION:
A public hearing was held during a special meeting on June 30, 2015. The Planning and Zoning
Commission expressed some concern regarding the future development of the property. No
public comment was received during the hearing. The minutes from the hearing can be found in
Exhibit D. Resolution No. 12, Series 2015 providing a recommendation that City Council
approve the rezoning was approved with a six to zero (6-0) vote and is included as Exhibit E.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move the adoption of Ordinance 28, Series of 2015.”
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – HPC Memo
EXHIBIT B – Public Comment
EXHIBIT C – Review Criteria
EXHIBIT D – P&Z June 30, 2015 Meeting Minutes
EXHIBIT E – P&Z Resolution No. 12, Series 2015
EXHIBIT F – First Reading Meeting Minutes (August 10, 2015)
EXHIBIT G – Capital Asset Memo to Council (meeting date August 3, 2015)
EXHIBIT H – Second Reading Public Notice Materials
EXHIBIT I – Survey
EXHIBIT J – Application
P98
VIII.b
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 28
(SERIES OF 2015)
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
REZONING OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 540 E. MAIN ST.,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-24-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The
City of Aspen Capital Asset Department (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman, requesting
the City Council approve a Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street, legally described in Exhibit A of
this Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the property at 540 E. Main. Street is currently zoned Service Commercial
Industrial (SCI), Commercial Core (CC), and Commercial (C-1); and,
WHEREAS, the property located at 540 E Main Street is listed on the Aspen Inventory
of Historic Landmarks and Structures; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310.060 of the Land Use Code, Rezoning shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the Application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
zoning proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation for the Community Development Director, the
applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed
public hearing.; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 30th, 2015, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 12, Series 2015, by a six to zero (6-0) vote,
recommending the Aspen City Council approve Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the rezoning application under
the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public
comment at a duly noticed public hearing on September 14, 2015; and,
P99
VIII.b
Page 2 of 2
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Rezoning
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves the Rezoning of 540 E. Main Street to Public (PUB).
Section2: Placement on Official Zone District Map
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Community Development Director shall place the amendment on the City’s Official Zone
District Map.
Section 3: 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
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:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 15th day of September, 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.
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.
P100
VIII.b
Page 3 of 2
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 10th of August, 2015.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 15th day of September.
Attest:
_________________________ ____________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Exhibit A – Legal Description
P101
VIII.b
Ordinance No. 28, Series 2015
Exhibit A
540 E. Main St. Legal Description
Page 4 of 2
PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 108453, DITCH BOOK
2A AT PAGE 252 OF THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, BEING A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY
MAYOR'S DEED RECORDED AS RECEPTION NO. 109112 DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
FOR EAST MAIN STREET BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 20 EAST
ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 383 AND
PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 442; THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 97.60 FEET
ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR EAST MAIN STREET TO A
POINT WHICH BEARS S75°09'11E A DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE; THENCE N 14°50'49" E A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET ALONG A LINE
7.5 FEET EAST AND PARALLEL TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, TO
THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE;
THENCE N 75°09'11" W A DISTANCE OF 7.5 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE; THENCE N14°50'57”E A DISTANCE OF 20.39 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 19, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE;
THENCE N 75°09'11" A DISTANCE OF W 10.10 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 9 TO AN ANGLE POINT OF LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY
CENTER SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 93, PAGE 57; THENCE
N14°50'49"E A DISTANCE OF 188.06 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT 1, FIRST AMENDED PITKIN COUNTY SUBDIVISION TO AN ANGLE POINT IN
SAID LOT 1, ALSO BEING AN ANGLE POINT IN THE BOUNDARY OF
OBERMEYER PLACE CONDOMINIUMS AS SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 80, PAGE 57;
THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES S
57°25'00" E A DISTANCE OF 24.94 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID
OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY; THENCE S 19°49'00” E A DISTANCE
OF 138.72 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS
BOUNDARY; THENCE S 04°08'00” W A DISTANCE OF 67.55 FEET TO AN ANGLE
POINT IN SAID OBERMEYER CONDOMINIUMS BOUNDARY, ALSO BEING THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 20, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL
TOWNSITE, ALSO BEING THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF SAID CONCEPT 600
CONDOMINIUMS ; THENCE S 14°50'49" W A DISTANCE OF 120.39 FEET ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID CONCEPT 600 CONDOMINIUMS TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.607 ACRES MORE OR LESS;
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 540 E. MAIN ST.
P102
VIII.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
THRU: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE OF MEMO: June 4, 2015
MEETING DATE: June 10, 2015
RE: 540 E. Main St. (A.K.A Zupancis) Rezoning
________________________
SUMMARY: 540 E. Main St., which is also known as the Zupancis Property, currently lies within
three zone districts, Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1) and Service/Commercial/Industrial
(SCI). Three 19th century cabins, known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins, are located on the
southern portion of the property. The property is designated historic. The City Parking Department,
a parking garage, and surface parking are located on the property. The property and existing
overlying zone districts are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Current Zupancis Zoning
P103
VIII.b
Page 2 of 2
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within
the Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District, while the Commercial Core (CC) and
Commercial (C-1) Zone Districts do allow for Public use on the ground floor.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022.A; which pertains to lands within more than one zone
district, where a proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed
on land in which it is a permitted use. The Parking Department falls within both the CC and SCI
Zone Districts; therefore, the existing use of the property as the City Parking Department is a
non-conformity.
To bring the existing use into conformance, the City of Aspen Capital Asset Department is
initiating an amendment to zone districts of the Zupancis property from CC, C-1, and SCI to
Public (PUB).
The subject parcel is approximately 27,000SF in size. At this time, no development is proposed
on the subject property; however, the parcel has been considered for future City facilities. The
Public Zone District requires a Planned Development; however, one is not proposed at this time.
The dimensional characteristics of the parcel will be determined through the Planned
Development Review process.
PROPOSAL: Alan Richman, of Alan Richman Planning Services LLC, and Charles Cunniffe
Architects, on behalf of the Applicant, the City of Aspen Capital Asset Department; have
submitted an application to rezone the subject property to the Public Zone District. This
application seeks to bring the existing use into compliance and allow for potential redevelopment
for City facilities.
SUMMARY: The intent of this Memo to the Historic Preservation Commission is to inform the
Commission of the Application to Rezone the Zupancis Property to the Public Zone District.
Additionally, Staff seeks to receive comment from the Commission regarding the proposal.
P104
VIII.b
Exhibit B Public Comment 540 E. Main St. Rezoning
Date Name Contact Comment Reply Follow-up
2015 June 16 Susan Welch na
Wanted to know what rezoning to PUB implies. Noted there is
lumber/wood being stored on the back of the property and had
concerns that there may be a fire hazard.
Explained that it cleans up the existing zoning City Parking Department.
Emailed Jeff Pendarvis (2015 June 17) regarding the wood.
Conducted a site vist on
2015 June 18). The wood
stored on the property are
boards from the historic
structure.
2015 June 16
Jerome
Simecek 924.6060
Manager of Obermeyer HOA inquiring about the land use
application Returned call and left message (2015 June 16, June 24)na
2015 June 24
Claire
Wilson 300.2040
concerned as to how the space will be redeveloped. She was also
was concerned that while she would receive a letter as part of the
public notice process, she may miss the correspondence as she
travels often.
Explained that the property is being considered for additional civic space
needs; however, the land use application does not contain any development
proposals. Asked Jeff Pendarvis, Jack Wheeler and Mitzi Rapkin if there are
there any websites/public outreach materials I may direct the public to.
Additionally, I asked if there were any email newsletters regarding the
project.
Forwarded the Civic
Space Relocation project
on the City website.
Currently there is not an
email newsletter but they
can develop one when as
the City is closer to
building the project. I
provided her with Jack
Wheeler's contact
information. Jack will
reach out to her
personally to set up a
meeting.
P
1
0
5
V
I
I
I
.
b
1
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to change the underlying zoning from Service
Commercial Industrial (SCI), Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) to Public (PUB).
As shown on Figure C in the Staff Memo, the adjacent County property to the west of the
subject property is zoned PUB. As part of a recent application submitted for the Pitkin
County Center property, the boundaries of the Public zone district were adjusted to coincide
with the parcel boundaries for the Courthouse and Jail properties. Zoning the subject
property PUB would be congruent with the zoning of the adjacent County property.
The surrounding uses to the west of the property include the Concept 600 Building, zoned C-1
and Obermeyer Place, Zoned SCI/Planned Development (PD). Both Concept 600 and
Obermeyer Place are mixed use buildings housing a variety of uses and providing various
services.
The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department and provides some
parking for the City Police Department. Both of these public uses are allowed uses in the PUB
zone district. Public zoning of this property will allow necessary civic functions in a central
location near other government facilities.
The rezoning of the subject property is consistent and compatible with surrounding zone
districts and uses. Staff finds this criterion met.
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities.
Rezoning the property to Public will allow for community-serving public use of this property.
No development is proposed as a part of this application. Expansion of the facilities may place
demands on some of the above-listed public facilities (such as transportation, water supply
and sewage disposal), such use will also provide an essential public service.
Development in the PUB Zone District requires a Planned Development (PD) review. A PD
Application will provide the opportunity to evaluate impacts and the ability to ensure
development impacts are appropriately mitigated by the Applicant. Staff finds this criterion
met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
P106
VIII.b
2
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse impacts to the natural
environment as a result of this proposal. The proposed zoning change would zone the
property with a more appropriate zone district for its use. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
Staff response: The rezoning of the parcel to the PUB Zone District would be consistent and
compatible with adjacent Civic uses. The rezoning to PUB would allow the parcel to continue
to serve the community and provide a future location for essential public facilities. The
proposed amendment is consistent with and compatible with the community character and in
harmony with the public interest and intent of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
P107
VIII.b
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members Jesse Morris, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, and Ryan
Walterscheid.
Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Hillary Seminick, Chris Bendon and Jessica
Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms. McNicholas asked if Council has made a decision regarding the SCI zoning for Obermeyer Place. Ms.
Phelan replied the first reading is scheduled in July.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES
Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for April 21st, seconded by Mr. Morris. All in favor, motion
passed.
The draft minutes for May 26th were discussed. A couple of corrections were requested by Ms.
McNicholas. Mr. Morris moved to approve the minutes pending the requested corrections and was
seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion passed.
Mr. Mesirow moved to approve the minutes for June 16th and seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor,
motion passed.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no conflicts expressed.
540 E Main St – Rezoning – Public Hearing
Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing and asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn
replied it appeared notice had been appropriately provided.
Ms. Seminick, Community Development Planner Technician, reviewed of the application. The City of
Aspen, Capital Asset Department is requesting to rezone the subject property. The property is currently
zoned Service Commercial Industrial (SCI), Commercial (C-1) and Commercial Core (CC) and they are
requesting it be zoned as Public (PUB). As a City asset, the Public zoned district is an appropriate one and
clears up the mix of zoned districts. The property is also designated as Historic due to three cabins
located on the northern portion of the property. The property is approximately 27,000 sf and the City
1
P108
VIII.b
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Parking Department is currently located on the property. There is no proposed change in use at this
time.
The City Parking Department is considered a public use and is not allowed in within the SCI zoned
district. The C-1 and CC allow for public use on the ground floor only. She displayed a map to show
where the property is located and the location of the current single story Parking Department structure
located on the CC zoned portion of the property. There is an accessory use building located on the SCI
portion of the property which are allowed within the SCI zoned district. She also pointed out the
location of the historic structures.
She added no development is being proposed at this time, but the parcel is being considered for the
future expansion of City facilities. Nothing has been approved at this time for any future development.
The PUB zoned district would require a Planned Development (PD) review when any development is
proposed for the property. With the PUB zoned district there are no dimensional requirements and
would be set in the PD review. Should a development be proposed in the future, a Historic Preservation
review would be combined with the PD review.
The PUB rezoning as would consistent with zoning of adjacent properties which provide public uses. To
the west is Pitkin County Courthouse, Plaza and Jail. Further west is the Pitkin County Library and to the
north is the Rio Grande Park.
Staff recommends P&Z provide a referral to City Council by adopting Resolution 12, series 2015 to
approve the request to rezone the subject property to the PUB zoned district.
She showed photos of the existing property including the existing structures.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Ms. Tygre wanted to know if the same result could be obtained by changing SCI to allow public use. Ms.
Seminick stated it wouldn’t address the issue with the property currently being in three different zoned
districts. To change the SCI zoned district would require a change to the code. Ms. Phelan stated the
project would also be subject to the dimensional requirements of the SCI zoned district. She added
when you have a property with multiple zoned districts, you must stick to the allowed uses on the
specifically defined areas.
Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Morris asked if had been proposed previously and why not. Ms. Phelan asked Mr.
Richman, representing the City, when the property was purchased by the City at which he answered in
2002. Mr. Richman added the property was previously a private property and zoned as such. He feels
this is a housekeeping issue in that the property has been owned by the City for 13 years and the
rezoning will allow for current and future public uses. He does not believe the City plans to sell the
property.
Ms. Tygre asked if zoned PUB, it would have no dimensional requirements. Ms. Phelan stated she was
correct and added and it would have to go through a PD review for any proposed development which
includes review criteria regarding mass, scale and context.
2
P109
VIII.b
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff to confirm the review process for a proposed development application.
Ms. Phelan stated it would be reviewed by HPC for mass, scale and historic resources and then to City
Council for review and ordinance approval and then back to HPC for the final skin approval.
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services Inc, represents the City of Aspen as the applicant.
With him was Jack Wheeler, City of Aspen Capital Asset Manager, and Scott Smith, the project architect.
Mr. Richman feels this is more of a housekeeping option. The property was purchased in 2002 to serve
as a public function and was considered for the new fire station. More recently it has been considered to
meet the long term office needs of the City or possibly a site for the Police Department. No uses are
being proposed at the meeting.
He added having a site trisected by three different zoning districts is a confusing situation. All the
current zoned districts are all high density and high intensity commercial zones which would anticipate a
big building. He does not feel this would be upzoning the property. Rezoning the property will ensure
the uses are conforming.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Ms. Tygre asked at what point in the planning process will the public have a chance to weigh in on the
uses they feel are appropriate for the property. Mr. Richman feels it will happen in two phases. One
being during the public discussions going on right now to identify uses in the building replacement
projects. The second phase will be during the project review phase to go over the use and mass.
Mr. Wheeler stated public outreach started a year ago including several open houses presenting
concepts to the public. The City has also reached out to stakeholders and neighbors and have received a
lot of feedback on what they think is appropriate for the site. They are currently going through a
rigorous process internally, with Council, the public and stakeholders. They plan to go to Council later in
July to discuss the conceptual designs. He added the City is going through the inventory of all City
properties and rezoning property over the next year where appropriate to eliminate zoning issues.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment at which there were none so he closed that portion of
the meeting.
Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commission members.
Ms. McNicholas feels it is an appropriate change to make and is in line with the uses of adjacent
properties to the west. Mr. Goode, Mr. Morris and Mr. Mesirow agreed.
Ms. Tygre stated on the surface it seems to be a reasonable request and it makes sense to have the
public adjacent to County Courthouse. She is concerned is what happens down the road. Although this is
a housekeeping measure, she feels we’ve been burned by housekeeping measures before because once
you allow step one to happen, then step two, which you didn’t anticipate, winds up being a 70,000 sf
building. She wants to make sure we are not going down that road especially since there has been a lot
of concern expressed by a lot of people including herself about the potential size of some the buildings
to be constructed for public use and what types of public use.
3
P110
VIII.b
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Mesirow agreed you could be setting the environment where that could be possible based on the
needs the City states it has for public uses. He feels a building for the expressed public uses will be built
somewhere and is this an appropriate location for a public entity. He feels the community will have an
opportunity to say what they do and do not want in regards to the building to be proposed.
Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 12, Series 2015 recommending the approval of the rezoning
for 540 E Main St. Ms. McNicholas seconded the motion.
Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call to vote: Ms. McNicholas, yes, Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes;
Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing.
Work Program Check-In – Other Business
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff for the work program check in with Mr. Bendon and Ms.
Garrow.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff wanted to touch base with P&Z on the department’s work program. They will
be meeting with Council in late July to update them on the items they were asked to pursue. They also
want to update Council on items that have come out of HPC, P&Z and things from the community plan
that should be added to the work program. The meeting will also allow Council to clarify what they want
Staff to work on. He said tonight is an opportunity for P&Z to ask questions on any of the items
identified in the agenda packet.
Mr. Morris asked in regards to transportation the two items currently on the work program include the
Rethink the Street and the Off-Street Parking Requirements. Ms. Garrow confirmed those are the two
transportation related items. He agrees both items should be on the work plan and feels Rethink the
Street is number one. When looking at the community plan and how the community is performing on
the sustainability front, he feels transportation is the weakest in terms of congestion. He feels the Off-
Street Parking item could be key in transforming Aspen. He recommended conducting a study similar to
on conducted for the city of Fort Collins by Donald Shoup, known as a parking guru. He added it could
be used as a case study to help other cities.
Mr. Morris asked for an update on the Rethink the Street item. Mr. Bendon stated with street related
projects, typically the City will study, budget, plan and build without obtaining outside input. Now they
are trying to engage people with experimental projects. One project is the bulb-outs near City Hall and
another one with the new island with flexible curbing on N. Mill St. They would like to experiment more
and make more changes. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the feedback they have received on the
experiments. Mr. Bendon replied about two thirds (2/3) or stronger responding like the City Hall
experiment. The major pushback is on aesthetics for the one near City Hall. Folks who do not like it are
pretty adamant about it. Others have stated it is more dangerous for bikes by pushing them more into
traffic.
