HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20151123
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 23, 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. Notice of Call-Up
VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #127, Series of 2015 - Purchase of 81 Cale Parking Stations
b) Resolution #132, Series of 2015 - 2016 EOTC Budget
c) Resolution #134, Series 2015 - BTC DC Fast Car Charger Purchase and Install
d) Resolution #133, Series of 2015 - New Year's Eve Fireworks Contract
e) Minutes - November 9, 2015
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
IX. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #46, Series of 2015 - Miscellaneous Code Amendment
b) Ordinance #43, Series of 2015 - 2016 Fee Ordinance
c) Ordinances #44 and #45, Series of 2015 - Utility Rates
d) Ordinance #41, Series of 2015 - Fall Supplemental Budget
X. Action Items
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting December 01, 2015
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
• Tone and Tenor Matter
• Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
P1
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mitchell Osur, Parking Director
THRU: Randy Ready
DATE OF MEMO: October 21, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: Purchase of 81 Cale Parking Pay Stations, Resolution #127,
Series of 2015
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Parking Department is requesting $511,920 to purchase the 81
Cale pay stations that were installed in November of 2014.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the purchase of 81 Cale parking pay
stations in September of 2014. The pay stations were installed in November of 2014. We rented
the pay stations starting in December 2014 for $90 a month for 13 months with 100% of the
rental price going towards the purchase of the pay stations in January of 2016 (see Exhibit F of
the attached contract). The staff recommendation is to purchase the pay stations in January of
2016 for $511,920.
BACKGROUND: Due to the credit card processing issue with the old parking pay stations, they
were replaced with the Cale equipment in November 2014. The rental/purchase agreement at
that time allowed the City to try the new pay stations for a monthly rental fee through the end of
2015. The equipment has operated very reliably, Cale service has been responsive, and the new
pay stations are capable of flexible payment rates, dynamic pricing and software upgrades as
necessary. The plan was to rent the machines for 13 months and then purchase them in January of
2016 to allow us to test the equipment and to fit the expenditure into the Long Range Plan for the
Parking Fund.
.
DISCUSSION: The decision for City Council is to decide whether to continue to rent the pay
stations at a new higher rate of $199 a month with only 50% of the rental price going towards the
purchase price or to buy the pay stations outright for $511,920 as planned.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Funding for this purchase was included in the 2016 Asset
Management Plan for the Parking Fund. City Council has reviewed and approved the Parking
capital and operating budget as part of the overall City budget for 2016. The life expectancy of
P3
VII.a
Page 2 of 2
the new equipment is ten years, so the next round of replacement has been included in the Asset
Management Plan for 2026.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the contract to purchase the Cale
pay stations outright in January of 2016.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to continue to rent the 81 pay stations for the price of
$199 a month with 50% of the rental price going towards the purchase once we decide to
purchase the pay stations at a later date.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #127, Series of 2015 for the purchase of
81 Cale pay stations in January of 2016 for the sum of $511,920.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P4
VII.a
RESOLUTION # 127
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND CALE AMERICA, INC AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
multi-space parking meter pay stations, between the City of Aspen and Cale
America Inc, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for, multi-space parking meter pay stations between the City of Aspen and Cale
America 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 23rd day of November 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 November 23, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P5
VII.a
P6
VII.a
P7
VII.a
P8
VII.a
P9
VII.a
P10
VII.a
P11
VII.a
P12
VII.a
P13
VII.a
P14
VII.a
P15
VII.a
P16
VII.a
P17
VII.a
P18
VII.a
P19
VII.a
P20
VII.a
P21
VII.a
P22
VII.a
P23
VII.a
P24
VII.a
P25
VII.a
P26
VII.a
P27
VII.a
P28
VII.a
P29
VII.a
P30
VII.a
P31
VII.a
P32
VII.a
P33
VII.a
P34
VII.a
P35
VII.a
P36
VII.a
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation
DATE OF MEMO: November 5, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: EOTC 2016 1/2% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget
_______________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Attached for your review and approval is a resolution and budget
which, if approved, would authorize the initial 2016 budget for the Pitkin County 1/2 cent transit sales
and use tax as summarized below.
Total 2016 Revenues $ 6,254,000
Total 2016 Expenditures 5,692,419
Annual Surplus (Deficit) $ 561,581
Cumulative Surplus $ 6,602,320
The Pitkin County Commissioners, Snowmass Village Town Council and Aspen City Council meet
together as the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (“EOTC”) to oversee the budget for the
Pitkin County 1/2 cent transit sales and use tax.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council, as a member of the EOTC, approved the proposed 2016 budget at the October 15th
EOTC meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen as a member of the EOTC is required to approve the budget by resolution. Each
other member of the EOTC is also required to approve the budget by resolution before the budget can
be considered adopted.
DISCUSSION:
The mission of the EOTC is to “work collectively to reduce and/or manage the volume of vehicles on
the road system and continue to develop and support a comprehensive multi-modal, long-range
strategy that will ensure a convenient and efficient transportation system for the Roaring Fork Valley.”
The 2016 budget provides for a use of the funds in a manner consistent with the EOTC mission.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications to the City as these are EOTC funds and not City funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
By encouraging mass transit and working to manage or reduce the number of vehicles on the road
system, the EOTC is having positive impacts on the environment.