4
P111
VIII.b
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they plan to do experiments it in other areas. Mr. Bendon stated they would
like to but the City departments involved with helping including Parks and Streets are at operational
capacity now with the summer season.
Ms. McNicholas asked it the experiments are limited to the core currently and Mr. Bendon confirmed it
is right now. There are not necessarily limits for future projects. Mr. Walterscheid asked about
experimenting with Main St and Mr. Bendon stated they will probably not occur on Main St because it is
a State Highway and would involve other agencies. He added there are continuing discussions with
Engineering to address the barriers in crossing Main St.
Mr. Bendon stated the City is also looking into utilizing a text based service to allow the public to easily
respond to the experiments. Currently the public can utilize a Quick Response (QR) code to take them to
a site for a response and they are using a chalkboard.
Ms. McNicholas asked if they are considering any experiments for the pedestrian malls. Mr. Bendon
stated they are not right now, but they will probably started a process next year to re-imagine the malls.
There is a need to update some major infrastructure for the malls. There are also some significant
development projects stacking up. The City may try to leverage some of its improvements at the same
time the development will be occurring. Mr. Goode asked when the malls were built at which Mr.
Bendon replied the 70’s and it was a grassroots effort to close off the streets for a year to obtain
feedback.
Ms. McNicholas asked if there was a plan to put together a comprehensive transportation plan. Ms.
Garrow stated it is broadly covered within the transportation chapter of the Aspen Area Community
Plan. The Transportation Department completed some internal planning related to busses but there is
no overall transportation master plan. The City has strived to implement it by targeting specific areas
including policy. In 2012, one of Councils top goals was a mitigation system for development to ensure
any addition trips generated are mitigated. This is now a new requirement for all development
applications and it has been incredibly successful. The Parking item on the plan is a next step in the
mitigation plan.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the Lift One neighborhood fits in any type of master plan or vision. Mr. Bendon
stated there has been a lot or recent activity in the area. The townhomes are in for a building permit and
should start construction by the end of the year. The Lift One Lodge was recently purchased and they
just started conversations with the new owner who they anticipated will be in the next month or two
with a development application. There is plenty of opportunity for the City to step in to organize a plan
for the area. Ms. McNicholas asked if there is a plan to retain the area as residential or become a
gondola plaza west and include commercial. Mr. Bendon stated previous planning involved re-
invigorating the area as a portal. Currently it is three percent or less of the uplift traffic and largely
because it takes too long to get from Dean St up the mountain to the current lift. Right now as part of
the Lift One Lodge approvals there would be a historical museum run by the Historical Society focused
on skiing. Improvements to Dean St to include pedestrian access to connect to the gondola as well as a
platter pole lift to move skiers up to a redeveloped Lift One A. There have been recent efforts to
encourage the owners of the properties work together. The Lift One Lodge has lodging with a timeshare
ownership and a restaurant. There are plans for 50 public parking spaces in the lodge as well. Ms.
McNicholas feels it should be a priority for the City to engage to ensure the parts become cohesive for
the town. Mr. Bendon feels with the two remaining parcels there is a scenario for a positive or negative
outcome and feels it is important how the two projects relate to each other.
5
P112
VIII.b
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Mesirow feels he shared his opinions during the Next Generation meeting. The four priority items
identified by the Next Generation Board included Housing Credits, Rethink the Streets, and the Uphill
Economy in conjunction with looking at the SCI rezoning. He felt the overall list is pretty impressive.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the status for the lodging code improvements. Ms. Garrow stated there
are a few more items to move forward on. In December, Council approved a policy resolution as the first
step in code amendment listing a number of priorities. The first one was helping small lodges. The next
one was looking at the condominium bed base which makes up 40% of the bed base. They also want to
look at timeshares and multi-family replacements. In June, Council passed a small lodge preservation
program including incentives for small lodges for the 12 identified lodges including planning assistance,
energy efficiency related rebates, reductions in building permits and other general assistance with
general code compliance. They have obtained feedback from P&Z related to condos and timeshares and
want to confirm with Council this is still a priority.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is any prioritization of items with the recent passing of Referendum 1.
Mr. Bendon stated there has been some amendments to integrate it into the code language. They are
trying to make people fully aware of what triggers a vote. Mr. Bendon and Ms. Garrow stated there will
be some code cleanups in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) code section which includes Hallam
Lake, 8040 greenline reviews, stream margin reviews, and view planes. The view plane language has not
been updated since the 70’s. There are some confusing areas regarding exemptions from view planes.
Mr. Bendon explained currently there is a process for P&Z and HPC to exempt a project from view plan
limitations if it is behind a building that already blocks the view. Now this exemption would trigger a
Referendum 1 vote which highlights the need to cleanup the code. There are similar little items that
need to be addressed. As an example, Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Alps would have never thought they
were in a view plane, but it submitted an application and discovered it is in the Cooper St view plane.
The application was submitted prior to Referendum 1 so it is not subject to a vote. Ms. Garrow stated
they asked City Council to adopt a map to identify the zone districts identified as of the date specified by
Referendum 1 (Resolution 69, Series 2015). Staff is working on compiling additional information to help
out everyone.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was any way to adjust zoning to address the ‘Zone it like you mean it’
statement. Mr. Bendon stated they haven’t had the opportunity yet to discuss it but feels it will come
out in the upcoming retreat. The trick is getting past the sound bite and figuring out the definition of
mean it” or “fix it”. He feels there needs to be a good and thorough conversation to determine the
destination prior to amending any code. The Council retreat is scheduled for July 23rd - 24th.
Mr. Walterscheid asked when the housing credit item goes before Council. Ms. Garrow replied it has
been stalled with the Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) because there has not been a
quorum at the last two meetings. Ms. Garrow anticipates it will be presented to Council in August.
Mr. Walterscheid asked when the residential mitigation would go before Council. Mr. Bendon stated the
first reading is scheduled for the end of July. He added APCHA is still working on the cash-in-lieu rates.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if Staff could hold a meeting for calculations and measurements similar to the
residential design standards update meeting held earlier in the day. Mr. Bendon stated it was possible.
6
P113
VIII.b
Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015
Mr. Walterscheid asked it the permit process change and standardized building subdivision items were
Council directives or just items within the department. Mr. Bendon stated they are identified because
they require a big effort on the part of Staff to update and maintain. Mr. Walterscheid thought it would
be beneficial to standardize as much as possible and Mr. Bendon agreed.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they are seeking any 3D models from architects in town who may have
generated them in the last five years. Ms. Garrow stated they just recently resolved an issue converting
some of the GIS data in SketchUp. She anticipates reaching out to local firms for completed models. Mr.
Bendon stated they have temporary help dedicated to the project. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there
would be a surveyor provided actual heights on items and contours. Ms. Garrow stated they are
requesting new data on the next flyover when the information is collected. She stated all the building
heights should be accurate as it relates to topography. She added having the entire town surveyed is
cost prohibitive.
Mr. Morris asked if Staff had updated P&Z on the housing credit policy changes. Ms. Garrow stated P&Z
had been updated and she is still waiting on formal feedback from the APCHA Board. The APCHA Staff is
recommending is similar to the City’s Staff recommendation except the APCHA Staff is recommending
allowance of credits to be available for housing created anywhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. Mr.
Walterscheid asked about the fee. Mr. Bendon stated they are still evaluating cash-in-lieu
methodologies APCHA should use.
Mr. Goode would like to add an item to address interior lighting code.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting at 5:50 pm.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
7
P114
VIII.b
P115
VIII.b
P116
VIII.b
P117
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS ...................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
AGENDA ADDITIONA AND DELETIONS .............................................................................................. 2
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2
NOTICE OF CALL UP ................................................................................................................................ 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #80, Series of 2015 – Contract for Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements .............. 4
Resolution #74, Series of 2015 – asphalt Trails Overlay Contract ....................................................... 4
Resolution #82, 83, 84, Series of 2015 – Police Vehicles Purchase and Equipping ............................. 4
Resolution #75, Series of 2015 – Wheeler Opera House Lobby/Box Office Improvements Contract . 4
Minutes – July 27, 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 4
ORDINANCE #28, Series of 2015 – 540 E Main St. Rezoning ................................................................... 4
RESOLUTION #76, SERIES OF 2015 - Affordable Housing Credits Policy Direction ............................. 5
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2015 – Castle Ridge Apartments 8040 Greenline Review and Minor
Planned Development Amendment Review ................................................................................................. 7
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2015 – CC and C1 Code Amendments .................................................... 8
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment .............................. 12
ACTION ITEM - Executive Session – C.R.S. 24.6.402(4)(b) conference with attorney ........................... 12
P118
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
2
At 5:05 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Daily,
Myrin and Frisch present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS
1. Randy Gold stated he had a conversation with Councilman Daily about the traffic and parking.
He suggested creating a round a bout at Cemetery lane. It would eliminate the light and ease the
traffic flow in and out of town. He also suggested underground parking in conjunction with the
round a bout and the intercept lot. The question is how to get people to use them. Incentivize
them by making the garage there free with the downtown garage and parking more expensive.
Randy Ready, manager’s office, said CDOT has looked at this and the problem is the unbalancing
at the light. The traffic coming from Cemetery Lane is such a small amount. He suggested the
possibility of a Texas T alternative there.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilwoman Mullins said she just returned from visiting her older son in Amsterdam and it
still doesn’t compare to Aspen.
2. Councilman Myrin thanked everyone for the small farm talk on Friday. There is the potential to
have more food grown locally. He would like to experiment next summer for the City Hall
garden to move to the front of City Hall.
3. Mayor Skadron said AREDay is in Snowmass and there are many outstanding speakers.
4. Mayor Skadron will be attending the Mayor’s innovation convention this weekend in De Moines.
AGENDA ADDITIONA AND DELETIONS
Ordinance #27 will be continued.
BOARD REPORTS
1. Councilman Frisch stated the Nordic Council approved the master nordic trail plan. He gave a
hats off to Matt Kuhn and staff. There will be new signage in the valley. We have one of the top
Nordic trail system in the country if not the world.
2. Mayor Skadron said RFTAs board meeting will be on Thursday and he will report back at the
next Council meeting.
NOTICE OF CALL UP
710 & 720 E Durant Ave., P&Z Approval
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council currently on the property there are two – three
story mixed use buildings. The applicant has proposed to replace the exterior materials. The parapets
will be enclosed on the top level on the east building.
Councilman Myrin asked if there is any change in the deck size. Mr. Barker replied no, they all remain
same.
Mayor Skadron said on page two of the memo the picture that shows the improvements indicates there is
a difference that impacts the view plane up the valley and is it a consideration of Staff. Mr. Barker said
the direction of Staff is the existing walls are already there and the applicant is only facing them off.
They are being dropped by four or five inches to comply with the height of the zone district. The height
will be 32 feet.
There is no Council direction to call this up.
P119
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #75 – Wheeler Opera House Lobby/Box Office Improvement Contract
Mayor Skadron said the Wheeler has been going through improvements. There were two significant
stages of improvement and now the focus is on the lobby. Jeff Pendarvis, asset, said the focus is on the
bar and light focus on the box office. They saw an opportunity to enhance the experience when you walk
in the door. It was well received by the wheeler board.
Mayor Skadron asked what are the budget numbers. Mr. Pendarvis replied the initial number was 3.154
million. It included the second floor and box office as well as the roof and Hvac. The scope grew to
include an upgrade to the control system for the Hvac of 134,000 dollars. To take down the wall between
the grand staircase was another 102,000. The owners contingency is 25 percent.
Mayor Skadron said the 25 percent contingency is partially informed by the theater portion of the
Wheeler. Mr. Pendarvis said that is some of the thought process. We feel like we have done all our due
diligence.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is a good move to do the lobby. It will make an enormous difference.
What is the schedule. Mr. Pendarvis said construction will start on the 31st of this month with the hope to
wrap up around thanksgiving on construction and punch list by December 18th. Councilwoman Mullins
asked what is being done on the bar. He said they will push back everything. The entrance to the men’s
room will move to the east of the bar to free up the ladies room. There will also be the addition of a drop
in stage. Councilwoman Mullins asked for that portion of the budget. Mr. Pendarvis said the
reconfiguration is in the initial portion of budget. It is the adds downstairs that increase the budget.
Councilman Daily stated he appreciates the work. He thanked Staff and the architects. The space of both
floors is attractive.
Councilman Frisch said he is excited to see the final result.
Resolution #80 – Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements
Councilwoman Mullins said the memo says there are four areas needing flashing lights, Garmisch and
Hunter, Third, Original and Hopkins. This is for Original and Hopkins, and Fourth and Main instead of
Third and Main. What about Garmisch and Hunter. Are they lower priority.
Trish Aragon, engineering, replied they are lower priority. Staff wanted to do these locations first. The
thought on Main is to come down 8th and Hallam, now that the Jewish Community Center is constructed
we wanted to put it in there. Hopkins and Original is at the end of its usable life. Councilwoman Mullins
said they are surprisingly expensive. Ms. Aragon said it is to get the permanent power.
Councilman Myrin asked if the flashing lights will be on both sides like they are on Main or one sided
like Mill. Justin Forman, engineering, replied they will be on both.
Mayor Skadron asked if they work. Ms. Aragon said they have noticed an absolute improved compliance
rate.
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of this but is also willing to look at something not as intrusive.
Mayor Skadron said he personally crosses at intersections and does not push the button but waits for
traffic to stop. Last winter Council did a site visit on Main Street with new technology. Steve Barwick,
city manager, said we talked about possibilities of technologies of lighting systems that light up just the
intersections. Bill Linn, police, said he has officers at Main Street intersections and the ones with the
lights the officers don’t have anything to do.
Resolution #82, 83, 84 - Police vehicle purchase
P120
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
4
Councilman Myrin asked if we are we doing this for recognition and uniformity or to replace Toyotas
with Fords.
Bill Linn, police, said the Toyotas have had their challenges. They have had catastrophic failures six
times. Officers are coming down with back issues sitting in seats not designed to do police work.
Councilman Myrin said they have to do quite a few modifications to the Fords, is it possible to modify the
existing Toyotas with new seats. Mr. Linn said he would have to defer with fleet on the timing of
replacing the cars. The cars are on a schedule with 60,000 mile replacement or five year. They are well
past that in terms of mileage at 75,000. Councilman Myrin said they are not buying new cars because of
seats. Were there options that would have a real world option of more than 12 miles per gallon. Mr. Linn
replied it is not that we put on miles so much but we crawl around. Idling around town is not the most
efficient use of a motor.
Mayor Skadron asked is 75,000 a lot of miles on a police vehicle. Mr. Linn said he does not know the
answer to that. Mr. Barwick replied that is a standard replacement for the city.
Resolution #80, Series of 2015 – Contract for Main and Maroon Pedestrian Improvements
Resolution #74, Series of 2015 – Asphalt Trails Overlay Contract
Resolution #82, 83, 84, Series of 2015 – Police Vehicles Purchase and Equipping
Resolution #75, Series of 2015 – Wheeler Opera House Lobby/Box Office Improvements
Contract
Minutes – July 27, 2015
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
ORDINANCE #28, Series of 2015 – 540 E Main St. Rezoning
Hillary Seminick, community development, told the Council the City is requesting to rezone from SCI,
commercial and commercial core to public. Redevelopment is not being considered as part of this land
use application. The site is being considered for a new police department. The property is approximately
27,000 sq ft. It currently houses the City parking department. At this time there is no proposed change in
use. The property is designated historic with three 19th century cabins in the rear of the lot. Staff finds
the public zone district is appropriate and cleans up the mix of zone districts. When a proposed use is not
allowed in all of the zones the use can only be developed on the land which it is a permitted use. The
parking department is considered a public use. While public use is not permitted within SCI, it is allowed
on the ground floor of both commercial and commercial core. The parking department is located within
the commercial core portion of the property. The public zone district will require a planned development
to be established when development occurs. A PD is not being pursued at this time. The dimensional
characteristics of the parcel will be determined through the planned development review process. There
will be a historic preservation review as well. HPC received an overview on June 10 and expressed no
concern. On June 30, P&Z passed Resolution 12 with a recommendation to approve the rezoning. Staff
recommends adoption of Ordinance 28 on first reading and schedule second reading for September 14.
Councilman Frisch has no concerns at this time.
Councilman Myrin asked for rezoning for public what can go on public. Is it established by the PD or by
the underlying zoning. The ideal would be a combination of SCI, commercial and CC. What protections
do neighbors have. It may be a conversation about the public zone in general. Ms. Seminick said the PD
overlay relies on the underlying zone district. There are no dimensional requirements in the public zone
district. Those are set by the planned development process. Councilman Myrin stated that frightens him.
Alan Richman, representing the applicant, said the PD review criteria speaks to compatibility of
surrounding developments. The array of uses that can happen on public need to accommodate things like
a hook and ladder truck that can be set by dimensions that require you to look at surrounding uses. It is
P121
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
5
not as if we are opening Pandora’s box to trump tower. We are not varying from a number but
establishing the number.
Councilman Frisch said he appreciates where he is coming from. It is the nature of the beast of a PD.
Mr. Richman said the rational is the difficulty is assuming you know the dimensional requirements. It is
a one of a kind building. The process itself is the assurance the community gets there is a full airing with
the neighbors. We are imposing a PD requiring a review.
Councilwoman Mullins stated currently there is SCI, CC and C1. It would be good to have why we can’t
expand or have CC or C1 across the site. The SCI zone has value and there has been hesitation to
change it. This will represent a decrease in overall SCI across town and what is the possibility of finding
anywhere else in town to replace that lost area of SCI. She is in support of rezoning to public but we need
to explain the consequence of getting rid of or not using the other zone districts.
Councilman Daily is in support of the proposal. There are three zones on the current property and not an
effective mix. He tends to agree with Mr. Richman. The standards of the PD are in effective to protect
the public. The uses the City needs to have are broad and unusual and this is a good start to a proper
zone.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #28, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO 28
SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE REZONING OF
THE PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 540 E MAIN ST., LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion Carried.
RESOLUTION #76, SERIES OF 2015 - Affordable Housing Credits Policy Direction
Jessica Garrow, community development, stated this is a policy resolution to consider if the City should
pursue code amendments to the housing credits chapter of the land use code. The program was
established in 2010. It was intended to encourage private sector development of affordable housing. To
date housing for over 47 full time equalivents has been created through the program. The program allows
a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units and receive certificates from the City. The
developer can sell the certificates to others to satisfy their own housing mitigation requirements. Staff is
proposing a number of amendments. They have conducted outreach with P&Z, APCHA and informed
the Next Gen board. Recommendations from P&Z, APCHA and an email from Next Gen are included in
the memo.
The first change is related to who can create the credits. In 2014 Council provided direction to limit the
program to the private sector. Private development should not have to compete with the public sector.
The second change is related to dormitory units. Staff is recommending they not be eligible for housing
credits. They serve an important part of our community but not full time workers. The third change is
related to sales limitations. Staff is proposing the units be permanently deed restricted as for sale units.
P&Z suggested a full affordable housing project could be rental units as long as there is a specific
agreement that they are forever deed restricted. The fourth is related to fractional credits. Should slight
overages be eligible for certificates. Staff concern is they are often integral to that development. P&Z
disagreed with staff and supported Peter Fornell comments. The overage encourages building on site
housing. The next change is related to category limitation. Staff has operated that credits are only created
P122
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
6
for category one through four. There needs to be a conversion mechanism. APCHA supports this
direction. P & Z generally supported this as well. Next Gen disagrees with the Staff recommendation.
Staff is proposing to codify where hosing credits may be created and projects outside the City of Aspen
not qualify.
Councilman Daily Commented on P&Z and APCHA ignoring the Next Gen suggestion of including the
higher category. It is worthy of more discussion. Ms. Garrow said they have to have the conversion
ability. They could write the language where it is limited to categories where there is an APCHA
established number rather than specifically calling out a category number. Councilman Daily said he
would like to hear from Next Gen.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about cash in lieu being the basis for the housing credit value and we talked
of phasing out that program. How will that happen when the program is gone. Ms. Garrow replied we
have to have a mechanism to convert so we would either establish that conversion factor in another code
amendment or find another method. Councilwoman Mullins asked for an explanation of the fractional.
Ms. Garrow gave the example of a developer who has a certificate that says 20 fte’s. Another developer
generates 2.15 FTE’s needs to mitigate for it. The code requires he uses housing certificates, on site unit
or cash in lieu. Most chose on site or certificates. For an on site, the easiest way to mitigate the 2.15
FTEs is to build a single two bedroom unit. That would mitigate 2.25 FTEs. This over mitigates by .1.
The policy question is should this slight overage generate a certificate that I can then sell.
Councilman Frisch stated he supports the public sector limits. He supports the dormitory
recommendation. He supports the sales limitation. For category limitations, is staff against category five
because it is bad or because the technical limitations. He appreciates the higher demand of two through
four but we want to be welcoming to all the categories. We can solve the technical issues. Ms. Garrow
said the concern is the administrative mechanism to convert the credits. APCHA felt strongly there is not
a need for the higher categories. Councilman Frisch said for fractional credits if someone is over
mitigating he needs further clarity to the downside if someone buys more credits then they need why they
should not use them how they see fit. He is not sure what the downside of onsite mitigation is. Ms.
Garrow stated they are concerned those units are deed restricted as for sale permanently as affordable
housing.
Councilman Myrin asked if the public sector participation looked at the supply and demand side. Ms.
Garrow replied only on creation. Councilman Myrin said he supports it on the demand side.
He said if there are mechanisms to support the fractional he would definitely support it. He would
support for sale more strongly than deed restriction. One of our top ten goals is to reduce traffic. He
would support these being built on this side of the round a bout in an effort to reduce traffic.
Mayor Skadron stated he is interested in the category limitation discussion.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Peter Fornell said good job to community development. He said the memo says that units must
have one or more bedrooms but he heard studios mentioned. 518 Main had one studio and there
were 35 applicants. They are a valid part of the affordable housing mix. Everyone freaks out
when you say fractional but it is remainder mitigation. If my mitigation is one employee and I
build a three bedroom in the back why am I not eligible for two certificates. I’m building in
excess of my requirement. All units created for housing credits must be for sale so I can’t tear
them down. There are methods to do away with the cash in lieu number. He agrees with the
notion of build within the city limits.
2. Skippy Mesirow, Kimbo Brown-Schiratto, Christine Benedetti, Lindsey Palardy, representing the
Next Generation Housing Committee, read the memo they submitted with the packet. Ms.
Brown-Schiratto stated they suggest expanding to categories five through seven. The number one
problem facing their demographic is not enough available units in certain categories. 30 percent
P123
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
7
of participants in their survey stated a total annual income before taxes between 100,000 to
150,000 dollars and 20 percent with 150,000 dollars or higher. They believe there is a demand
for family friendly housing in the higher categories. Next Gen fully supports the argument that
more lower category rental units need to be made available or created. Mr. Mesirow said the
realities of affordable housing has changed. Having this discussion is critical to the Aspen Idea.
Mayor Skadron asked for a comment on APCHAs policies and Next Gens research and is
interested in the quality of the data. Jim True, city attorney, stated it is important to get Mike
Kosdrosky’ s input.
Councilman Frisch asked if they want to see category five included or incentivized. Mr. Mesirow replied
for now they are interested in a broad discussion that focuses on all members of the community. It is
early to suggest whether it should be incentivized or not. If there is a need for it and it is good for the
community it should be built.
Ms. Brown-Schiratto said she believes the City has done a great job of developing and selling the lower
category unity. If the City is not interesting in the higher category units that is where we suggest the
public private partnership.
Councilman Frisch said the higher the category the less subsidy. We are trying to offer a well balance
offering for the community. Mr. Bendon went back to Councilman Frisch’s question of is our hang-up
philosophical or technological. It is most definitely technological. We don’t have the mechanism to deal
with categories five through seven. We should keep this as a technological discussion and not keep this
as a housing guideline discussion. That should stay with APCHA.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to hear how Next Gen is working with APCHA and sharing
data with them.
Councilman Myrin stated incentives can be based on a variety of things. We need to be aware of the
moving parts.
Councilman Daily expressed his appreciation for the Next Gen group.
Ms. Garrow proposed two changes. There was an oversight by Staff in the first bullet. It should say
studio or more. She suggest Section one bullet three be deleted and replaced with get additional feedback
from APCHA.
Councilman Myrin moved to approve Resolution #76, Series of 2015 with amendments, seconded by
Councilman Frisch.
Councilman Myrin wants bullet two to have language to include for sale information. Ms. Garrow
suggested adding language that fractional units are not eligible unless the unit is deed restricted as for sale
or some other agreement. Councilman Frisch agrees.
Councilman Myrin would like to add to final bullet point an incentive where it does not increase traffic.
Councilman Frisch asked whether it should say must or should be incentivized. He also asked about
Aspen or inside the round a bout. Councilman Myrin said he is not ready to commit to it tonight but
would like it as a discussion. Mr. Bendon said they may want to expand that to all types of mitigation.
Councilman Frisch is ok with that.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2015 – Castle Ridge Apartments 8040 Green line Review and Minor
Planned Development Amendment Review
Sara Nadolny, community development, stated this is a minor amendment to a project review approval
and 8040 green line to the Castle Ridge property. It is located south of Aspen Valley Hospital and west
of Castle Creek Road. Zoning is R15 with a PD overlay. There are eight multi-family housing buildings
on the site. There is no formal PD approval associated with the site. It is estimated to be approximately
P124
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
8
64,251 sq feet. The applicant is proposing a floor area increase of 988 sq ft to construct a new
maintenance storage shed. Currently there are two small sheds with decks and fences just over 300 sq
feet. At first reading she may have gave the impression these were not legally established. From the
building department she has it from good authority that these were legally established. The applicant is
charged with meeting the criteria for 8040 and PD. The 8040 review is for locations above 8040 feet in
elevation. The intent is to consider the impact on development on the natural environment. It looks at
natural watershed, unstable slopes, air pollution and minimize disturbance to the terrain. It was reviewed
by planning staff and engineering. The site is level and suitable for development. The water runoff has
already been mitigated. There is no adverse effects anticipated to the water shed. There is no reason to
think the shed would negatively affect the air quality. There will be no new roads or grading. Staff feels
the applicant has met the criteria for the 8040.
For the criteria for the minor amendment to project review, Staff looks at site suitability and compatibility
of development with the site. The shed is oriented towards the paved parking lot. The proposed building
reflect the style of the residences surrounding it. The height is 16 feet 3 inches. The engineering
department has no real concerns. The applicant will need to submit a drainage report. Staff finds the
review criteria has been met and recommends approval with a condition the applicant record a new site
plan with the new structure on it.
Luis Menendez, architect, said the eight buildings were constructed in 1981 and require ongoing
maintenance. Neither the sheds or fenced in areas are large enough to contain all the necessary materials.
The proposed shed is at the parking elevation and will be cut in to the slope.
Councilman Myrin asked if the current structure impacts the review criteria. Ms. Nadolny replied there is
not a credit. Without something showing an approval there is no existing credit.
Mayor Skadron asked if minor PD amendments have always been subject to Council review. Mr. Bendon
said in the past PDs would be minor at staff or major at Council. Adding sq ft, height or changing
dimensions would need done at Council since the change is done by ordinance. In the past it would have
triggered a full P&Z and Council review.
Councilman Myrin said currently there is no housing attached to this. Could that happen. Ms. Nadolny
replied that is a change in use. Mr. Bendon stated this can’t just morph into a residential unit. It would
require a Council review.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2015 – CC and C1 Code Amendments
Jessica Garrow, told the Council, the code amendment would legalize existing free market residential
units in the CC and C1 zone districts. In January of 2013 Council approved Ordinance 25-2012 that
eliminated free market residential as an allowed use in CC and C1. It made existing free market
residential units non-conforming and placed limits on investments as well as prohibited expansions. The
proposed amendment would legalize all existing free market residential units in those zone districts as
well as units that were under construction or approved prior to the passage of the 2012 ordinance. The
amendment would prohibit any new free market residential units from being established. It would allow
for internal expansions or combinations. It would prohibit external expansions. The proposed changes
apply equally to all properties in C1 and CC. There are almost 200 residential units in those zone
districts. Exhibit E outlines those locations. Staff tried to balance the obstacles with the financing and
P125
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
9
doing upgrades. The thought at the time was the expansion of free market units was threatening the
vitality of downtown.
Floor area exemptions apply equally to all properties in these zones. There are certain exemptions in the
code. One of those is decks. There is a limit on deck area to 15 percent of the floor area. With the
change in the code to prohibit free market residential units it meant that regardless of the code exemption
you could not expand. In 2014 decks were exempted as part of mixed use buildings. Free market
residential were not part of the conversation. Staff is proposing existing free market residential units be
legalized but not take advantage of free decks.
Councilman Myrin asked if the 15 percent that was limited prior to 2014 address the concerns of
commercial vitality. Ms. Garrow replied no, it was just a general provision that applied to all properties
to allow some outdoor space. Councilman Myrin asked if it exist anywhere now. Ms. Garrow stated all
single family duplex districts and all multi family districts. Councilman Myrin said all Main Street would
be 100 percent. Ms. Garrow said correct. Councilman Myrin said some of this came forward when the
penthouse decks came. Ms. Garrow said partially. The calculation was complicated for mixed use. The
thought at the time was allowing more roof top would be more visually pleasing and clean up the
mechanical gunk. Councilman Myrin said Staff’s view is going to the limited deck space would impact
the CC negatively. Ms. Garrow said it has the potential to push out commercial uses. Mr. Bendon said it
is not the presence of the deck per say that is going to challenge the commercial viability of the building.
Councilman Myrin asked if he is comfortable differentiating CC with C1. Mr. Bendon stated they
consider CC and C1 the downtown proper.
Councilwoman Mullins asked for the difference in intent of CC and C1. Mr. Bendon said he recommends
to treat them the same. There are some differences where CC is a historic district where C1 is not. CC
prohibits offices on the ground floor. Ms. Garrow said there are higher heights and larger floor areas on
CC. Councilwoman Mullins said investment is limited currently, how. Ms. Garrow said to 10 percent of
the cost to replace the entire structure that the unit is in for any one year period. Councilwoman Mullins
said it might be a bad idea to lift all the restrictions on garages but she does not understand it for decks. It
won’t increase the mass. Mr. Bendon said it’s not a mass or scale issue. It could be seen as an
enhancement. It is the amount of improvements that are made to the resident. It is the disproportionate
value of enhancement made to the rest of the units. Councilwoman Mullins said there is no way to
expand the size of the unit even if you land a TRD. Ms. Garrow said the overall size of the building could
not be expanded but the individual unit could. Councilwoman Mullins asked if there is a limit on the
height of furniture or permanent/non-permanent fixtures for roof top decks. Mr. Bendon said there are
limitations on permanent fixtures but not furniture.
Councilman Daily said he agrees with Councilwoman Mullins. He is more inclined to the second option
for floor area exemptions to allow some exemptions not all. To allow decks and at grade patios. He does
not see the negative impact of allowing these kinds of decks to be enlarged. It is restoring the rights they
once enjoyed.
Councilman Frisch said he supports the direction Councilmembers Daily and Mullins are heading.
Mayor Skadron asked what is Staffs direction. Ms. Garrow said they recommend option four, not
allowing any exemptions away from Ordinance 25-2012.
If Council wants to allow some floor area exemptions they be limited to decks and at grade patios since it
has the least impacts. Mayor Skadron asked why isn’t it the primary recommendation. Mr. Bendon
replied they are trying to stay true to Ordinance 25-2012.
Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the reasoning for option three to allow exemptions in C1 and not
CC. Ms. Garrow stated it was recommended by Councilman Myrin to start with a smaller impact.
P126
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
10
Councilman Myrin asked for option two, is there a way to include times prior to ordinance 25. Ms.
Garrow stated they can find a way to write it.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Jurine Bears, 605 E Main Street owner, said she was shocked to find out the property rights have
been taken away without notice. She is hopeful that Council will change the ordinance. She
hopes Council lets people use their decks because they are a wonderful amenity.
2. Jim Smith said the owners of Concept 600 appreciate that Staff and Council are willing to work
on this issue to return to conforming status. There is another long standing property right they
would like to have back and that is to expand decks, balconies and roofs. He reviewed the history
of the ordinances affecting decks. He is surprised Community development has recommended
option four. The other four zones have not been curtailed of that right. He believes option one
would be more preferable as it is more consistent with what Council did just a year and a half
ago. Ordinance 25-2012 had an unintended consequence on 200 units and he hopes ordinance
25-2015 does not have an unintended consequence on those same units.
3. Jody Edwards, representing Concept 600 HOA said there is a lot of fear of some unintended
consequence if Staff allowed the floor area exemptions to apply to these units. The expansion of
these units creates pressure to have quieter uses in the commercial space. The owners have
different expectations of the uses. We are only talking about existing units and floor area
exemptions. Staff would have a valid fear if we were talking about newly developed residential
units. I can’t see how adding a deck would affect the commercial space. He suggested changes
to page five of ten section C1 – the purpose is different from the intro language and legally
established free market housing needs added. Page eight of ten section 12 F, the last sentence
that states ”Free Market Residential units shall not be able to utilize any exemptions to floor area
outlined in the code” should be struck is the easiest way to fix this problem.
4. Ms. Garrow added letters from Judy Fick, The Doran Family and Jim Smith.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Myrin stated he is leaning more towards number two limited to prior to ordinance 25-2012.
We are concerned with things going forward. It would be limited to decks and at grade and nothing else.
He would like to see the limit at 15 percent held. He would like to start with a small zone and smaller
limit on FAR. Start with baby steps and limit to a prior date. He is very concerned with expanding to
CC. Mr. Bendon asked if he is concerned with rooftop deck versus what Concept 600 is talking about.
Councilman Myrin replied absolutely. Having an unlimited deck space with the ability to cover it could
give another floor. Mr. Bendon replied they do think there may be a difference to a roof top deck and one
on the side of a building. We think the same issue will come up in CC if we just do this in C1. The limits
on investments for non-conforming uses were established when the prevailing thought in the planning
profession was those uses would eventually just amortize themselves away. We don’t think that will
happen. The value is just way too high. Councilman Myrin asked if that would then be a change in
investment on non-conforming uses and not FAR. Mr. Bendon replied it is but it is somewhat back
burner.
Mayor Skadron asked in regard to roof top decks versus decks on the side of the buildings could you find
reason to modify point two. Mr. Bendon stated they seek simplification and we get there by complicating
the code. Mr. Edwards said they agree the non-conforming section of the code was made for another
time. He agrees that roof top decks are different. The potential solution is to not allow roof top decks.