P37
VII.b
RECCOMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution to approve the EOTC budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council can decide not to approve the 2016 EOTC budget and send it back to the EOTC for further
discussion and approval.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to approve Resolution # 132 to approve the 2016 EOTC Budget.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Approving the Initial 2016 Budget for the ½-Cent Transit Sales and Use Tax Fund
EOTC Budget and Multi-year Plan
P38
VII.b
RESOLUTION NO. 132
SERIES OF 2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE INITIAL 2016 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 1/2 CENT TRANSIT
SALES AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and
the Town Council of Snowmass Village (the "Parties") have previously identified general elements
of their Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (the "Plan") which are eligible for funding from
the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax; and
WHEREAS, by intergovernmental agreement dated September 14, 1993, the Parties agreed:
a. to conduct regular public meetings as the Elected Officials Transit Committee
(“EOTC”) to continue to refine and agree upon proposed projects and transportation
elements consistent with or complimentary to the Plan; and
b. that all expenditures and projects to be funded from the County-wide one-half
cent transit sales and use tax shall be agreed upon by the Parties and evidenced by a
resolution adopted by the governing body of each party; and
WHEREAS, at the EOTC meeting held on October 15, 2015, the Parties considered and
approved the attached initial 2016 budget for the Pitkin County one-half cent transit sales and use tax;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to ratify the approvals given at the EOTC meeting by
adoption of this resolution.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
that the attached initial 2016 budget for the one-half cent transit sales and use tax is hereby approved
as summarized below:
Total 2016 Revenues $ 6,254,000
Total 2016 Expenditures $ 5,692,419
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of November, 2015, by the City
Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
_________________________
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 November 23, 2015.
______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P39
VII.b
2016 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 1
EOTC Transit Project Funding Estimate/
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
FUNDING SOURCES:
a)Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 4,567,135 4,805,000 5,021,000 5,197,000 5,379,000 5,567,000 5,762,000
b)Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 1,009,393 1,120,000 1,154,000 1,189,000 1,225,000 1,262,000 1,300,000
c)Investment income & misc.50,288 61,000 79,000 125,000 245,000 350,000 414,000
Total Funding Sources 5,626,816 5,986,000 6,254,000 6,511,000 6,849,000 7,179,000 7,476,000
FUNDING USES:
1)Use tax collection costs 45,415 66,928 70,432 72,545 74,721 76,963 79,272
2)Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs 19,982 20,039 21,311 21,950 22,609 23,287 23,986
2a) Planning retreat 8,306
3)Cab ride in-lieu of bus stop safety imprvs 5,766 9,000 9,000 9,270 9,548 9,835 10,130
4)X-Games transit subsidy 100,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000
5)Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 32,058 36,000 36,000 37,080 38,192 39,338 40,518
6)RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)3,701,206 3,893,972 4,069,018 4,211,649 4,359,142 4,511,497 4,669,525
7)No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 621,658 621,658 653,754 681,399 708,655 737,001
8)No-fare bus service - winter, spring, fall 476,211
9)No-fare bus service - summer (funded from Snowmass Village Savings)75,689
10)Capital projects pool (advanced equally from Aspen & Snowmass Savings)
10c) AABC pedestrian crossing construction - savings returned (100,000)
11)AABC ped. crossing design & engineering ($250k advanced from Aspen Savings)
12)Rubey Park (funded from Aspen Savings)
12b) final design, land use & permitting 491,630 158,370
12c) construction 4,900,000
13)Regional Travel Patterns study 30,000
14)Buttermilk lot paving 280,000
15)Basalt pedestrian underpass 750,000
16)Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding 335,000
17)Valley parking study - RFP scoping 8,000
Total Uses 4,886,264 10,108,967 5,692,419 5,456,248 5,300,612 5,484,575 5,675,432
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)740,552 (4,122,967) 561,581 1,054,752 1,548,388 1,694,425 1,800,568
EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 10,163,706 6,040,739 6,602,320 7,657,072 9,205,460 10,899,885 12,700,454
a)sales tax 9.1%5.2%4.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%
b)use tax 24.2%11.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
c)investment earnings rate 0.5%0.6%1.3%1.9%3.2%3.8%3.8%
DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds)935,403 561,581 1,054,752 1,548,388 1,694,425 1,800,568
25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to $6,278,787 233,851 140,395 263,688 387,049 - -
remainder to Aspen Savings 701,552 421,186 791,064 1,161,339 1,694,425 1,800,568
Revenue projections:
10/29/2015 16 EOTC.xlsx
P
4
0
V
I
I
.
b
2016 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 2
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
less summer no- fare service (75,689) - - - - - -
less 1/2 of advance to capital pool 50,000 - - - - - -
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool - 233,851 140,395 263,688 387,049 - -
Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area ($6,278,787 max)5,253,804 5,487,655 5,628,050 5,891,738 6,278,787 6,278,787 6,278,787
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
Calculation of amount allocated to Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 4,567,135
Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 1,009,393
less committed funding (3,912,734)
Annual Surplus to be allocated 1,663,794
Annual 2/3's allocation to Aspen Savings through 2014 1,109,196
Annual surplus remaining after reimbursement of advances - - 774,036 1,161,339 1,694,425 1,800,568
plus reimbursement for $250,000 pedestrian crossing funding 98,675 114,783 - - -
less 1/2 of advance to capital pool 50,000 - - - - - -
plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool - 586,769 421,186 17,028 - - -
less Rubey Park funded from Aspen Savings (491,630) (5,058,370)
Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 4,909,902 553,084 974,270 1,765,334 2,926,673 4,621,098 6,421,667
Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan
Advances from Aspen and Snowmass Village Savings Funds 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
remaining balance to reimburse Snowmass Savings for advance to capital pool 1,024,983 791,132 650,737 387,049 - - -
remaining balance to reimburse Aspen Savings for advance to capital pool 1,024,983 438,214 17,028 - - - -
remaining balance to reimburse Aspen Savings for 2011-12 $250,000 advance 114,783 - - - - - -
Actual
Calculation of amount allocated to discretionary funding (N/A after 2014)2014
EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS (after funding operations)740,552
less annual 2/3's allocation to Aspen Savings through 2014 (1,109,196)
plus advance for capital projects pool (100,000)
plus Rubey Park planning funded from Aspen Savings 491,630
plus summer no-fare bus service funded from Sowmass Village Savings 75,689
Remaining annual discretionary funding 98,675
less reimbursement to Aspen Savings for $250,000 ped crossing funding (98,675)
less reimbursement of advance to capital pool -
Net annual discretionary funding after reimbursements -
Cumulative remaining discretionary funding after reimbursements -
10/29/2015 16 EOTC.xlsx
P
4
1
V
I
I
.