Councilwoman Mullins stated it is difficult trying to maintain the town for the benefit of the residents but
here is an individual interest versus a community wide one. How does the 15 percent address garages,
storage and patios. Mr. Bendon suggested an addendum stating expansions to FAR permitted except for
at grade patios and decks (other than rooftop), balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and other similar
P127
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
11
features up to 15 percent of the free market residential floor area. Councilwoman Mullins said once the
residents become conforming there is no limit on the money that can become invested.
Councilman Frisch said the limit on investment needs to go as soon as possible everywhere in town. We
need to stop the non-conformity in both zones no matter what. He is more swayed by Staffs argument
that we need to treat the two zones the same. It should apply to both CC and C1. We need to get rid of
the non-conforming and investment limits.
Councilman Daily said he is supportive of option two. He sees severe risk factors in allowing roof top
decks as a possible use. He concurs with Mr. Bendon that limiting to C1 is too restrictive. 15 percent of
FAR restores the rights from 2011. He prefers to go with option two.
Mr. Edwards asked how are you going to calculate the 15 percent when some exemptions apply and some
don’t. How is an unlimited deck such a big problem when a 15 percent one creates a huge problem. Mr.
Bendon stated that’s why we have two zoning officers and a town full of architects. The 15 percent is
closest to what it was prior to 2011. Ms. Garrow said floor area is still calculate the same way.
Councilman Myrin asked how long has the 15 percent been in the code. Mr. Bendon replied it’s been in
the code for some time. 20 years.
Lindsey Smith said the 15 percent could cause issue with the HOA. We are ready to move forward with
our project. She respectfully request Council draw a line through the 15 percent.
Mayor Skadron said the overall desire is to maintain consistency with the CC and C1 amendment
established in 25-2012. He is somewhere between option two and four. We should cure the non-
conformities but he is hesitant to expand development rights. He wanted to allow 15 percent as was
allowed prior to ordinance 25. The exemptions should be limited to decks and patios and treat C1 and CC
similarly.
Mr. Bendon said point two could be modified to allow for at grade patios and decks other than roof top up
to 15 percent. In terms of how an HOA manages itself any option works for Staff. CC and C1 would be
treated the same.
Councilman Frisch asked what 100 looks like from a cautious standpoint. Mr. Bendon said that is
difficult to answer. It would require a property by property examination and they are not prepared for that
tonight.
Councilman Myrin said the 15 percent is restoring back to what it was. What happens between a property
is between them. He is ok with that. The only difference is CC and C1.
Mr. Bendon suggested changing CC and C1 within Section 12 E Floor area Subsection I –“limit to the
existing floor area no expansion to the floor area shall be permitted except for at grade patios and decks
other than roof top decks, balconies, exterior stairways, trellis and other similar features up to 15 percent
of the free market residential floor area. Any subsequent reduction of floor area occupied by such
residential use shall be deemed a new limitation and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a
greater floor area. Free market residential units shall not be able to utilize any exemptions of floor area
outlined in Section 26.575.020(D), Measuring Floor Area, except as noted above.”
The same language would also replace 12F.
Language would also be added within the purpose statement C1 legally established free market uses prior
to ordinance 25-2012.
P128
VIII.b
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2015
12
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2015 with amendments; Seconded by
Councilman Daily.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, no; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #27, Series of 2015 to August 27, 2015; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ACTION ITEM - Executive Session – C.R.S. 24.6.402(4)(b) conference with attorney
Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session at 9:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Daily.
All in favor, motion carried.
At 10:20 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn the regular meeting at 10:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk.
P129
VIII.b
Page 1 of 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Project Manager
Thru: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: July 29, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 3, 2015
RE: Civic Space Relocation Project (CSRP) – Conceptual Design
Presentation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council select one of the options to
move forward into schematic design and ongoing public process and approve the
programing for the Police Facility.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In a worksession on July 14, 2015, staff presented
the Armory option, the Galena option, and the Galena Alternate option conceptual
design. Council discussed each design and were in favor of the staff recommended
selection of the Galena Option 3-2. In an effort to get more unanimity council requested
that the team come back with the following information on the Galena and Armory
option on August 3rd.
• Story pole and staking at Armory and Galena Plaza side of Galena option.
• More comprehensive Architectural presentation on each option, including review
of Architectural 3D model.
• Presentation of costs
• Presentation on the Public service aspects of each option.
BACKGROUND: Finding a solution to the loss of downtown leases is a top priority for
City Council and is articulated in one of its top ten goals.
Goal 8 - Achieve direction from city council on a solution for the loss of
downtown Police and municipal office spaces. Champion: Scott Miller
Staff received direction From Council, as part of the Facility Master Plan Project,
in November 2014 to issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for Architectural Design
teams and Program Manager/ Owners Agent for the “Aspen Building
Replacement Project”. The Aspen Building Replacement Projects Main Goal is to
provide a comprehensive solution for the Police and Municipal Facility by mid-
year 2018. The RFP will close on February 5, 2015 at which point the team will
make a recommendation to select the design team and the PM/OA, these
contracts will be on consent agenda late February 2015. The first milestone of
P130
VIII.b
Page 2 of 9
that team will be to work closely with staff and the steering committee to
develop and present, to Council in the first quarter 2015, two conceptual level
plans for selection of the preferred option. Staff will check in with Council
throughout the year to keep them informed of the progress of the project as well
as review all decision points. Staff and the team will continue to do public
outreach at all phases of this project to keep the public informed. The preferred
option will be taken to design development level drawing and be submitted into
the Planning and Zoning approval process by September 2015, this will give us a
clear direction, cost information and schedule for a solution to our Police and
Municipal facilities by end of year 2015. The team is targeting mid 2018 for
completion of a solution.
Staff started the Facility Master Plan Process in early 2014. As part of the project our
team inventoried all of the City facilities and carried out an overall space analysis. During
this, the need for space in the downtown core became apparent. Prior to and during this
effort several things happened that have made the downtown core need for office space
more crucial than ever:
• The City and County executed an agreement that the Police would move out of the
County owned space at the Courthouse and County Community Development
would move out of the City owned Armory sometime in 2018. Eventually, this
building is going to be for exclusive court use.
• The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority would move out of the County
owned Courthouse Plaza Building. The County is preparing to renovate this
building to accommodate their increasing space needs.
• The Aspen Daily News Building (City Hall Annex) was sold and the new owner
asked that the Building, Engineering, City Manager, and Canary initiative relocate
by the end of 2015 to allow for redevelopment.
• The team identified the inappropriate use of the basement of the Yellow Brick as
City offices due to access and security concerns in a child care facility.
This equals a loss of about 24,000 gross square feet (gsf) of the overall 50,000 gross
square feet that the City presently operates out of in the downtown core.
In early 2015 the team verified all programing for building design criteria and assessed
space needs. After careful consideration with the staff, City Manager’s office and Human
Resources, the team dialed back its space assumptions to be more appropriate for our
unique Aspen market. This led us to a reduced standard, about 30% smaller than common
office space planning standards used in the US. This “Verified Program” (attached) is the
space plan we are using for design which includes 14,900 gsf for Police and 51,900 gsf
for City office program. The team has challenged themselves through careful, efficient,
design to reduce this by another 5%.
P131
VIII.b
Page 3 of 9
During the fall of 2014 the team held several open houses and presented various options
to the public and Council on how to use all of our currently held assets to come with a
space needs solution. This process started with identification of a “kit of parts” then
development of four option that programed all of our needs into solutions utilizing these
assets. In this process we reached out to the staff, public, and Council to find out what the
important values we needed to bring forward in solutions. We found the following:
• Plan City Hall under one roof
• Utilize all of our currently owned assets
• Must be a sustainable solution, we should be leaders in this area
• No tax increase
• Far reaching
• Police should have an appropriate facility
• Police facility should be planned at 540 Main
• City should own not lease facilities as there is a major cost advantage
The program design team took all of the criteria and presented four options to Council in
November 2014 and the request of council was to select two preferred options to form the
basis of design moving forward. This meeting set the first milestone as conceptual level
design on the two selected options along with more public outreach followed by a
presentation to council for selection of the preferred solution to move into schematic
level design.
During the open houses the following core values featured as a common thread in both
internal and external outreach:
• A minimum of a LEED Gold certification; the City should be leaders in
sustainable practices.
• Humble yet exemplary solution is very important to the community
• The Police facility should be at 540 Main St. and we should work collaboratively
with Pitkin County to maximize efficiency with the development of their public
safety building.
• We should be innovative and creative to produce the best result in the smallest
box.
• We should be collaborative with the community
• We should solve the problem with our currently held assets
• We should own not lease
• Most participants preferred Galena Plaza Option
• Some people felt sentiment to the Armory Option and felt that it spoke to who we
are.
• There is momentum in the community to return the Armory to its historic
configuration for community benefit.
P132
VIII.b
Page 4 of 9
Below is an outline of the remaining options:
P133
VIII.b
Page 5 of 9
P134
VIII.b
Page 6 of 9
DISCUSSION:
The common theme we have heard through the public outreach and internal process has
been the solution needs to be forward thinking and far reaching. We believe the solutions
that we have presented reach out 50 years and are flexible and have the ability to either
expand or contract our facilities. There is total of 3000 gsf planned for growth through
the year 2030. We are facing a loss of space for several of our busiest departments and
our Police department, and it is clear that doing nothing is not an option. To try to lease
space (if it is available) would cost more in lease costs and tenant improvements in 10 –
15 years than the cost to responsibly invest our dollars in owned facilities, utilizing all of
our currently held real estate assets in the downtown core area.
There a pros and cons outlined on the assessment criteria. Staff recognizes that the single
biggest detriment to any plan that includes use of the Armory in a configuration for
municipal offices would be the disruption of City operations and service for a period of
one to three years as we moved the operations out of the building, leased temporary
office space and remodeled the building and then moved everyone back in. Based on the
availability of space this would likely be in 6 – 10 locations throughout town. Staff feels
this is an unneeded burden on the community considering that we can accommodate a
solution that meets more of the core values on our other currently held land assets with
the added benefit of returning the Armory to its historic configuration. If the Galena
Plaza option is selected, the team will bring the issue of restoring the Armory to its
historic configuration for community benefit back to council in work sessions in July and
August to determine what this process would be.
This is a very important decision. The solution that staff has determined meets our needs
in the best way, delivering the most core values, with the least risk, and the most
efficiency’s for public benefit is the Galena Option. The assessment criteria below used
for scoring does not weight the categories i.e. the two year construction impacts to the
community are weighted the same as construction cost, yet it is a simple way for us to
gauge the values presented by internal and community stakeholders. Based on this
criteria as well as weighing what we heard in the process we have gone through to date,
we feel the Galena option presents the best solution for the community.
If council agrees, this option would be taken to the next phase of design which includes
by year end 2015, as outlined in our schedule, three public open houses, four stakeholder
meetings, and three more work session presentations to Council. We will also engage
Design Workshops facilitation group out of their Austin office to help us run two
community meetings in a meaningful way.
P135
VIII.b
Page 7 of 9
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Armory Option Galena Option Galena Alternate
Construction $48.4 mil $45.8 mil $40.6 mil
Risk Contingency $3.0 mil $0.5 mil $0.7 mil
Owner Costs $5.9 mil $2.0 mil $3.7 mil
TOTAL $57.3 mil $48.3 mil $45.0 mil
P136
VIII.b
Page 8 of 9
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of the Galena
Plaza Option. Selection of this option includes returning the Armory to historic
configuration for community benefit, with the notion that the process, cost and specifics
of this need to be decided in the future. Staff will schedule a work session in August to
discuss Council’s vision on this this process. We have time to develop this process as the
city offices can remain in the Armory while the Galena option is designed and built. This
recommendation includes the decision to have the Police facility as outlined at 540 Main
to allow collaboration and efficiencies with the County public safety facility at the
P137
VIII.b
Page 9 of 9
adjoining location. Once we set the additional programing in schematic design on the
site, the Police facility will move to its own track for completion of design and
construction.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit I: Presentation slides
P138
VIII.b
P139
VIII.b
P140
VIII.b
P141
VIII.b
P142
VIII.b
P143
VIII.b
P144
VIII.b
P145
VIII.b
P146
VIII.b
P147
VIII.b
P148
VIII.b
P149
VIII.b
P150
VIII.b
P
1
5
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
5.
2
2
.
1
5
P152VIII.b
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
May 1, 2015
P.O. BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
970-920-1125
Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: REZONING APPLICATION FOR 540 EAST MAIN STREET (A/KIA "THE
ZUPANCIS PROPERTY")
Dear Hillary,
This is an application requesting rezoning of the Zupancis property, located at 540 East
Main Street. The property's Parcel ID# is 273707324003.
The subject property is owned by the City of Aspen. Proof of the ownership of the property
is provided in the form of a letter from the City Attorney (see Exhibit #1). The City
(hereinafter, "the applicant") has designated Alan Richman Planning Services and Charles
Cunniffe Architects as its representatives for this application. The letter authorizing
submission of this application is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.
An improvement survey of the property has recently been completed and accompanies
this application. It demonstrates that the subject property is an irregularly shaped parcel of
land that is approximately 27,000 square feet in size. The property is surrounded by
prominent buildings on its east and west sides. The Courthouse Plaza Building and the
Pitkin County Jail are located to the west/northwest of the property. The Concept 600
Building and the Obermeyer Complex are located to the east/northeast of the property,
The property is improved with five (5) small structures. The southern portion of the
property contains an older residential structure that is currently being occupied by the
City's Parking Department. There is also a small garage located behind this structure.
The northern portion of the property contains a small cabin and two small outbuildings, all
of which are designated as historic resources.
P153
VIII.b
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Two
As shown on the attached current zoning exhibit, today the property is subject to three
distinct zone district designations. The southern portion of the property is zoned
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) while the northern portion of the property is
designated as Service Commercial Industrial (SCI). The boundary between the northerly
and southerly portions of the property generally follows the centerline of the alley that has
been vacated through this property.
For the past several years the property has provided a temporary home for the City's
Parking Department. The back of the property has been used to park some of the City's
police car fleet. These uses are considered to be public uses. A public use is allowed on
the ground floor in the CC and C-1 zones, but is not an allowed use in the SCI zone
district. Therefore, the applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to the Public
(PUB) zone district to ensure that the current public use of the property is conforming.
Furthermore, as you know, the City has been engaged for some time in a planning effort to
evaluate space needs for its municipal administrative functions. The subject property was
purchased by the City for the purpose of accommodating necessary public functions. As
part of the space needs analysis this site has been determined to be the appropriate
location for a new building for the City's Police Department. Therefore, this rezoning
application can be considered to be a first step towards re-development of the property
with a new Police Department Building. Of course, a full PUD development application will
need to be prepared and reviewed in a public hearing process before any determination
can be made as to the appropriateness of this site for that type of project.
I discussed this rezoning proposal with you and you issued a pre-application summary,
attached as Exhibit #3. This document lists the following land use approvals that must be
obtained by the applicant:
Sec. 26.310 Amendments to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning).
Following below are the applicant's responses to the standards of this section of the Aspen
Land Use Code.
Responses to Standards for Rezoning
Section 26.310.090 of the Code provides the standards of review for an amendment to
the City's Official Zone District Map. These standards and the applicant's responses to
the standards follow below.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
P154
VIII.b
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Three
Response: The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts.
As shown on the Existing Zoning Map, the adjacent County property to the west of the
subject property is zoned Public (PUB). As part of a recent application submitted for the
Pitkin County Center property, the boundaries of the Public zoning were adjusted to
coincide with the parcel boundaries for the Courthouse and Jail properties. Zoning the
subject property as Public would complement the zoning of the adjacent County
property.
Zoning the property as Public would also be consistent with the current use of the
property. The subject property currently houses the City's Parking Department in the
former Zupancis residence. The area behind this structure is used as parking by the
City Police Department. Both of these public uses should be located in the Public zone.
As the Map also shows, surrounding uses to the west of the property represent a dense
urban scale of development, including the Obermeyer PUD and Concept 600 Building.
Public zoning of this property will allow necessary civic functions to be located there, in
an appropriate location right near the center of the urban fabric.
Rezoning of the property to Public (PUB) will also require all development of the property
to proceed through the City's PUD process. This means that the development will be
subject to Project Review by the P&Z and City Council and then Detailed Review by the
P&Z. This extensive type of public review process will provide another means to ensure
that the development will be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses.
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: The property's current commercial zoning would support a relatively
intense, commercial form of development such as is present on the adjacent
Obermeyer property or the newly developed 625 East Main Street commercial building
across from this site. Rezoning the property to Public will instead allow for a
community-serving public use of this property. While any public use will most likely
place demands on some of the above-listed public facilities (such as transportation,
water supply and sewage disposal), such use will also provide an essential public
service. The PUD application will provide the community with the opportunity to
evaluate the nature of those impacts and the ability to ensure that all such impacts are
appropriately mitigated by the applicant.
P155
VIII.b
Ms. Hillary Seminick
May 1, 2015
Page Four
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed rezoning will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural
environment. The subject property is a developed site located in the middle of the City's
urban fabric. It is an appropriate place for re-development to occur, in that it is not
limited by any mapped environmental constraints such as floodplains, steep slopes or
geologic hazards and does not impact open space or other natural features. The
natural environment would be well served by the kind of infill development that would be
allowed by the requested rezoning.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
Response: The proposed amendment would be consistent and compatible with
Aspen's community character and would serve the public interest. This location, which
is adjacent to the City core, is an appropriate location in which to extend the
community's Civic campus. It is adjacent to the Jail and the Courthouse complex,
including the site where the County intends to relocate the Sheriff. It is also proximate
to City Hall as well as to other sites identified in the space needs study as being where
the City's administrative functions could be housed in the future. It would provide a
central, visible, accessible home for the City's Police Department and is entirely
appropriate for rezoning to Public, if for no other reason than to make its current use by
the Parking Department conforming to underlying zoning.
Conclusion
The above responses and the attached documents provide all of the information requested
by staff to process this application. We look forward to the public review of this application.
If there is any other material I can provide to you or any other questions I can answer
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES, INC.
Al,~
Alan Richman, AICP
P156
VIII.b
EXHIBITS
P157
VIII.b
March 20, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Bendon:
EXHIBIT #1
The OilY olDspen
OilY llnorney's omce
I have been asked by Jeff Pendarvis of the City of Aspen Asset Management Department
to provide an opinion regarding the ownership of property known as the Zupancis parcel at 540
E. Main St., upon which the City seeks development approval and/or a building permit for
proposed construction. I have reviewed the documents associated with the acquisition and
ownership of the subject property. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
Colorado.
The Zupancis parcel was acquired by the City in 2002 from general funds pursuant to a
deed from Louis J. Zupancis and Robert L. Zupancis, recorded on October 1, 2002 at Reception
No. 472856. Thus, it is my opinion that this property is owned by the City of Aspen, and that
there are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the
parcel or other encumbrances that would prevent the work proposed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Electronic copy: Original Signed by James R. True
James R. True
City Attorney
P158
VIII.b
EXHIBIT#2
Ms. Hillary Semlnlck, Planning Technician
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR LAND USE APPLICATION FOR 540 EAST
MAIN STREET (ZUPANCIS PROPERTY)
Dear Hillary,
The City of Aspen is the owner of the property located at 540 East Main Street In Aspen,
commonly known as the Zupancis property. We hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning
SeNices, Inc. and Charles Cunniffe Architects, Inc. to submit a land use application to
rezone the property to Public (PUB). Mr. Richman and Mr. Cunniffe are authorized to
submit said application on our behalf and to represent us in meetings with City of Aspen
staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council conceming said appHcatlon.
Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this
application please do so through Alan or Charles, or you may contact me directly.
s~(r~
Steve Barwick, City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
P159
VIII.b
EXHIBIT #3
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Hillary Seminick, 970.429.27 41
PROJECT: 540 East Main Street, AKA Zupancis
REPRESENTATIVE : Alan Richmond
REQUEST: Rezoning
DESCRIPTION:
Proposal :
DATE: April 16, 2015
540 E. Main St., which is also known as the Zupancis Property, currently lies within three zone districts,
Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1) and Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI). Three 19th century cabins ,
known as the Zupancis-McMurtchy cabins , are located on the southern portion of the property. The property is
designated historic . The City Parking Department, a parking garage and surface parking is located on the
property .
Rio Grande Area
I
The City Parking Department is considered a public use. Public use is not an allowed use within the
Service/Industrial/Commercial (SCI) Zone District. Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) allows public
use on the ground floor.
In accordance with Section 26.710.022 .A ; which pertains to lands within more than one zone district, where a
proposed use is not allowed in all Zone Districts, the use can only be developed on land in which it is a
permitted use . The Parking Department falls within both the CC and SCI Zone Districts; therefore, the existing
use of the property is a non-conformity.
To bring the existing use into conformance, the City of Aspen Capital Asset Department is initiating an
amendment to zone districts of the Zupancis property from CC, C-1 , and SCI to Public (PUB).
ASLU
Rezoning
540 E. Main St. (Zupancis)
273707324003
1
P160
VIII.b
Review Process:
Rezoning is required to amend the current zone districts. Application contents shall include all materials
outlined in Section 26.310.080. A rezoning land use review is a two-step review process with public hearings
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use App:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/O/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%201and%20use%20a
pp%20form.pdf
Land Use Code:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Title-26-Land-Use-
Code/
Applicable Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304
26.304.060
26.310.060
26.310.080
26.310.090
26.310.100
26.310.110
26.310.120
26.710.140
26.710.150
26.710.160
26.710.250
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Common Development Review Procedures
Modification of Review Procedures
Rezoning -Procedure for Amendment
Rezoning -Application Contents
Rezoning -Standards of Review
Notation on Official Zone Map
Recordation of Designation (pending approval)
Placement on the City's Official Zone District Map (pending approval)
Commercial Core (CC)
Commercial (C-1)
Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI)
Public (PUB)
Staff for complete application
Staff for recommendation
Referrals: Engineering
Community Development Director for approval
Planning and Zoning,
Neighborhood Outreach: Yes
Planning Fees:
Referral Fees:
Total Deposit:
$7 ,800.00 for 24 hours of staff time.
Engineering (per hour, billed with planning case) -$275
$8075 (additional planning hours over deposit amount are billed at a rate of
$325/hour; additional engineering hours over deposit are billed at a rate of
$275/hour)
To apply. submit the following information (apply to both options unless otherwise noted):
D Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
D Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
2
P161
VIII.b
D Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the
Development Application.
D Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
D HOA Compliance form (Attached)
D A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the
proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application
and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Building elevations, plans and
renderings are required.
D A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation
showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the
State of Colorado.
D Written responses to applicable review criteria.
D An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
D 1 Complete Hard Copy.
If the copy is deemed complete by staff. the following items will then need to be submitted:
D TBD Additional, Complete Hard Copies.
D Total deposit for review of the application.
D A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
3
P162
VIII.b
c
Q)
Q.
(/')
<(
...
+-
(/')
c ·-0
~
+-
(/')
0 w
0
"" Ll)
c
Q
Q.
"' <!o
IS l/ltv S
P163
VIII.b
P164
VIII.b
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 110 E. Bleeker Street- Transferable Development Rights, Second Reading of
Ordinance #31, Series of 2015
DATE: September 15, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 110 E. Bleeker is a Victorian era home
that was significantly altered many years ago. The
property owner has received HPC Final approval to
demolish all non-historic construction on the site,
restore the house, and build a new addition. Five
hundred square feet of unused floor area is proposed to
be converted into two TDRs. Council consent is
needed. Staff recommends approval.
APPLICANT: Bleek House LLC , represented by Kim
Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-37-006.
ADDRESS: 110 E. Bleeker, Lots L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6.
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development
right.
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to
adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
A. The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family or
duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties
on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
Staff Finding: A single family home is permitted on the subject parcel, which is landmark
designated.
P165
VIII.c
2
B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for
either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested.
Staff Finding: The application indicates that there is unused floor area available on the
property.
C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase
the specific nonconformity.
Staff Finding: No non-conformities will be created by the project. All dimensional
requirements of the zone district are met or have been properly approved for variances within the
purview of HPC.
D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development,
any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for a
single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending site to
gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives.
Staff Finding: The applicant has received a Development Order for their proposed project.
The base allowable floor area for the property is 3,240 square feet. HPC awarded a 500 square foot
floor area bonus in recognition of the substantial restoration work will be completed on the
Victorian house. The bonus will be allocated to the project and 500 square feet of unused floor
area will be converted to TDRs.
E. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected to
the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void.
Staff Finding: No such development order exists.
F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the
property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a
single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area
multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the
maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be
the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two
hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of historic TDR
certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence, as my
be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor area
incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be
P166
VIII.c
3
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 the creation of two TDRs at 110
E. Bleeker Street.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _______________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits:
Ordinance #31, Series of 2015
A. HPC approved drawings and floor area summary
P167
VIII.c
110 E. Bleeker
Ordinance #31, Series of 2015
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #31
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING TWO TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 E. BLEEKER, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID #: 2735-124-37-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, Bleek House LLC , represented by Kim Raymond Architects, has
requested two Transferable Development Rights for the property located at 110 E. Bleeker, Lots
L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, for City Council approval of Transferable Development Rights, the application
shall meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 26.535.070; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer, in her staff report to City Council,
performed an analysis of the application, found that the review standards for Transferable
Development Rights are met, and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Transferable Development Rights
City Council does hereby authorize the grant of two (2) Transferable Development Rights for
110 E. Bleeker, Lots L and M, Block 65, Block 34, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with
the following conditions:
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, 110 E. Bleeker, Lots L and M, Block 65,, City
and Townsite of Aspen, 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.
P168
VIII.c
110 E. Bleeker
Ordinance #31, Series of 2015
Page 2 of 3
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Vested Rights
The Land Use entitlements granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the
date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the
development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall
render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void
permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result
in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, including Final Major Development and
Commercial Design Reviews by the HPC, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper
of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the
general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property
right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land
Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 110 E. Bleeker, Lots L and M, Block 65, 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.
P169
VIII.c
110 E. Bleeker
Ordinance #31, Series of 2015
Page 3 of 3
Section 5: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 15th day of September, 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 24th day of August, 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
P170
VIII.c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.1
7/21/15Plotted On:S
O
U
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
2 3
'-2
3
/4
"
EXISTING BRICK
RESTORE ORIGINAL
FRONT WINDOW
RESTORE SIDE
WINDOWS TO
ORIGINAL
T.O. PLATE
118'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
T.O. PLY @ MAIN
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER
110'-0"
METALLIC TILE
METALLIC TILE
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
GAS FIREPLACE
VENT
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
COLUMNS TO MATCH
HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
GABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL SHINGLES
ATGABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REBUILD BAY
WINDOW FEATURE TO
MATCH HISTORIC
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY TO REMAIN
ABOVE ROOF
HORIZONTAL
4" SIDING
RESTORE
HISTORICAL
FENCE
GAS FIREPLACE
VENT
UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY
110'-0"
MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY
100'-0"
T.O. PLATE
117'-6"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 WEST ELEVATION
A 4.1
HISTORICAL PICTURE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 SOUTH ELEVATION
A 4.1
P
1
7
1
V
I
I
I
.
c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 4.2
7/21/15Plotted On:N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V A T
I
O
N
S
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
HORIZONTAL
4" SIDING
T.O. PLATE
117'-6"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
METALLIC TILE
STEEL HANDRAIL
2
7
'-8
1
/2
"
3
3
/4
"
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
COLUMNS TO MATCH
HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL PORCH
GABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REPAIR OR REPLACE
ORIGINAL SHINGLES
ATGABLE END TO
MATCH HISTORIC
REBUILD BAY
WINDOW FEATURE TO
MATCH HISTORIC
EXISTING BRICK
CHIMNEY TO REMAIN
ABOVE ROOF
METALLIC TILE
HORIZONTAL 4" SIDING
METALLIC TILE
RESTORE FENCE AND
POST TO ORIGINAL
PER PICTURE
RESTORE WINDOWS
TO ORIGINAL
1/3 point roof
T.O. PLATE
117'-6"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER NORTH
109'-0"
T.O. SLAB @ GARAGE
98'-0"
T.O. PLY @ MAIN
100'-0"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER
110'-0"
T.O. RIDGE
125'-8 1/2"
T.O. PLY @ UPPER LINK DECK
108'-6"
T.O. EXISTING RIDGE
126'-4"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH ELEVATION
A 4.2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EAST ELEVATION
A 4.2
P
1
7
2
V
I
I
I
.
c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.2
7/14/15Plotted On:S
I T
E
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
D
D
E
E
11
55
N
C
C
A
A
B
B
22
44
F
33
3
'-1
1
/8
"
5
1
/
2
"
9
'
3
'
-
8
1
/
8
"
R
E P A
I R
O
R
R
E P L A
C
E
O
R
I G I N A
L
F E N
C
E
T O M A T
C H
H
I S T
O
R
I C
G A
T
E
M
A
I L
B
O
X
P
I N
E
T
R
E
E
S
T
O
B
E R
E
M
O
V
E
D
S
P R
U C
E
T
O
B E R
E
M
O
V
E
D
L
I V
I N
G
R
O
O
M
F
R
O
N
T
P
O
R
C
H
2
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
A
M
I L
Y
R
O
O
M P
A
T
I O
T
.O
. P
L
Y
9
8
'-6
"
T
.O
. P
L
Y
9 8
'-0
"
D N
Y
A
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I N
E
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
G
R
A
V
E
L
A
L
L
E
Y
W
A
L
K
W
A Y
9
8
'-1
0
"
K
I T
C
H
E
N
T
V
F P
G
U
E
S
T
B
A
T
H
P
O
W
D
E
R
D
I N
I N
G
E
N
T
R
YB
I C
Y
C
L
E
P
A
T
I O
W
I
N
D
O
W
W
E
L
L
T
.O
. P
L
Y
1
0
0
'-0 "
C
L
O
S
E
T
U P
D N
W
1
9
W
2
0
W
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
P U
Z Z L E
T
A B
L E
NOTE:
ARCHITECTURAL 100'-0" =
SITE 7891'-2"
P
1
7
3
V
I
I
I
.
c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 1.3
7/14/15Plotted On:F
A
R
C
A
L
C
U
L
A T
I
O
N
-
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
W 2 4
W 2 4
D17
D 0 4
D17
D 0 4
D04
D 0 9
D 1 0
D01
D01
W
C D
D D
E E
1
1
5
5
C C
A A
B B
2 43
1,508 sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
D D
E E
1
1
5
5
C C
A A
B B
2 4
F
3
356.25 sq ft
70 sq ft
OPENTOABOVE
F I R E P L A C E / M E D I A
UPDN
CLOSET
CABINET
UC WINE
FRIDGE
KITCHEN STORAGE
CABINETS
DW
FRIDGEFRZ ICEDWR
TRASH
PANTRY FRIG/FRZR
F L O A T I N G B U F F E T
SLAB FOR
BIKE STORAGE
SIDE WALK
FROM ALLEY
S K I S T O R A G E
W / B O O T S B E L O W
RUN NEW GAS FPFLUE THROUGHROOF AT CHIMNEY
W 1 9
W 2 0
W 2 1
718.5 sq ft
969.75 sq ft
508 sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
D31
W 2 3
W 2 3
W26
W27W58
W30W30W30W32W32
D 3 4
D 2 2
D D
E E
1
1
5
5
C C
A A
B B
2 43
112.5 sq ft
112 sq ft
174.25 sq ft
MONTEGO SINGLE
SIDED FIREPLACEMODEL R320
882.25 sq ft
D 3 1
11
432.25 sq ft
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
LOWER LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL FAR
3240 ALLOWABLE FAR BASED ON 6000 SF LOT
- LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA- GROSS 1508 SF
-MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA
MAIN LEVEL PATIOS- EXEMPT ON GRADE
GARAGE: 508 SF
-UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA
UPPER LEVEL DECKS: 112.5 +112+174.25=
133 SF508 SF- 250 SF = 258-125
718.5 SF + 970 SF=
399 SF
15% ALLOWABLE DECKS = 486 SF
104 + 352= 456 SF
(2)50'-11" X 9' = 917 SF
(2)34'-9" X 9' = 626 SF
- TOTAL LOWER LEVEL WALLS
EXPOSED WALLS:
14'-8" X 7' = 103 SF
1543 SF
EXPOSED/TOTAL WALLS
(103 / 1543 =6.6%
1508 X 6.8%101 SF
LIVING FAR= 3105 SF
GARAGE FAR=
TOTAL FAR= 3238 SF
3740 FAR INCLUDES 500 SF HPC BONUS
- PROPOSED FAR- EXISTING FAR
MAIN LEVEL FAR 1105 + 115 SF = 1220 SF
UPPER LEVEL FAR 914 SF
GARAGE 480 SF
480-250 = 230/2 = 115 SF
EXISTING FAR TOTAL: 2249 SF
FLOOR AREA- NET
1315 SF
1689 SF
133 SF
LIVING FAR TOTAL: 3105 SF
P
1
7
4
V
I
I
I
.
c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.1
7/14/15Plotted On:B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
W 2 4
W
2 4
D17
D 0 4
D17
D 0 4
D04
D 0 9
D 1 0
D01
D01
N
W
C
D
D D
E E
1
1
5
5
C C
A A
B B
2 43
1
0 1
/
2 "
1 0
'-0
"
2
3
'-
4
"
8
"
23'-3 3/4"6'-5"
50'-10 3/4"
24'-1 5/8"5'-7 1/8"20'-1 3/8"1'-0 5/8"
4
3
'-
8
3 /
4
"
25'-8 1/2"
5'-7 1/8"20'-1 3/8"
8
"
2
8
'-7
3
/8
"
4
'-1
5
/8 "
11 1/2"15'-7 3/4"5 1/2"5'-7"8"
5'-8 1/4"
1 1
1
/2
"
4
'-2
3
/8
"3
1
/2
"
5
'-8
3
/8
"
5 1
/
2
"
1
6
'-8
5
/8
"
1
1
1 /
2
"
11 1/2"5'-6 1/2"3 1/2"8'-8 3/8"5 1/2"6'-11"5 1/2"7'-5"5 1/2"10'-4 5/8"11 1/2"8'-4 1/4"
1
1
1
/
2
"
2
2
'-1 "
1
1 1
/
2 "
4
'-
4
5 /
8
"
5
1
/2
"
1
1
'-1
0
1
/2
"
11 1/2"19'-3"11 1/2"
N/S1/A5.1
CRAWL SPACE
CRAWL SPACE
T.O. PLY
88'-0"
MEDIA
ROOM
T.O. PLY
88'-0"
CLOSET
GUEST
MASTER BATH
T.O. PLY
88'-0"
CLOSET
GUEST MASTER
GUEST
MASTER BATH
LAUNDRY
MECH.