b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tim Thompson, Project Manager
THRU: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 16th, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23rd. 2015
RE: Resolution #134 – Series 2015: BTC DC Fast Car Charger
Purchase and Install
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council acceptance of the following items:
• Approval via resolution #134 to sign and execute the contract for the BTC DC Fast
Charger Station with a purchase price of $29,650.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In June of 2015, a representative from Clean Cities Denver
presented to City Council. The purpose of the presentation was to educate the Aspen community
and City leadership on the options that currently exist for a community like Aspen to achieve
significant reductions in emissions from vehicles. At this meeting technologies discussed
included hydrogen fuel, renewable natural gas and electric vehicles.
As a result of this presentation, City Council identified a lack of electric vehicle charging
infrastructure in Aspen and directed staff to create an electric vehicle readiness plan. This plan is
currently underway with participation from the Parking Department, the Utility and Canary
Initiative. Council also directed staff to begin implementing programs and installing
infrastructure that will position Aspen as a leader in zero-emission fuel technology and create a
welcoming environment for those who choose to drive electric vehicles in Aspen.
DISCUSSION: Although some hotels in Aspen have private charging stations for EV’s, Aspen
currently has one charging station that is open to the public and it is located in the Rio Grande
parking garage. This station is classified as a Level 2 station, allowing cars to get a full charge in
approximately 2 hours.
This contract is for a Level 3/DC Fast Charge station that would allow a car to achieve a full
charge in under 20 minutes. Aspen’s EV drivers are in need of faster charging options and the
installation of a Fast Charge station in the Rio Grande garage would meet the needs of visitors
and residents. The EV plan that is currently underway identifies the need for Fast Charge options
in Aspen to allow visiting drivers quick and easy charging options before heading out of town.
A search for a DC Fast Charge station was conducted by the City of Aspen, with help from the
state-appointed regional Electric Vehicle charging resource, Matt Shmigelsky. The search for
DC fast chargers that are available for purchase immediately and are capable of running on the
available site power of 208v 3 phase showed that only one unit is suitable. This unit is sold in
Colorado by National Car Charging and no other vendor offers this unit.
It is necessary to find a unit that can be purchased in 2015 because the City of Aspen has access
to grant funds from the Community Office for Resource Efficiency to contribute to the purchase
of this station, but the funds are only available on purchases made in 2015.
P42
VII.c
Page 2 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL / COMMUNITY IMPACTS: The fast charge station will be located on
the lower level of the parking garage. COA parking was consulted and agreed to the location
with use of the respective three spots. Future signage will be placed to allow the community to
access and find. See attached sketches.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There is budget in place from prior actions and
resolutions to purchase the BTC fast charge station now. Asset and Environmental Health and
Sustainability are gathering costs to supply bollards, electrical hookups, and striping to properly
install. The existing budget has $31,730 to fund the purchase of the machine. Estimated cost to
install properly is $18,424 which will be funded from the 2016 approved budget. The install
scope will be procured under a change order to PCL via the Galena Plaza Project garage scope.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval via resolution #134 to sign and execute the contract
for the BTC DC Fast Charger Station with a purchase price of $29,650.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit I – Contract for the DTC Fast Charge Station
Exhibit II – PCL CRX #080 – Charge Station Hook Up
P43
VII.c
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION #134
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND NATIONAL CAR
CHARING LLC AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for an Electric
Vehicle DC Fast Charger, between the City of Aspen and National Car Charging LLC, a true and
accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for an Electric
Vehicle DC Fast Charger, between the City of Aspen and National Car Charging LLC, 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 23rd day of November, 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, November 23, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P44
VII.c
CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT
City of Aspen Project No.: 2015-131.
AGREEMENT made as of 23rd day of November, in the year 2015.
BETWEEN the City:
Contract Amount:
The City of Aspen
c/o Environmental Health
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 920-5055
And the Vendor:
National Car Charging LLC
c/o ___________________________________
209 Kalamath Street, Suite 3
Denver, CO 80223
Phone: 866-996-6387 x700
Summary Description of Items to be Purchased:
BTC Power 50K dual cord DC Fast Charger with 7” POS screen and CAT5 connectivity
____________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement:
If this Agreement requires the City to pay
an amount of money in excess of
$25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid
until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
City Council Approval:
Date: November 23, 2015
Resolution No.: 2015-134
Exhibit A: List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased.
Total: $29,650.00
P45
VII.c
The City and Vendor agree as set forth below.
1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the items on Exhibit A
appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth here for the sum
set forth hereinabove.
2. Delivery. (FOB 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611) [Delivery Address]
3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the
same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of
this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties. (Add Warranty provisions here).
5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure
to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents,
representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the
Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder
without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to
confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may
assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim
damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor
because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or
conditions herein contained.