STORAGE
UP
1
A5.12
A5.2
4
A5.2
3A5.2
P
1
7
5
V
I
I
I
.
c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.2
7/14/15Plotted On:M
A
I N
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
D D
E E
1
1
5
5
1
2
3
N
C C
A A
B B
2
2
4
4
F
3
3
10 1/2"
3'-1 1/8"
10 1/2"11'-11 3/8"
24'-8 1/4"5 1/2"13'-4 1/8"5 1/2"2'-6"5 1/2"7'-5 7/8"
5 1
/
2 "
9
'-0
"
4
3
'-
1
1
5
/8
"
1
0
'-0
"
2
4
'-
0
"
3 '-8
1
/8
"
23'-3 7/8"6'-5"21'-2"
1'-0"
5'-11 1/2"
5
1 /
2
"
1
7
'-8
3
/
8 "
5 1
/
2 "
50'-10 3/4"
1'-0 5/8"
8
'-
9
3
/
8
"
5'-2 5/8"
12'-0 1/8"
5'-7 1/8"20'-1 3/8"
8 '-1
0
1
/4
"
1
0
1
/2
"
5
'-2 1
/
4 "3
1
/2
"
5
'-8
1
/2
"
3
1
/
2
"
1
9
'-1
0 7
/
8 "
1
'-
1
1
3
/4
"
1
0 1
/
2 "
1
A5.12
A5.2
4
A5.2
LIVING ROOM
FRONT PORCH
OPEN
TO
ABOVE
2 CAR
GARAGE
FAMILY ROOM
F
I R
E
P
L A C
E / M
E D I A
UPDN
PATIO
CLOSET
CABINET
T.O. PLY
98'-6"
T.O. PLY
98'-0"
DN
YARD
PROPERTY LINE
WALKWAY
98'-10"
KITCHEN
UC WINE
FRIDGE
KITCHEN STORAGE
CABINETS
DW
FRIDGE
FRZ ICE
DWR
TRASH
TV
FP
GUEST BATH
POWDER
PANTRY FRIG/FRZR
DINING
F L O
A
T
I N
G B U F F
E T
ENTRY
SLAB FOR
BIKE STORAGE
SIDE WALK
FROM ALLEY
S K
I S
T O
R
A
G E
W
/ B O
O
T S
B
E L O
W
BICYCLE
PATIO
W
I N
D
O
W
W
E
L
L
T.O. PLY
100'-0"
CLOSET
RUN NEW GAS FP
FLUE THROUGH
ROOF AT CHIMNEY
UP
DN
3A5.2
W
1 9
W
2 0
W 2 1
3 3
3
3
3
1
1
PUZZLE
TABLE
P
1
7
6
V
I
I
I
.
c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.3
7/14/15Plotted On:U
P
P
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
D31
W 2 3
W 2 3
W26
W27W58
W30W30W30W32W32
D 3 4
D 2 2
D D
E E
1
1
5
5
C C
A A
B B
2
2
4
4
3
3
N
N/S1/A5.1
<MARKERDRAWINGNUMBER_R><MARKERSHEETNUMBER_R>
<MARKERDRAWINGNUMBER_R><MARKERSHEETNUMBER_R>
1
A5.12
A5.2
4
A5.2
24'-1 5/8"25'-8 1/2"
1
0
'-0 1
/
8 "
5 1/2"1
0
'-8
1
/
2 "
5
1
/2
"
7 '-0
"
5
1
/2
"
5 '-4
1
/2
"
3
'-0 1
/
2 "
2'-9"24'-11 5/8"18'-6 1/8"7'-5"
11'-3 3/4"
50'-10 3/4"
8 '-7
3
/8
"
3
5
'-
1
1
/
8
"
13'-8 3/8"12'-0 1/8"
4
3
'-
8
3 /
4
"
1 0
'-0
"
1 8
'-7
3
/8
"
5
'-4
5
/8
"
1 0
'-0
"
5 1
/
2 "
1
2
'-8
3
/4
"
3 1
/
2
"
4
'-8
1
/8
"
5
1
/2
"
6"14'-9 3/4"5 1/2"7'-1"5 1/2"6'-5"5 1/2"5'-2 1/2"3 1/2"14'-9"5 1/2"
3A5.2
MONTEGO SINGLE
SIDED FIREPLACE
MODEL R320
OPEN TO BELOW
CLOSET
shed dormer
t.o. wall at 70 1/2"
gable 77 1/2" to center
b e n c h
CANTILEVERED
DECK
DECK
DORMER WALL
ABOVE
MASTER BATH
REMOVE CHIMNEY
BELOW; RUN NEW GAS
FP FLUE THROUGH
ROOF AT CHIMNEY
T.O. PLY
109'-0"
OPEN
TO
BELOW
WINDOW
SEAT
F
I R
E
P
L A C
E
STEAM
SHOWER
OVERFLOW CLOSET
D
R E S S
E R
HIGH PULL DOWN HANGING ABOVE
TV
F U L L L E N G
T H
M I R
R
O R , S E T I N
D
R
E S
S E
R
I N -C
A
B
I N
E T
W
/ D
s h e l v e
s o
r o
p e n
a b o
v e
shoe rack
WC
BATH
BEDROOM
1
DECK ON
ROOF BELOW
B U I L T I N
S T O R A G E
O N B O
T H S I D E S
O F F P / T V
O P E N T O
K I T C H E N
B E L O W F O R L I G H T
D E T A I L
CLOSET
MASTER BEDROOM
DW
D 3 1
P
1
7
7
V
I
I
I
.
c
Scale:
ISSUE
A 3.4
7/14/15Plotted On:R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS
I N DIC A T ED B Y T H E S E D R AWI N G S A N D
SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND
COPYRIGHT OF KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.
AND SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK
NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR ANY USE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED
AT THE SITE. ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCY
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL HAVE
BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED,
AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES.
1" ACTUAL
AS NOTED
DATE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/20/12
1
1
0
B
L
E
E
K
E
R
S
T
"
B
R
I
C
K
V
I
C
"
A
S
P
E
N
C
O
8
1
6
1 1
BIM Server: RSCSrv - BIM Server 18/Kim Raymond Architects, Inc./110 BLEEKER 6.15.15
D D
E E
1
1
5
5
C C
A A
B B
2
2
4
4
3
3
N
50'-10 3/4"7"7"
24'-3 3/4"5'-7"22'-2"
14'-9 3/4"14'-11"
9
'-1 1
1
5
/1
6
"
1 8
'-7
3
/8
"
5 '-4
1
1
/1
6
"
9
'-7
7
/1
6 "
3
3
/4
"
3
'-
4
5
/
8
"
3
'-1
1 3
/
4 "
8
'-4
1
/4
"
7
'-8
1
/2
"
2
0
'-
3
5 /1
6
"
1
'-2
1
/1
6
"
5
3
'-8
5
/8
"
1 8
'-7
3
/8
"
5 '-4
1
1
/1
6
"
1'-4 15/16"
6'-10 3/16"6'-10 3/16"1'-6 5/16"
9
3
/4
"
4 3
'-8
1
/2
"
1
'-2
1
/1
6
"
14'-3 15/16"13'-9 11/16"
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
10:12 PITCH
10:12 PITCH10:12 PITCH
10:12 PITCH
E X
I S
T
I N
G
P
I T
C
H
E X
I S
T
I N
G
P
I T
C
H
E
X I S T
I N
G
P
I T C
H
E
X
I S
T I N
G
P
I T
C
H
EXISTING PITCH
E
X I S T
I N
G
P
I T C
H
E
X I S T
I N
G
P
I T C
H
REBUILD HISTORIC ROOF
"FLAT ROOF"
SLOPED TO
DRAIN
EXISTING SKYLIGHT
TO BE REMOVED
SNOW BARRICADE
DECK BAR MOUNT
SYSTEM
SNOW BARRICADE
DECK BAR MOUNT
SYSTEM
SNOW BARRICADE
DECK BAR MOUNT
SYSTEM
NOT TO SCALE
SNOW STOP - BARRICADE
GUTTER
DOWNSPOUT
PLAN KEY
SNOW BARRICADE - SNOW STOP
P
1
7
8
V
I
I
I
.
c
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
2nd Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Housing Credits Code Amendment
Ordinance 34, Series of 2015
DATE: September 15, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance would amend the City’s Land Use Code to update requirements and
restrictions involving Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Amendments focus primarily
on the applicability of the chapter to different types of development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the second reading of proposed code amendments related to the Housing Credits chapter
of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final
review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the 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:
The City of Aspen created the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits in 2010 to encourage
the private sector to assist in the creation of affordable housing. Four Housing Credits projects
have been completed, and another is approved but not yet completed. To date, certificates have
been created for 47.91 FTEs1.
The program allows a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units, and then
receive a certificate from the City indicating how many FTEs were housed. The developer can
then sell those certificates (aka credits) to other developers who have their own housing
mitigation requirements. The developer who purchases the credits would then use them to
satisfy their affordable housing mitigation requirement, rather than using a cash-in-lieu payment
1 Certificates are for 28.91 Cat 2 FTEs, 1.75 Cat 3 FTEs, and 17.25 Cat 4 FTEs.
P179
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
2nd Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 2 of 4
or building their own affordable housing units. Only development within the City of Aspen can
use these credits, as no sister program has been created in surrounding jurisdictions.
OVERVIEW:
City Council approved a Policy Resolution on August 10, 2015 (Attached as Exhibit B)
providing staff with direction to amend the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter.
The amendments are intended to clarify the operations of the program, and are based on
experiences over the past 2-3 years. Below is a summary of the changes included in the code
amendment. The redline version is attached as Exhibit C.
Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application
of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction
that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing
was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream
to complete their mission and should not be competing with for-profit private sector individuals
for certificates.
The code amendment states that Housing Credits may only be established by a private sector
developer or a non-profit that does not receive public funding or whose core mission is not
related to the creation of housing. This means, for instance, that Habitat for Humanity is not
eligible to create Housing Credits, as their core mission is to create housing. Similarly, any non-
profit that is a taxing district would not be eligible, as they receive public funds.
Dormitory Units: The proposed amendment limits Housing Credits to full units (studios or
larger), and prohibits dormitory units from being eligible. While dormitory units provide an
important housing option for seasonal employees, they do not generally represent a long-term
housing solution for full-time employees. Because the credits program is used to mitigate full
time employee generation from development in the City of Aspen, planning staff is
recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits.
Sales Limitations: The proposed amendment requires that any housing which is part of a
mixed-use building (i.e. contains affordable housing units and any other use) be designated as
for-sale or be subject to some other form of permanent deed restriction if the housing units are
being used to create Housing Credits. This will ensure that these units will remain permanently
in the inventory, particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Also
included in the amendment is the ability for units in an entirely affordable housing building to be
for-sale or for-rent.
Fractional or Additional Housing Units: City Council supported allowing any additional
housing mitigation provided by a developer to be eligible for the creation of Housing Credits.
This situation arises when an applicant provides more housing than is required by their
development. For instance, a developer may have a requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the
easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an
overage of 0.10 FTEs. Similarly, a developer may choose to provide additional affordable
housing as part of their project. To be eligible for credits, these units must comply with the Sales
P180
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
2nd Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 3 of 4
Limitations provision above (i.e. be for-sale or be subject to another long-term agreement
guaranteeing the unit will remain permanently in the housing inventory).
Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units
provided, and the associated cash-in-lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines. Cash-in-
lieu is used to convert Credits between categories. This is needed because often the available
Housing Credits are not at the category a developer needs. Many of the Housing Credits have
been established from Category 2 units, but a developer’s housing mitigation is at Category 4. A
conversion between categories is necessary to ensure a developer is providing the correct
mitigation. Currently, there are no cash-in-lieu options for Categories 5 or higher, meaning there
is no way to convert higher category units to Category 4.
During the Policy Resolution public hearing, Council heard from the NextGen Commission
requesting that higher category units (Cats 5-7) be eligible for the program, stating that many
people from their constituency only qualify at the higher categories. The Housing Board had
recommended against allowing higher category units being included, as the community need is
focused in the lower categories (Cats 1-4). Council requested staff get additional feedback from
both the P&Z and the APCHA Board on this issue. Both recommended that the Land Use Code
be silent on categories, and instead reference the Housing Guidelines cash-in-lieu figures. The
code amendment has been updated to reflect this direction. It states that Housing Credits may be
created at any Category with established cash-in-lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines.
Location Limitations: The proposed code amendment limits where City of Aspen Housing
Credits may be established to within city limits. During the Policy Resolution public hearing,
Council expressed interest in potential incentives for building housing inside the round-about.
Staff recommends that any incentives be part of a larger policy discussion around housing
priorities. Staff suggests that any incentives apply broadly to all housing, including, buy-downs,
housing created because of a mitigation requirement, and housing created for Credits.
Outreach:
Staff conducted outreach with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Housing Board
as part of preparing the Policy Resolution. Meeting minutes from P&Z are attached as Exhibit
D, and an APCHA memo on the topic is attached as Exhibit E. Also attached is a memo from
the Next Generation Commission (Exhibit F).
As part of the Policy Resolution, Council asked staff to conduct additional outreach with the
boards regarding which Categories should be eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits.
Comments from the APCHA Board are attached as Exhibit H. P&Z’s meeting minutes are
attached as Exhibit I.
In addition, staff conducted direct outreach with Matt Brown and Peter Fornell, the main
developers of Affordable Housing Credit projects (Exhibit G). Outreach through the
department’s newsletter reached more than 600 subscribers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
P181
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
2nd Reading – 9/15/2015
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 2015, approving a code amendment regarding
Affordable Housing Credits.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Council Resolution 76, Series 2015
Exhibit C – Code Amendment Redlines
Exhibit D – P&Z meeting minutes, May 19, 2015
Exhibit E – Housing Board Recommendation Memo, July 1, 2015
Exhibit F – Comments from the Next Gen Commission
Exhibit G – Comments from Peter Fornell and Matt Brown
Exhibit H – Housing Board Category Recommendation Memo, August 20, 2015
Exhibit I – P&Z meeting minutes, August 18, 2015
P182
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE No. 34
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 26.540 – CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT, 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 amendments related to the Housing Credits 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 with the Planning &
Zoning Commission, APCHA Board, private developers of affordable housing, and through the
Community Development Department newsletter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015, by a five to zero
(5 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to update the Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credits chapter; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.540 – Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit; 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: Chapter 26.540.010, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Purpose, shall be
amended as follows:
26.540.010 Purpose
P183
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 2 of 4
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the private sector to develop
affordable housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the
impacts of development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of
affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a
Certificate and use it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable
Certificate creates a new revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing
more economically viable. Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for
mitigation that reflects built and occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of
development before those impacts are felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing,
transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Section 2: Chapter 26.540.030, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Applicability and
prohibitions, shall be amended as follows:
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Housing credits may only
be established from affordable housing created on a voluntary basis and designated at any
Category with established cash-in-lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines, including the deed-
restriction of unrestricted units (buy-down units).
City of Aspen Housing Credits may be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen as
provided in this Title, and may be used in other jurisdictions as may be authorized by that
jurisdiction. City of Aspen Housing Credits may only be established from development within
the City of Aspen boundaries.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed.
Transfer shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the Community Development Director re-issue the
Credit Certificate acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures for the printing of
certificates, their safe-keeping, issuance, re-issuance, record-keeping, and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
Fractional units are eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits if deed restricted as for-sale
or are subject to an agreement with the City requiring the unit to be permanently deed restricted.
For example, if a development project is required to mitigate 2.4 FTEs and is proposing on-site
units that house 3 FTEs, the additional 0.6 FTEs proposed that are not required for mitigation are
eligible for establishment as a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Any affordable housing units created for the establishment of Housing Credits, including
fractions thereof, which are part of a mixed-use building shall be deed restrict as for-sale. Units
that are part of a 100% affordable housing project may be for-rent.
P184
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 3 of 4
This Chapter does not apply to the following:
1. Affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
2. Affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2010.
3. Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-
governmental organization (NGO) that receives public funds for the purpose of building
affordable housing.
4. Dormitory units.
5. The creation of voluntary affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category which a
cash-in-lieu rate has not been established in the Housing Guidelines.
Section 3: Chapter 26.540.080(B), Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, Procedure for
issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit, shall be deleted.
Section 4: Scrivener’s Errors
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 5: 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 6: 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 7: 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 8:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 15th day of September, 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.