7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or
operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein
contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to
be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees.
10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or
presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the
parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
P46
VII.c
11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary
Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily
excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It
further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification
in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event
that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation
was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
(A) Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit
or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,
percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide
established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of
securing business.
(B) Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the
content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation,
auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for
ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this
Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore.
(C) Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been
disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
(D) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or
subcontractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of
anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this
Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason
and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and
convenience.
P47
VII.c
14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal
year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise
made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City using state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of
money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap,
or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement.
Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City’s municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining
to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the
spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and
federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices.
17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract
Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any
prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City
official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council
meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on
behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing
and be executed by the parties hereto.
18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized
representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full
and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified
herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement
to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all
intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
P48
VII.c
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
ATTEST: By: ________________________________
City Manager
__________________________________
City Clerk
VENDOR:
NATIONAL CAR CHARGING LLC
By: _____________________________
___________________________________
Title
P49
VII.c
EXHIBIT A SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT
BTC EVP-FC-50-001 1 $27,750.00
BTC Power 50kW dual cord DC Fast Charger with 7” POS
screen and CAT5 connectivity. No cellular.
BTC DCFC 208 Config 1 $450.00
Custom configuration to allow BTC EVP-FC-50-001 to use
A 208V source.
Shipping $1,450.00
Total Balance $29,650.00
P50
VII.c
P51
VII.c
TM
EV Fast Charger
EVP-FC-25-001 / EVP-FC-50-001
1719 S Grand Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Tel. 714.259.4888 Fax. 714.259.0840
SAE connector on right. This will charge all SAE enabled vehicles
including BMW, General Motors.
Chademo connector on left for Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi iMiev.
Dual Charger in one box!
Commercial Grade
Available in 25kW and 50kW
Built-in security and safety measures
Robust IGBT power technology
Outdoor-rated enclosure
Point-of-Sale (POS)*
Wired and Wireless communication
Complete customization service available*
Can be used as Parking Payment Terminal
Key Features & Advantages
*Some items are optional
Technical Speci cations
Model EVP-FC-25-001 EVP-FC-50-001
Powe r Rating 25kW 50kW
Connectors
Network
Input Power
Input Power Breaker 100A 200A
E cie ncy Rating >90%>90%
Max. Output DC Current 52A 100A
Max. Output DC Voltage
Auto Restart
Plug-Out Detection
Surge Protection
Ambient Condition
Dimensions 38"w, 72.75"h, 27.6"d, 750lbs.43"w, 72.75"h, 32.25"d, 900lbs.
Safety Compliance
CHAdeMO, SAEJ1772 Combo
Credit Cards accepted (Visa, Master, Discover, AMX)
ETL Listed for USA and Canada; Complies with UL 2594, UL 2231-
1, UL2231-2, NEC Article 625, ADA Compliant
-20°C to +50°C, 95% humidity, 6000ft altitude.
50-500V
208 VAC, 3-Phase or 480 VAC, 3-Phase
Automatic restart in case of power outage or ground fault
Power terminated per SAE J1772 speci cations
6000 VAC
P52
VII.c
DC Fast Charger
Available Options:
•CHAdeMO & SAE J1772 Combo
•15” outdoor color display with touch screen
•Payment System (supports all major credit cards)
•Loyalty System (customer engagement program)
•Microphone
•Speakers
•Camera
•Cord Retractor on top – (Lanyard retractor)
Technical Specifications
Model EVP-FC-25-001 EVP-FC-50-001
Power Rating 25kW 50kW
Connectors CHAdeMO and/or SAEJ1772 Combo
Network Credit Cards accepted (Visa, Master, Discover, AMX)/RFID
Input Power (Options
available) 480 VAC, 3-Phase or 208 VAC, 3-Phase
Input Power Breaker 50A/480 VAC 100A/480 VAC
Input Power Breaker 100A/208 VAC 200A/208 VAC
Efficiency Rating >90% >90%
Max. Output DC Current 52A 100A
Max. Output DC Voltage 50-500V
Plug-Out Detection Power terminated per SAE J1772 specifications
Surge Protection 6000 VAC
Ambient Condition -20°C to +50°C, 95% humidity, 6000ft altitude.
Dimensions 38"w, 72.75"h, 27.6"d 43"w, 72.75"h, 32.25"d
Safety Compliance ETL Listed for USA and Canada; Complies with UL 2594, UL 2231-
1, UL2231-2, NEC Article 625, ADA Compliant
BTCP Products
P
5
3
V
I
I
.
c
P54
VII.c
P55VII.c
P56
VII.c
P57
VII.c
P
5
8
V
I
I
.
c
P
5
9
V
I
I
.
c
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events and Marketing
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager, Parks and Recreation
Richard Pryor, Aspen Police Chief
DATE OF MEMO: November 12 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23 2015
RE: New Year’s Eve - Fireworks
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approve the Western Enterprises, Inc
contract at $28,000 to provide the on mountain fireworks during New Year’s Eve.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has previously approved funding for the fireworks.
BACKGROUND: Since 2006 the City’s Special Events Department has worked closely with
the Aspen Police Department and the Parks Department to create a safe and fun New Year’s Eve
for the community and guests during this holiday. A major factor of any New Year’s Eve is
fireworks. For our celebration fireworks are “shot” off twice in the night. The “family friendly”
version which is approximately 20 minutes long happens at 8:00pm and the “traditional” version
at midnight for approximately 5 minutes. Staff first split the fireworks into two shows in 2007
and received positive comments from the community and businesses. By splitting the fireworks,
this enables many families to bring the kids and come out and watch the show. Staff received
feedback that this had helped the early seating with some restaurants and RFTA showed an
increase in ridership early and on outbound busses immediately following the show. Staff would
like to continue this tradition.