P185
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Housing Credits
Ordinance 34, Series 2015
Page 4 of 4
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of August, 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
P186
VIII.d
Code Amendment – Affordable Housing Credits
2nd Reading – 9/15/2015
Exhibit A
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 City of Aspen implemented the Housing Credits program in 2010 and has seen a number of
successful private sector housing developments as a result. To date, housing for nearly 48 FTEs
has been created through the program. While the program has been a success, there are
improvements and clarifications to be made. These include specifying what types of units
qualify for the creation of Housing Credits, as well as limiting the program to private-sector
entities. Staff believes the clarifications in the code amendment will ensure the program remains
viable well into the future. 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 calls for ensuring the rules for affordable housing are
clear (Housing Policy V.1), and that all affordable housing should be within the UGB (Housing
Policy IV.2). This code amendment clarifies the rules related to the creation of affordable
housing credits, and ensures that new housing for credits is located with the City of Aspen. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The intent of the proposed amendment is to ensure a viable Housing Credits Program through the
creation of private sector non-mitigation housing that meets community needs. Staff finds that this
objective is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose of Title 26. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
P187
VIII.d
Exhibit B – Approved Policy Resolution
Code Amendment - Housing Credits
Council Policy Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 76,
(SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CREDIT CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to amend the land use code to codify a
previous Council direction to limit the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Chapter
to private developers; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach to subscribers of the community development
department newsletter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Chapter 26.540 of 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 August 10, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 76, Series of 2015,
by a five – zero (5-0) vote, requesting code amendments to 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
Council hereby provides direction to the Community Development Director to amend
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, of the Land Use Code. The
objective of the proposed Land Use code amendment is to specify that:
• Units must be studios or have 1 or more bedrooms (no dorms);
• Fractional units are not eligible for Housing Credits unless they are designated as
“for-sale” or have some other permanent deed restriction that requires the unit to
be built back following demolition;
• Staff should get additional feedback from the APCHA Board and the Planning &
Zoning Commission regarding any Category limitations in the program;
P188
VIII.d
Exhibit B – Approved Policy Resolution
Code Amendment - Housing Credits
Council Policy Resolution No. 76, Series 2015
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2
• Only private sector individuals and entities may create Housing Credits (public
sector and housing-based non-profits cannot create Housing Credits);
• Unless a proposal is for 100% affordable housing, all units created for Housing
Credits must be for-sale; and
• Project must be located within the City of Aspen. Staff should explore options to
incentivize housing credit construction east of the round-about.
Section 2:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 10th day of August, 2015.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P189
VIII.d
Exhibit C - Redlines
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 7
Chapter 26.540
CERTIFICATES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
Sections:
26.540.010 Purpose
26.540.020 Terminology
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
26.540.040 Authority
26.540.050 Application and fees
26.540.060 Procedures for establishing a credit
26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
26.540.080 Procedures for issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit
26.540.090 Authority of the certificate
26.540.100 Transferability of the certificate
26.540.110 Exchanging category designation of an affordable housing certificate
26.540.120 Extinguishment and re-issuance of a certificate
26.540.130 Amendments
26.540.140 Appeals
26.540.010 Purpose
There are two main purposes of this chapter: to encourage the development ofprivate sector to develop
affordable housing; and to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the
impacts of development. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is issued to the developer of
affordable housing that is not required for mitigation. Another entity can purchase such a Certificate and
use it to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. Establishing this transferable Certificate creates a new
revenue stream that can make the development of affordable housing more economically viable.
Establishing this transferable Certificate also establishes an option for mitigation that reflects built and
occupied affordable housing, thereby offsetting the impacts of development before those impacts are
felt. This Chapter describes the process for establishing, transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.020 Terminology
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (Credit or Certificate). A transferable document issued by
the City of Aspen acknowledging and documenting the voluntary provision of affordable housing which
is not otherwise required by this Title or by a Development Order issued by the City of Aspen. The
Certificate documents the Category Designations and number of employees housed by the affordable
housing. The Credit is irrevocable and assignable. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit is a
bearer instrument.
Establishing a Credit. The process of the City of Aspen acknowledging the voluntary provision of
affordable housing through issuance of a transferable Credit.
Extinguishing a Credit. The process of the City accepting a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of a development.
P190
VIII.d
Exhibit C - Redlines
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
2nd Reading 9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 2 of 7
Category Designation. A classification system used to reflect different sales price and rental rate
restrictions of affordable housing as set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
26.540.030 Applicability and prohibitions
This Chapter applies to all Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit created prior to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 32, Series 2012, and henceforth. . Housing credits may only be established from
affordable housing created on a voluntary basis and designated at any Category with established
cash-in-lieu rates in the Housing Guidelines, including the deed-restriction of unrestricted units (buy-
down units).
City of Aspen Housing Credits Certificates may be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen as
provided in this Title, and . Credit Certificates may be used in other jurisdictions as may be
authorized by that jurisdiction. City of Aspen Housing Credits may only be established from
development within the City of Aspen boundaries.
This Chapter applies to affordable housing created on a voluntary basis. It does not apply to
affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is otherwise
required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. This Chapter does not apply to
affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010.
A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer
shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer,
the new owner may request the Community Development Director re-issue the Credit Certificate
acknowledging the new owner.
The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Credit.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not inconsistent with
this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe-keeping, issuance, re-issuance, record-keeping,
and extinguishments.
Projects seeking approval to develop affordable housing in exchange for Certificates of Affordable
Housing Credit may be subject to additional reviews pursuant to this Title.
Fractional units are eligible for the establishment of Housing Credits if deed restricted as for-sale or
are subject to an agreement with the City requiring the unit to be permanently deed restricted. For
example, if a development project is required to mitigate 2.4 FTEs and is proposing on-site units that
house 3 FTEs, the additional 0.6 FTEs proposed that are not required for mitigation are eligible for
establishment as a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
Any affordable housing units created for the establishment of Housing Credits, including fractions
thereof, which are part of a mixed-use building shall be deed restrict as for-sale. Units that are part of
a 100% affordable housing project may be for-rent.
This Chapter does not apply to the following:
P191
VIII.d
Exhibit C - Redlines
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 3 of 7
1. Affordable housing created to address an obligation of a Development Order or which is
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
2. Affordable housing units created prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2010.
3. Affordable housing units developed by, or in association with: the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or similar government or non-
governmental organization (NGO) that receives public funds for the purpose of building
affordable housing.
4. Dormitory units.
5. The creation of voluntary affordable housing units deed restricted at a Category which a cash-
in-lieu rate has not been established in the Housing Guidelines.
26.540.040 Authority
The Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of
this Chapter and of Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit.
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of
this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, is authorized to issue,
re-issue, exchange Category designations, and extinguish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.050 Application
All applications shall include the information required under Chapter 26.304, Common Development
Review Procedures. In addition, all applications must also include the following information.
1. The net livable square footage of each unit.
2. If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage
requirements are requested according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines.
3. Proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit.
4. Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing units in increments of no less than one-
one-hundredth (.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2 – Employees Housed.
26.540.060 Procedures for establishing an affordable housing credit
A development application to establish a certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall be reviewed
pursuant to the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304, and the
following procedures and standards. The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall
review a recommendation from the Community Development Director and shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an application to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. This
requires a one-step process as follows:
A. Step One – Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
P192
VIII.d
Exhibit C - Redlines
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
2nd Reading 9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 4 of 7
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the standards for authorizing establishment of
a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
2. Process: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director.
3. Standards of review: 26.540.070
4. Form of decision: Planning and Zoning Commission decision shall be by resolution. The
resolution may include a description or diagram of the affordable housing.
5. Notice requirements: The requirements of 26.212.060 shall apply. No public hearing notice is
required.
26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit
An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of
the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section
26.470.070.4(a-d).
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not
otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
26.540.080 Procedure for issuing a certificate of affordable housing credit
Once the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved an Affordable Housing Credit through
adoption of a Resolution, and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the affordable housing
unit(s), the Community Development Director shall issue a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
in a form prescribed by the Director.
A. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit shall include the following information:
1. A number of the Certificate in chronological order of their issuance.
2. Parcel identification number, legal address and the street address of the affordable housing.
3. The Category Designation and number of employees housed by the affordable housing units,
according to Section 26.470.100.2 – Employees Housed, in increments of no less than one-
one-hundredths (.01).
B. Issuance of the Certificate. At the time of issuance of a Certificate by the City, a letter
acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the certificate shall be submitted by the owner to the
Community Development Department.
26.540.090 Authority of the Certificate
The Certificate may be utilized in whole or in part, including fractions of an FTE no less than .0 1 FTE,
to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with other applicable sections of
this Title.
P193
VIII.d
Exhibit C - Redlines
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 5 of 7
(Ord. No. 6-2010, §5; Ord. No. 32-2012, §1)
26.540.100 Transferability of the certificate
A. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed in
whole or in part, in increments no less than one-one-hundredth (.01). Transfer of Title shall be
evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new
owner may request the City re-issue the Certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re-issuance shall not
require re-review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall be recorded in the real estate records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development
Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the
Certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the
Certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the Credit void.
C. The market for Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit is unrestricted and the City shall not
prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
26.540.110 Converting category designation of an affordable housing certificate
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit represent a number of employees housed at a specific
Category designation. Projects seeking extinguishment of a Credit to satisfy affordable housing
mitigation standards of this Title may have a different Category Designation requirement than an
existing Certificate represents. This section sets forth a process to convert a Certificate of a certain
Category Designation for a Certificate of a different Category Designation. This process amends the
number of employees housed to create an equivalency. This Section relies on the Affordable Housing
Dedication Fees (aka Fee-in-Lieu) stated in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
are amended from time to time.
To convert a Certificate of a certain Category Designation for a Certificate of a different Category
Designation, the following steps are necessary:
Step 1. Multiply the employees housed stated on the existing Certificate by the per employee
Fee-in-Lieu fee for the Category Designation as stated in the APCHA Guidelines.
Step 2. Divide the resulting number from step 1 by the Fee-in-Lieu fee for the Category
Designation of the proposed Certificate.
The resulting number from step 2 shall be the employees housed for the proposed Certificate. The
Community Development Director shall re-issue a Certificate using this number of employees housed
and specifying the proposed Category Designation.
Example: An owner of a Category 3 Certificate wishes to exchange the Certificate for a Category
2 Certificate. The existing Certificate states 2.25 employees housed.
Step 1. Employees housed multiplied by Category 3 per-FTE Fee-in-Lieu.
2.25 X $217,567 = $489,525.75
P194
VIII.d
Exhibit C - Redlines
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
2nd Reading 9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 6 of 7
Step 2. Number from step 1 divided by Category 2 per-FTE Fee-in-Lieu.
$489,525.75 / $230,583 = 2.12
In this example, the Community Development Director would re-issue a Certificate stating 2.12
employees housed and a Category 2 designation. Please note that the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Fee-in-Lieu rates change from time to time. The rates used for this calculation
shall be those in effect upon request for conversion.
The conversion of a Certificate’s Category Designation shall be approved by the Community
Development Director and shall not require additional review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
26.540.120 Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate
F. Unless otherwise stated in a Development Order, extinguishing all or part of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit shall occur prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the development for
which the housing mitigation is required. Extinguishment shall be evidenced by an assignment of
ownership on the actual certificate document to “the City of Aspen for extinguishment.”
B. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit may be extinguished to satisfy affordable housing
requirements of this Title if the Community Development Director finds the following standards met:
1. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as required by this Title, have
been obtained and the applicant has submitted the necessary information, pursuant to Section
26.304.075, Building Permit.
2. The applicant has submitted authentic Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit in the
number and Category Designation required for the development.
3. The Certificate owner has assigned ownership of the Certificates to “the City of Aspen for
extinguishment.”
C. When all of a Certificate is extinguished, the city shall void the Certificate. When part of a
Certificate is extinguished, the city shall issue a Certificate citing the remaining FTEs in increments
of no less than .01 of employees housed.
26.540.130 Amendments
Amendments to an affordable housing project that occur during additional review(s) required by this
Title or other amendments which do not change the essential nature of the project may be approved
by the Community Development Director. Revisions to the number or Category Designation of the
affordable housing units and Credit Certificates to be issued shall be reflected in a revised
development order.
Revisions to the number or Category Designation of the affordable housing units and Credit
Certificates to be issued, proposed after all approvals are granted, shall require re-review pursuant to
the standards and procedures of this Chapter.
26.540.140 Appeals
P195
VIII.d
Exhibit C - Redlines
Code Amendment - Housing Credits Code Amendment Redlines
9/15/2015
Exhibit C
Page 7 of 7
An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director or Planning
and Zoning Commission, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council,
pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
P196
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Other Business – Code Amendment Discussion
Ms. Garrow informed P&Z there is no set timeframe yet for the potential code amendments to be in
front of City Council. In preparation, Staff is gathering feedback regarding the items being discussed at
tonight’s meeting.
Elevators in Commercial / Mixed-Use Buildings
Ms. Garrow stated there are two possible additions regarding elevators in commercial buildings.
a) Add a requirement for elevators to provide access to all floors in a commercial or mixed-use
building. Currently, there are no requirements.
b) Add a requirement for separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Mr. Bendon noted the Gap building as an example of item a). The elevator does not serve all units on all
floors. Mr. Walterscheid commented the elevator in the Gap building does reach the basement, but the
tenant modified the basement space which eliminated access to the elevator for the ground floor
commercial tenants using the basement for storage.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees there should be access provided to the trash, recycle and utility areas for
commercial tenants.
Mr. Bendon stated Staff would prefer to avoid situations requiring retrofits to address ADA
requirements or changes in use for a building.
Ms. Tygre noted there are existing buildings without elevators.
Mr. Walterscheid agrees with the intent of the change requested.
Mr. Goode feels requiring multiple elevators may require significant space and cost.
The commission generally agrees with the requirement of elevators to ensure access, but questioned
the requirement of physically separate elevators for residential and commercial uses.
Certificates of Affordable Housing
Ms. Garrow reviewed the six proposed modifications as listed below.
1) Public Sector Limits
Staff is proposing to codify Council’s previously provided direction that no public sector or non-profit
entity may use the program.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the exclusion of non-profits. Mr. Bendon stated the idea was to not
allow entities who utilize public dollars, especially local public dollars, to utilize the program.
P&Z felt the change sounded reasonable.
2) Dormitory Units
Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. They want to avoid people creating
dormitory units for credits.
Page 2
P197
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 19, 2015
Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis felt this was acceptable because dormitory units do not satisfy the long
term needs of the housing program.
Mr. Mesirow would like to see if the units could somehow be included.
3) Fractional Credits
Staff is recommending codifying the ability to provide credit for any overage created as units are
built to satisfy a requirement. Staff believes this may encourage owners to build more units onsite.
Mr. Goode asked how the City deals with past situations when owners had an overage they were
not compensated for at the time. Mr. Bendon replied the change would only impact applications
moving forward from the date approved.
P&Z supports the proposed change.
4) Sales Limitations
Staff is proposing only for sale units be allowed for housing credits.
Mr. Goode would like further investigation to determine if rentals could possibly be included.
5) Category Limitations
Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) identified the need for lower
category units at this time.
Staff recommends limiting the credit program to units defined as category 4 or lower.
Ms. Tygre agrees with the recommendation.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there may be unintended consequences.
Mr. Mesirow stated a recent study conducted by the Next Generation Advisory Commission found
there was a shortage of higher category units. Mr. Morris stated he understands Mr. Mesirow’s
concerns but wants additional information to confirm the need.
P&Z supports the proposed change but feels additional information may be helpful to confirm the
exact need.
6) Location Limitations
P&Z feels it is best to limit the locations to the City of Aspen only at this time to limit sprawl. At
some point in the future, it may be necessary to consider the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if any discussions with the county has occurred. Mr. Bendon replied at
this time no, but they would welcome a discussion.
Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed code changes.
Page 3
P198
VIII.d
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: July 1, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: Community Development Department is taking forward proposed changes to Chapter
26.540 of the Land Use Code that deals with the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
program.
BACKGROUND: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their Regular Meeting held
May 20, 2015. The Board directed staff to bring the discussion back after the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P&Z) provided feedback to the Community Development Department
(CDD). Below are the proposed changes by the CDD and the feedback from P&Z:
• Public Sector Limits:
o CDD – Any public sector entity will not be allowed to utilize this program.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
• Dormitory Units:
o CDD – Due to fact that a dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of
living as a typical studio, 1-bedroom, etc., provision of dormitory-type units
would not be allowed under the Credit program.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
• Fractional Credits:
o CDD – Some developments provide more housing than required. This policy
would only allow someone with a full credit to utilize the Credit program;
fractional credits would not be allowed.
o P&Z – Supported allowing any fractional FTE overage from an on-site unit to be
turned into a housing credit.
• Sales Limitation:
o CDD – Rental units should not be approved in mixed-use projects, only
ownership-type units.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
P199
VIII.d
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
• Category Limitations:
o CDD – Since mitigation for employee housing is required at Category 4 or below,
the credit program should be limited to Category 4 or below as well.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change.
• Location Limitations:
o CDD – The Code does not provide limitations as to where someone could develop
affordable units utilizing the credit program. The recommendation is to limit the
use of the Credit Program within the City Limits.
o P&Z – Agreed with CDD’s proposed change to limit the use of the credit program
within the City of Aspen.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the proposed changes at their regular meeting
held July 1, 2015, and recommended the following:
• Public Sector Limits – The Board agrees that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units – Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits – The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation – The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for-sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations – The Board recommends that the credits remain at Category 4 or
below. These categories are our biggest need.
• Location Limitations – Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommends that until such time that the County would adopt a
similar program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City
limits.
P200
VIII.d
P201
VIII.d
P202
VIII.d
From: Peter Fornell [mailto:p.fornell@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Re: Housing Credits code amendment check-in
Thanks Jessica and I do support your ideas for those changes generally speaking. If the developer needs
to mitigate 1.8 and they build a 2 bedroom which is 2.25 I believe they should be entitled to a credit
worth .45 which would be saleable. This might increase the likelihood of an on-site mitigation. I might be
misunderstanding you but that was what I thought I'd come out of the last conversation which I would
also support.
Thanks,
Peter
From: Matt L. Brown [mailto:mbrown@merchantserviceshq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: RE: Housing Credits code amendment check-in
Hi Jessica, my comments are below next to topics…
Summary of potential changes:
• Prohibit public sector and non-profit entities (i.e. the City or APCHA) from creating
credits. Makes sense to me, if the City’s program is to encourage private enterprise
development of affordable units. Would be unfair for City to compete and would probably
dissuade private developers from creating units.