DISCUSSION: The heart of any New Year’s Eve celebration is the fireworks show. Western
Enterprises, INC has been the fireworks supplier and facilitator since 2013. They are also the
fireworks company that Aspen Skiing Company uses and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association
uses. Because of these relationships, most importantly the Aspen Skiing Company, Western
Enterprises is able to be more efficient with their set up and tear down, which translates to a cost
savings. Western Enterprises also has a very strong working relationship with the Aspen Fire
Department utilizing the knowledge of local fire fighter Ken Josling, who is the liaison during
the New Year’s Eve fireworks shows,
P60
VII.d
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This expenditure is currently within the New Year’s Eve
budget allotment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: While bringing more people to town at an already-busy
time when traffic levels will be high could be a concern, this event is not intended to, nor is it
likely to, bring more people to town. Because town is so full and parking is limited, people
already tend to use the bus on New Year’s Eve to a much greater extent than usual.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff would like Council to approve this contract.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council disagrees with the direction above, staff will cancel the
fireworks.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P61
VII.d
RESOLUTION #133
(Series of 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND WESTERN ENTERPRISES, INC AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
New Year’s Eve Fireworks, between the City of Aspen and Western Enterprises
Inc, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for New Year’s Eve Fireworks between the City of Aspen and Western Enterprises
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 23rd day of November 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 November 23, 2015.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P62
VII.d
P63
VII.d
P64
VII.d
P65
VII.d
P66
VII.d
P67
VII.d
P68
VII.d
P69
VII.d
P70
VII.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APEARANCES .................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 2
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 5
Aspen Recreation Center Advisor Committee Appointment .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Resolution #117, Series of 2015 – Truscott Site Improvement Project Vertical Scope Change Order
and Budget Increase .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Resolution#113, Series of 2015 – Aspen Recreation Center Concession Lease Agreement ....... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Resolution #121, Series of 2015 – Contract Approval for Rio Grande Park Irrigation Upgrades
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Resolution #120, Series of 2015 - Civic Building Relocation Project – NV5 Construction Manager
as Advisor Services ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Minutes – October 12, 2015 ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Resolution #123, Series of 2015 – Approval of Wheeler Marketing Firm Contract Error! Bookmark
not defined.
Supplemental Budget Request – Wheeler Passenger Elevator ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
RESOLUTION #111, SERIES OF 2015 – Policy Resolution – Miscellaneous Code Amendments ........... 6
ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2015 – 72 Cloud Nine Lane Aspen Highlands Village PD Amendment
.................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
RESOLUTION #126, SERIES OF 2015 – 305-307 S. Mill St. – Temporary Use Request ................ Error!
Bookmark not defined.
ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Code Amendment ....Error! Bookmark
not defined.
RESOLUTION #124, SERIES OF 2015Littlw Annie’s Deed Restriction - Clarification of Ordinance 5,
Series of 2012 ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
P71
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
2
At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Frisch,
Mullins and Daily present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APEARANCES
Mayor Skadron read a proclamation to proclaim November 13, 2015 as World Pancreatic Cancer Day.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Maurice Emmer wanted to call to Councils attention section 5.5 of the home rule charter ”Council
on its own motion shall have the power to submit at a general or special election any proposed
ordinance or question to a vote of the people in a manner as the article provided”. He said one
member of Council has questioned if Council has this power. Clearly it does. Council does not
have to wait for the public to petition to send a land use application to a public vote. It can do so
on its own initiative for any reason. There are several land use applications pending that have
variation requests listed in referendum one. Council could refer each and every one of them to a
public vote. Following the recent votes on referendum 1 and Base 2 he urged Council to send
those applications to a public vote. It would be an important showing of good faith to the
community.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilman Frisch said Beauty and the Beast is going on at District Theater and gave a special hats off to
the pepper shaker. Congrats to the school and hospital for a great performance at the election. Hats off to
the incumbents on the school board for getting re-elected. On Base 2, he had a nice chat with Ward,
Steve and Bert. Lodging came up as a goal a few years ago. We still have some approvals for the Sky,
Molly Gibson, Hotel Aspen and Base 1 and have seen a lot of good success. We have a healthy and
robust incentive program for existing lodging in town. The land use code will be discussed next week in
a work session. During the election I said the AACP says one thing and the land use code says another
and I look forward to that discussion. His main concern is the highest and best use for the community is
not always the highest and best for the developer’s spreadsheet. There is a height, bulk and mass issue
that needs tackled. The vast majority of it has been taken care of. I don’t know if we want to get in to
what the use should be. His concern is we will end up with an upper Aspen and a lower Aspen and the
community will be a lot worse off if we don’t have that discussion. He is glad the Mayor wanted to tackle
the land use code and align it with the AACP and looks forward to that discussion.
Councilwoman Mullins stated she has been in and out of town the past few weeks. Every time she comes
back she realizes what a unique and beautiful, cohesive and less developed than some parts of the country
Aspen is. It is great to see the give and take process is working and the town is surviving extraordinary
well. It is great to see the community support the schools, hospital and community assets. While I was in
support of Base 2 and it won’t be going forward as proposed I will be working my hardest to see it going
forward to its most appropriate use for that site.
Mayor Skadron congratulated We-cycle for it’s 3rd season and thanked them for an excellent summer. He
thanked everyone who voted in the election and for their participation, especially the first time voters.
Mayor Skadron Saw Beauty and the Beast Saturday night and it was great. The guy who plays the
Lumiere was great as was the pepper shaker! Veterans Day is Wednesday so keep the Veterans near and
dear to you heart that day. Thanks to Open Space and Trails. Friday was the 25th anniversary party
P72
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
The open house for the Aspen Police department is at 5pm tomorrow at the APD.
NOTICE OF CALL UPS
827 Dean Street – Notice of Call up, HPC Resolution #28, Series of 2015
Sara Adams, community development, said this is a residential landmark chalet that was approved by a 7
to 0 vote by HPC. It is a demolition of a non-historic building. Setback variations were granted and will
legalize the existing condition of the landmark. Two variations were granted for the new building
regarding the lightwells and the roof overhang.
Councilman Myrin said he is supportive as leaving it as is.
Councilman Daily agreed.
No call up.
434 E Cooper – Notice of Call Up, HPC Resolution #26, Series of 2015
Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this is commonly known as the Bidwell building.
HPC granted conceptual, major and commercial design including view plane review. There were two
meetings. The first meeting included discussion as to whether the previous demolition approval still
applied. In 2006 there was discussion of a possible landmark designation and the ultimate demolition
approval. No one could act on it until a conceptual design approval had been given for a replacement
building and that has taken several years. HPC has granted conceptual approval several times before and
it has lapsed before going to final. On September ninth there was a lot of discussion about the status of
the previous determination. HPC granted conceptual approval on September 30. This is a total
replacement with a two story commercial structure including all retail with a full basement. HPC found it
met the full guidelines. The HPC resolution addressed other topics including granting a view plane
exemption. The property is in the Wheeler view plane. HPC did two site visits and determined you could
not see the building from the Wheeler and found an exemption was appropriate. They asked for changes
to the corner treatment and fenestration at final review. They allowed a cash in lieu payment for the
parking and public amenity space.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the affordable housing. Ms. Simon replied that will be dealt with at
final. There will be a credit for what is there now. The plans do not show any on site housing.
Councilman Myrin said he would support calling it up. The pedestrian amenity could be added to the
space around it. It is similar to peaches and paradise. There is an opportunity to setback and add space
for dining. He does not support lot line to lot line for this particular space.
Ms. Simon said the public amenity discussion has been had several times. It is a balance. HPC felt
because of the mall they felt there is enough outdoor space.
Councilwoman Mullins said she support the guidelines of lot line to lot line. She does not support the
roof top amenity space. In this case it is better to have the building come up to the lot line and be in line
with the other Victorians especially in the mall area. Her biggest concern is this is a major project and
three of the nine commissioners voted for it. She would see it going back to HPC to have a bigger
commission present.
Councilman Myrin said he understands lot line to lot line but this would be a fine opportunity not to do it
like at Paradise.
P73
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
4
Councilman Daily said he agrees with Councilwoman Mullin’s thinking. He is uncomfortable with the
small HPC vote and would like a broader representation. It is a tight vote for a building of this
significance. The guidelines are worthy of more discussion at this table. He is not persuaded that a
pedestrian amenity is needed out front at the corner. He is in support of calling it up.
Councilman Frisch said it should be called up. He does not buy the argument that every corner needs to
be lot line to lot line. It is a pretty building but there will be more sticker shock for his building than any
we have seen in a long time.
Mayor Skadron asked if the chamfered corner will look more like the Ralph Lauren building. Ms. Simon
replied yes, it will be addressed to be more traditional. Mayor Skadron said the public amenity was to be
rooftop but it is not part of the application. Ms. Simon said the proposal is for cash in lieu.
Mayor Skadron said he will support the call up as well.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to call up 434 E Cooper; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
305-307 S Mill – Notice of Call up, HPC Resolution #27, Series of 2015
Amy Simon stated this property is in the historic district but not formally identified as historic. It is in the
Wheeler view plane. It hits the leading edge at 7’3” and leaves at 10’6” and makes redevelopment very
difficult. After looking at the initial scrape and replace application HPC asked for a restudy. The new
application retains the existing structures with reclad siding, filled in a notch in the middle of the site and
added a one story glass box in the area of the popcorn wagon. All the new development is under the
height of the existing development. There is more open space in the approved version than the previous
proposal and HPC appreciated that. The project was approved by a vote of 3 to 1. HPC granted
conceptual major development, commercial design approval and view plane exemption. They felt the
new development intruded no further into the view plane than the existing development. They did ask for
detail at final for mechanical equipment. They want to make sure it is cleaned up. HPC is also accepting
cash in lieu for new parking generation. The trash enclosure will be redesigned as well. For public
amenity some will be provided onsite and the balance will be in the form of cash in lieu.
Councilman Frisch said he is a big supporter of view planes but we need to have a check on a 7 foot view
plane. A land owner should be able to build to one story. When the view plane gets to a second story it is
a lot easier to offer some push back. Is the volume of the building the same size but enclosed. Ms. Simon
said it is smaller than the existing. Councilman Frisch said it is interesting and a good way to solve the
solution. The fact we are getting a smaller and lower foot print than what we could get does not require a
call up. He would love to see more votes.
Councilman Myrin said page 112 of the packet is the best view of the view plane. When there is an extra
building you can’t see the front door of the Wheeler. He would support the call up. Has the elevator
enclosure gone away. Ms. Simon stated that was in the first rendition but it has gone away.
Councilman Daily said he really appreciates the applicant going back to the drawing board and the
considerably smaller redesign. It fits the site a lot better. A good deal of open space has been preserved.
The reuse of the existing building retains the current small scale. The pictures are appropriate for the site.