• Prohibit the creation of credits from dormitory units and units deed restricted at Category 5
and above. I think Dorm units have some merit for seasonal workforce and transitional housing,
but if the City doesn’t, that’s understandable. Some people suggested a lower Credit generation
for that type of housing.
• Only allow credits to be created from an entire unit, not a fractional unit. We often see
commercial or lodge developers providing mitigation for slightly more FTEs than their
development generates, and this would clarify that that slight overage is not eligible for the
creation of a Housing Credit. This makes sense to me.
• Require units that are used to create Housing Credits to be for sale when they are in a mixed-
use, commercial, or lodge development. A stand-alone housing project could be for sale or for
rent. So, this would create credits from a for rent project on a 100% residential site? I think the
city/apcha would like some for rent units and this would be helpful to incent developers to build
it.
• Limit the creation of housing credits to projects within the City of Aspen boundaries. So, no
more Airport units? I thought this was the rule already. Works for me.
Thanks, Matt Brown
215-266-5211
P203
VIII.d
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
DATE: August 20, 2015
RE: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HOUSING CREDIT PROGRAM
ISSUE: The APCHA was asked by the City of Aspen’s Community Development Department to
provide additional feedback on code amendments to Chapter 26.540 of the Land Use Code
dealing with Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
BACKGROUND: City Council approved a policy resolution on August 10 that directed the
Community Development Department staff to recommend code amendments to the Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit chapter of the Land Use Code. City Council directed them to
obtain additional feedback from both P&Z and the APCHA Board relating to the category limits
of affordable housing created through the credit program.
DISCUSSION: The NextGen Housing Committee asked that the use of credits be increased
above Category 4. Previously, the APCHA Board had recommended the credit program should
be limited to Category 4 or lower units because such units are thought to meet the greatest need
within the community.
The City land use code caps affordable housing mitigation at Category 4. The Guidelines provide
fee-in-lieu for Categories 1 through 4 only, so in order for a developer to provide Category 5, 6
and 7 affordable housing under the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit program, fees for
the higher categories would need to be established.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes the City’s land use code limits Certificates of
Affordable Housing Credits to Category 4 and below. However, APCHA staff believes there
could and should be further policy discussion for allowing Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credit for Categories 5, 6 and 7 for housing mitigation purposes and recommends the expansion
of the Certificate Program once the fee-in-lieu amounts for each category (1 through 4 as well as
the addition of 5 through 7) reflect the more accurate construction and land costs to in
establishing the fee.
Previous comments:
P204
VIII.d
Recommended Changes to the Housing Credit Program Page 2
• Public Sector Limits – The Board agreed that the program should be allowed for private
sector entities and that the public sector and/or non-profit entities should be exempt from
utilizing the program.
• Dormitory Units – Although there is still a need for dormitory units, the Board agreed
that until such time the standard occupancy of 1.0 FTE equates to 150 square feet is
readdressed, dormitory unit should be exempt from the program.
• Fractional Credits – The Board agreed with the Community Development Department
that only full units should be granted the use of the Credit Program and that fractional
overages should be exempt.
• Sales Limitation – The Board agreed that the program should be utilized for ownership
units only, unless a 100% affordable housing project is developed. In this instance, it
could be utilized as a for-sale project or a rental project.
• Category Limitations – The Board previously recommended that affordable housing
credits be used for Category 4 or below units based on a belief that lower categories are
the community’s biggest need.
• Location Limitations – Although there could be an excellent proposed project outside of
the City limits, the Board recommended that until such time the County adopts a similar
program, the credits should only be approved for units provided within the City limits.
P205
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
7
Mr. Elliott asked if the commission wanted to further discuss if the resolution should approve the use of
stucco and stated he is okay with the use of the stucco. Mr. Goode stated he accepts the use of stucco.
Ms. McNicholas agreed and likes how it breaks up the massing. Ms. Tygre agreed with the others.
Mr. McNight feels the proposal is great and doesn’t see the need to change anything approved by City
Council.
Mr. Walterscheid also felt the applicant has done an outstanding job reaching out to their neighbors. He
understands they are still working on concerns. He also understands the process working with
Engineering and is not too concerned. He looks forward to seeing the project.
Mr. McNellis motioned to approve Resolution 17, Series 2015 as drafted by Staff with additional
information be added for the applicant to comply with all Engineering standards in regards to the CMP.
Ms. Garrow stated if the motion is seconded, Staff proposes adding sub section 6.5 Construction
Management Plan stating the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to ensure the final
CMP meets all City requirements. Mr. McNellis was acceptable to Staff’s proposal. Mr. McNellis also
added that any language referring to the removal of stucco should be removed from the resolution. Ms.
Tygre seconded the motion.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Ms. McNicholas, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot,
yes; Mr. Goode, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote.
Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing.
Housing Credits Code Amendment Check-In – Other Business
Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff.
Ms. Garrow stated this is not a public hearing and Staff will periodically meet with P&Z to review
proposed code amendments. She stated this was a second check-in regarding housing credits. In the
previous week, City Council approved a policy resolution directing Staff to move forward with code
amendments to the certificates of affordable housing credit chapter. Previously, P&Z as well as the
Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Board had weighed in potential code amendments.
The potential amendments are the result of evaluating the program over the past two to three years
and included amendments related to category limitations, location limitations, sales or rental
limitations.
The feedback received earlier from P&Z and APCHA was presented to Council who then asked Staff to
move forward with the code amendment.
Council also requested Staff obtain additional comments from both boards regarding category
limitations. At the previous meeting with P&Z, Staff had recommended the credits chapter be limited to
categories one through four for two reasons.
P206
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
8
1) There are no cash-in-lieu figures for the higher categories, five through seven and it
is needed in order to convert the certificates between the different categories.
Often a developer will build affordable housing at a category two or three level and
then convert them to credits to sell them to developers who need to satisfy their
mitigation requirements. For example, a developer’s mitigation requirement may be
at a category four, so if the housing credit holder has category two certificates,
there needs to be a way to convert them to category four so the developer can
satisfy their mitigation requirement.
2) If the code mitigation is required for a category four, there may be a policy tie in.
The Next Generation Commission had submitted comments to Council during the previous hearing
requesting the higher categories be included within the housing credits program to allow a developer of
housing credits to pick whatever category they want to build. She noted their research indicates there is
some need for the higher categories for the 18-40 demographic.
She stated APCHA is planning to discuss this at a meeting on August 19th. She noted their stance
currently is that APCHA Staff recognizes the City’s Land Use Code limits certificates of affordable housing
credits to categories four and lower. However, APCHA Staff believes there could and should be further
policy discussion allowing certificates of affordable housing credit for categories five through seven for
housing mitigation purposes.
Staff is requesting P&Z to respond regarding their level of comfort with allowing certificates to be
created at any category level or would they prefer those be created for categories one through four
only. Because Planning Staff considers the issue to be technical in nature, they are proposing the code
amendment include language stating categories are limited to those with established cash-in-lieu
numbers. That leaves a policy discussion for APCHA to consider and addresses the technical issue.
She asked P&Z for feedback and recommendations for City Council on this item to be considered in the
public hearing scheduled in September.
Mr. Walterscheid asked for the current cap on category four income. Ms. Garrow did not have them
readily available but provided them later in the meeting. They are as stated in the following table. Mr.
Walterscheid asked if the only thing needed is a metric to convert the higher categories. Ms. Garrow
stated he is correct, so instead Staff’s proposal is to allow for housing credits to be created for any unit
where cash-in-lieu numbers exist in the APCHA Guidelines. This will allow for APCHA to have the policy
discussion.
Maximum Incomes 0 dependents 3 or more dependents
Category four $145,000 $167,500
Categories five-seven $155,000 $208,000
Ms. Tygre noted category four has the largest number of owners followed by category three owners per
the APCHA Inventory Stats table included as part of Exhibit A. She is concerned there are only 15 units in
category one. She feels the policy discussion needs to be looked into more deeply than what can be
done at tonight’s meeting so she agrees with Staff’s proposed solution to continue the policy portion
and implement only the technical portion at this time. Ms. McNicholas agreed with Ms. Tygre and is
sensitive to APCHA driving the policy discussion more than P&Z.
P207
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
9
Mr. Mesirow acknowledged he sits on both P&Z as well as the Next Generation Advisory Commission
(NextGen) that conducted polling sessions regarding housing in the Aspen Area. He stated housing is
seen as one of the biggest inhibitors for young people to sustain a life in Aspen. The housing committee
conducted four housing summits including discussion groups, clicker sessions and white board sessions
in which 48 people between the ages of 18 and 40 participated. To Mr. Mesirow’s surprise, the number
one concern was the lack of units in certain categories.
Ms. Kimbo Brown-Schiratto and Ms. Lindsey Palardy, NextGen members, requested to add input on the
conversation. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would allow her input as long as other commissioners were
not concerned. None spoke of any concerns.
In regards to the top challenges, Ms. Palardy stated the number one concern based on feedback from
the participants was that there were not enough units in certain categories. The white board sessions
identified concerns of available units in higher categories as well as the lower categories. Ms. Brown-
Schiratto felt the income levels of the participants skewed to the higher category units.
Mr. Mesirow feels clearly there is demand in the higher categories and it is important to address the
demand in all categories. He feels it is politically more difficult to justify the higher category units so they
don’t tend to get built. In terms of the tonight’s discussion, the policy should not favor any one category
and feels the current limits of categories one through four creates an artificial ceiling.
Mr. Walterscheid then acknowledged Mr. Peter Fornell to speak. Mr. Fornell stated building for higher
categories is not necessarily a bad idea and allowing certificates to be created for higher categories is
not a bad idea. He described scenarios for using credits to build affordable housing and noted you
currently can put more money in your pocket with the category two units. The majority of the money
derived from the production of the units comes from the certificate sales which takes time. If there were
a cash-in-lieu number for category seven, the majority of a money to a developer is going to come at the
closing table and a small part of the overall development pro forma is going to come from the certificate
sales. It will pave the road for developers to want to build at the higher category levels. For him,
demand at the lower categories is tremendous. He stated there were 242 applicants for 10 units at 518
Main St. He is concerned that care needs to be taken so that it does not become advantageous to only
build higher category units. The City wants to build units with the least subsidy (higher categories) so
they can get more front doors. He noted they lowered some of the categories at Burlingame. He
understands NextGen’s concerns but he wants to make sure the certificate program is not turned into
something that only serves a smaller demand level.
Ms. Garrow stated another issue to keep in mind is the code requires mitigation at a category four level
and the certificates are used to mitigate developer’s requirement. In other words, mitigation is allowed
at the higher categories, like the Sky Hotel for instance. They currently are required to mitigate at
category four or lower. Mr. Walterscheid asked why the policy was set this way. Ms. Garrow stated the
housing program has been around for many years and when it first began, it focused on moderate
income and that translated to categories, specifically categories three and four. She did not know why
APCHA does not have cash-in-lieu numbers for the higher categories.
Ms. Tygre stated in regards to mitigating, any new hotel being built is not going to pay its employees
over $100,000 for the most part. She feels it makes sense to have the mitigation match the type of
employees needed and she also recognizes the category for young professionals is completely different
category.
P208
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
10
Mr. Walterscheid asked about the City’s stance in regards to the value of the certificate. Ms. Garrow
stated the City does not place a value on the certificates. They are bought and sold on the free market
and the City has no involvement whatsoever.
Mr. Walterscheid then asked about the City’s stance in regards to the valuation of the cash-in-lieu fee.
Ms. Garrow stated the cash-in-lieu fee is under discussion currently and believes it will be going before
Council within the next few weeks. She feels the number is likely to change and looks like it will be going
down. Mr. McNellis asked if P&Z was part of this discussion at which Ms. Garrow replied no. She added
there was a detailed study completed by a third party company to study real employment figures
related to areas including construction and the operation of homes. The study revealed the cash-in-lieu
numbers are higher than they should be. Ms. McNicholas noted that Mr. Chris Bendon had previously
discussed the study with P&Z.
Mr. Walterscheid asked in addition to the value, was the number of full time employees (FTEs) created
by development part of the study. Ms. Garrow stated it was part of the methodology used.
Ms. Garrow stated Council wants to know if P&Z have a strong feeling on any kind of category limitation
for credits. Should they be limited to category four and lower or should the land use code be agnostic
and state it is limited to whatever categories have cash-in-lieu figures within the APCHA guidelines.
Mr. McNellis stated a third option would be to create a number for all categories. APCHA would have to
determine the values for categories above category four.
Mr. McNellis stated he agrees with Staff’s language and supports it being driven by APCHA who should
determine the need to define numbers for categories five through seven.
Ms. McNicholas asked if Council will adopt the conversion figure as part of the code amendment. Ms.
Garrow stated it is already in the land use code now. The code amendment is focused on how the
certificates are created. For instance, it could only be created from housing within the City of Aspen or it
can only be for sale if part of a mixed use building. Ms. McNicholas asked if you could take credits
created by a category two or three. Ms. Garrow stated there are already cash-in-lieu numbers for
categories one through four which allows staff to determine the value for FTEs at category one for a
category four.
Mr. Walterscheid was curious if there were advantages to a category seven than a lower category and
should the metric be determined to favor the middle level categories. Ms. Garrow stated it is possible to
state certificates at a higher level are worth few FTEs. She added this is a much larger policy discussion
and would require more input from both P&Z and APCHA.
Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Garrow about Council’s recent discussion regarding remainder or fractional
certificates. Ms. Garrow stated Council’s direction is that if a developer over mitigates their project and
they have a fraction or full unit remaining, they can be turned into credits if they are for sale units or
there some other deed restriction agreement in place to ensure they will permanently be in the
inventory.
Mr. Fornell stated the certificate program is currently in dire straits. It’s on the verge of collapse because
they are about to change the cash-in-lieu number to a number that no one can afford to use to build
P209
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
11
affordable housing including the City and other developers. Almost four years ago, Council directed
APCHA to conduct a study of what it takes to produce a FTE within the city limits. The 11 month study
determined they are collecting approximately half of what it takes to produce the unit currently. The
direction coming to Council recently requests they lower the cash-in-lieu number based on the notion
the City can take the money and someday forward can build 400 units at the lumberyard. They are
basing their calculation of the future possibility. When a developer has to mitigate housing, they don’t
have a choice of walking six miles outside of town to build their housing. He feels they are not
comparing apples to apples. There are currently no competitors in the market for the development of
housing for certificates out of fear the City is going to drop the number and collect all the money. The
recent study was not an independent study. It was done by Barry Crook internally and is a bad deal for
the Next Generation people and for the community. He encouraged P&Z to support the certificate
program.
Mr. Mesirow asked if Mr. Fornell’s concerns impact tonight’s question at which Ms. Garrow stated it
does not. Mr. Fornell stated the recent discussion regarding fractional certificates impact potential
competition.
Ms. Brown-Schiratto added NextGen has come to the conclusion the City is most likely not going to build
the higher category units. She referred to the APCHA Inventory Stats table in Exhibit A of the agenda
which shows those looking for housing categorized five or higher must rely on private developers and
the housing credit program to house people. She also noted from their commission, there are only two
people that live in the City of Aspen. Everyone else lives outside the city. She added there are young
professionals who are willing to be part of this community but who actually are unable to live in Aspen.
Mr. McNight likes Staff’s approach, but feels there could be a much easier and scientific approach.
Letting the developers decide rather than APCHA and the City deciding our needs and where demand
exists. He would like to see APCHA’s numbers on people who have submitted applications and for what
category they are eligible.
Ms. Garrow stated the information she has from APCHA states the most need is categories two and
three. When APCHA has had a higher category unit, they have had difficulty selling it and the unit
typically does not get sold in the lottery process.
Mr. McNight believed there were a lot of category five units at Burlingame that ended up as category
four in order to sell them. Ms. Garrow confirmed this as true as well as some units with a category six
and seven that had be adjusted down to three and four. He feels there should be a more fluid process to
identify the current category needs.
Mr. Mesirow stated the credit program is separate from what APCHA is building. He thought if a
developer does not feel he could sell a category six, he would not build it.
Mr. Fornell stated the higher category units built were by and large in an inferior location to a person
with that level of income. He said he would build category five and six on Park Ave if the was a cash-in-
lieu number today.
Ms. McNicholas feels this is APCHA’s realm because your advocacy is more important because they
decide the value is determined within categories. The history and the basis of the program is for lower
income workers in the town. Not to say professional workers are not, but to put a higher priority on
P210
VIII.d
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015
12
providing housing to the lower income employees. She stated that is a cultural value expressed within
the town and advocated by those that live here participate in APCHA. She is supportive of Staff’s
suggested amendment and feels it is better served by APCHA.
Mr. McNellis added this approach allows APCHA to have the conversation. He suggested NextGen
continue their dialogue with APCHA. Mr. Goode also felt it would be helpful for NextGen to suggest
APCHA to look into it further.
Mr. Walterscheid feels the metric should be created and then let APCHA control a system for identifying
where the need is based on market fluctuations. He feels this is something APCHA needs to institute and
control.
Ms. Garrow stated she heard consensus to move forward to tie it to cash-in-lieu and asking APCHA to
look at the cash-in-lieu for the higher categories. She thanked P&Z for their feedback.
Mr. Good asked if there was anything P&Z could do to highlight Mr. Fornell’s concerns. Ms. Garrow and
Mr. McNellis encouraged members to speak during public comment to Council.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P211
VIII.d