P74
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
5
He appreciates the more modest and thoughtful proposal. He does not see anything in the proposal that
says we ought to call this up.
Councilwoman Mullins said the low vote is disturbing but this is cleaning up what is existing. The Arch
building is on the AspenModern list. There is a good probability that it won’t go away. She would not
support calling this up. The applicant has done a good job of cleaning up what has become a messy
corner.
Mayor Skadron said he is desirous of a call up.
Two votes in support of call up.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would support the call up.
Councilman Myrin moved to call up 305-307 S Mill St.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor except Councilmembers Daily and Frisch, motion carried.
Ms. Simon stated both call ups will be December 14th.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #103 – snow cat
Councilman Myrin asked if we are keeping the existing two and adding one.
Jerry Nye, streets, said one will be a parts machine. It does more to keep it then to get rid of. Two will be
good condition machines. There will be one new with a backup.
Resolution #131 – Red Brick Management Agreement
Mayor Skadron asked about the future repair needs.
Jim True, city attorney, replied this recognizes the initial fees would be completed by Dec 1. It is
accruing money intended for capital reserve for future repair costs. The Red Brick would collect money
for capital reserve and if the City paid money for the repairs the capital reserve would pay it back.
Angie Callen, red brick, in 2016 we foresee a complete roof replacement and do not have the funds to
cover it. This will put in place a loan program where the City will front the funds with a repayment
program. This is a preliminary ok on that program. Mayor Skadron asked if the revenues are primarily
from rent. Ms. Callen replied yes.
Councilman Frisch moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
P75
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
6
• Resolution #114 and #115, Series of 2015 – ERP Contract approvals for Oracle and CherryRoad
• Resolution #129, Series of 2015 – Truscott Site Improvement Project – BG Design Contract Add
Services
• Resolution #91, Series of 2015 – Contract for Replacement of motor Grader
• Resolution #128, Series of 2015 – Emergency Generators
• Resolution #103, Series of 2015 – Contract for Purchase of Snow Cat
• Resolution #131, Series of 2015 – Management Agreement between the City of Aspen and the
Red Brick Center for the Arts
• Minutes – October 26, 2015
Councilman Frisch moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
Alice Hackney, finance, said for the past several years they have anticipated the ERP project. They have
been working with GFOA on a needs analysis. We utilize four to five administrative system and this will
replace four. The project will kick off the end of this month and go through the end of 2016. Don Taylor,
finance, said this will bring us in to the 21st century. Our current system is no longer supported. Alissa
Farrell, human resources, from an HR standpoint this will improve efficiencies.
Mr. Taylor said we sold the bonds last week. The bonds present value savings was just over 1 million
dollars.
ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2015 – Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this will clarify and codify existing city policies
and fix code references. The proposed amendments were sent out via newsletters and presented to P&Z
at the October 6 meeting. They were comfortable with the changes. Staff recommendation is for
adoption at first reading and schedule second reading for November 23. 90 percent of the amendments
focus on the calculations and measurements and defines how height, floor area and setbacks are measured
as well as what is defined as finished grade and what qualifies as certain points of measurement.
Councilwoman Mullins said this will redefine a few things like story. When will we see those. Mr.
Barker said those definitions are in the ordinance. Councilwoman Mullins asked for setbacks and
changing the building envelope some are there to protect the landscape, will that change. Mr. Barker said
most have defined language but some properties don’t have that language. Councilwoman Mullins said
we won’t increase the disturbed amount of landscape. Mr. Barker said that is what we are trying to
prevent. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the formulation for below grade square footage will it
increase the net square footage someone can build. Mr. Barker said it will decrease it on some properties
due to the way it was calculated in the past.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #46, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 46
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE.
P76
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
7
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #46, 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.
ORDINANCE #43, SERIES OF 2015 – 2016 Fees for City of Aspen Departments and Update to
Liability Coverage for Contractors
Pete Strecker, finance, said part of annual budget process includes the adoption of fees. We have and
internal pricing committee. This year we looked at comdev, recreation and stormwater. The fees were
presented to Council and included in the budget books.
Councilman Daily said he supports the increases in insurance coverage.
Councilman Frisch said the continuation in small increments is better and we should continue to do that.
Great work to the pricing committee.
Councilwoman Mullins said great work. What is the liability insurance. Mr. True said we have a
provision that people who get a contractor license get liability insurance and the fees were insufficient in
today’s world.
Mayor Skadron asked at the public hearing to chat about the total cost recovery and which fees cover total
costs and others partial costs and to detail what the internal pricing committee looks like.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #43, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 43
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ADJUST CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES
INCLUDED UNDER SECTION 2 AND 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, PLUS UPDATING
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTORS UNDER SECTION 8.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #43, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullin, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch,
yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #44 AND #45, SERIES OF 2015 – Utility Rates
Lee Ledesma, utilities, told the Council the rates are exactly what were presented to Council at the
October 20 work session. They model the continuing cost of service transition. On average the water
rates go up 5.5 percent and electric 5 percent. There will be a 2016 rate study for both. There are lots of
changing factors in both utilities. Second reading is scheduled for November 23.
Councilman Frisch said this is all part of a multiyear plan. One way to look at this is an increase another
is a less of a subsidization of some people. We are trying to make sure people are paying their fair share.
It is a long process but we are making the rights steps.
P77
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
8
Mayor Skadron asked Ms. Ledesma to comment on what Councilman Frisch said at the public hearing.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #44, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 44
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 25.04,
ELECTRICITY.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #44, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #45, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 45
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 25.16,
WATER RATES AND CHARGES
Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #45, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin,
yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #41, SERIES OF 2015 – Fall Supplemental Budget
Mr. Strecker said this is to request an additional 4.4 million dollars to the current budget. It is 890,000
dollars for five new requests. 250,000 dollars are for Truscott site improvements. 365,000 dollars for
ACI improvements. 240,000 dollars for the Wheeler elevator. 35,000 dollars in the general fund for
comdev plans reviews and lift one restoration work. In addition to the new requests there is 1.6 million in
projects that were approved by Council through the year. 1.2 million was for the Wheeler renovation,
260,000 for the express feeder, 86,000 for the Castle Creek Bridge and 50,000 for the small lodge
incentives. There are also 1.8 million dollars in technical adjustments including 1.5 of buying and selling
city housing units. There is also 250,000 dollars in transfers from the housing development fund to the
Truscott fund for the work completed.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #41, Series of 2015, seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 41
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE APROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $80, 880, AN
INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $85,000, AN INCREASE IN THE
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $1,398,500, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $634,070, A DECREASE IN THE WATER UTILITY FUND OF $40,220
AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND OF $343,370, AN INCREASE IN THE
P78
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
9
TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND OF $250,000, AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND
OF $1,582,700, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND OF $60,000.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #41, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2015 - Code Amendment – Fee-in –Lieu Rate Schedule
Councilman Myrin moved to continue to November 10, 2015 at 4:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman
Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Resolution #118, Series of 2015 – 2016 Budget for City of Aspen
Mr. Strecker said the budges is 93.8 million dollars and includes 61 million in the base budges for
continuation of existing services and a 2.1 percent increase over last year’s budget. There is a 2.2 million
increase in new requested resources including small lodge resources, expansion of public transit at
Burlingame, four new staff, modernization of services and we-cycle and next gen requests. There are 25
million dollars in capital outlay in 2016 including 11.5 for the APD building, 1.4 million in bus
replacements, 750,000 for affordable housing at ACI and infrastructure improvements. The total request
is a 1.3 percent increase over 2015.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Frisch gave a hats off to Pete and the finance department.
Mayor Skadron thanked finance for the good work.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #118, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #130, SERIES OF 2015 – Budget for APCHA and Other Associated Component Units
Mr. Strecker said the housing authority administration, smuggler fund and the aspen country inn and
Truscott II and APCHA development fund are all under the APCHA purview and were approved on
November 4th.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #130, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place Planned Development Amendment
Sara Nadolny, community development, told the Council Obermeyer Place is currently zoned Service
Commercial Industrial. A few of the units are currently zoned SCI or neighborhood commercial. The
P79
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
10
request was to rezone from SCI to NC as well as to amend the planned development to allow for SCI
uses. Council voiced concern that the rezoning would allow for professional offices and they would be
able to pay more for rent or purchase of the units and edge out the locally serving uses that Obermeyer
Place was originally created for. This is a valid concern and the applicant heard this. The applicant and
staff met to address these concerns and the applicant agreed to alter the scope of the application. The
applicant has agreed to take the rezoning off the table. They are looking to amend the planned
development to broaden the allowed uses. To address Council concern they have removed office use but
broadened the list of locally serving business uses. The first use is service use and defined in the code as
a commercial establishment engaged in providing personal or financial services to the general public. We
would expect to see things like a tailor or salon or tax preparer. Design studio, neighborhood café, non-
profit, recreation club, childcare center and pharmacy are also included. The last uses are not defined in
the land use code but staff is proposing definitions. They include health and medical services and allow
for dentist, chiropractor, physical therapist, allergist, etc., and broadcasting phalicity and technology
services. The list maintains basic needs and the underlying zoning. It does not displace the light
industrial uses. It removes the threat of most professional offices that could edge out the rest of these
locally serving businesses. This is a more precise approach than the aggressive rezoning but still gets to
the heart of allowing more opportunity here.
There are some uses that are allowed by the service uses that the HOA might chose to disallow by
nuisance including marijuana. These can be addressed by the HOA. Ultimately, this meets the criteria
and does not change the overall characteristics of Obermeyer. It does create more potential for filling
vacant units and Staff is in full support of the application.
Jerome Seismic, representing the applicant, thanked council and staff to move towards the original goal of
filling the vacancies. The current SCI zoning is not working. This suggestion has the support of the
HOA and owners. We feel these additional 10 uses will allow Obermeyer to thrive. It is a significant
improvement to the property.
Councilman Myrin said one of the goals was to eliminate office use. Does design studio allow
architecture office. Ms. Nadolny said it allows for graphic artists. She would need to take a closer look
to see if that means architecture studio. Mr. Bendon said the design studio came about maybe 10 years
ago. Originally it was an allowed use capped at the time. Councilman Myrin said he would like to move
away from the office. He is supportive of a lot of the uses in here but would like to strike a few including
number 2. He would like more clarification on personal financial services and non-profit seems a little
broad.
Mr. Bendon said non-profit is very much an office. Councilwoman Mullins asked how are you defining
office. A lot of these uses will look like an office. Councilman Myrin said ideally all office rather than
defining what is in the office. It is not zoned for office. Councilwoman Mullins said none of the uses are
static dead space office use. Councilman Myrin said the goal is not to displace the uses that are currently
allowed there.
Councilman Frisch said the entire Obermeyer is not all zoned the same. Ms. Nadolny replied the
underlying zoning is all SCI but the individual units are either NC or SCI. Councilman Frisch said there
are some legacy operators in there because the original zoning wasn’t being filled up. We are already
dealing with some businesses with a work around. I think this will fail if we are dealing with a bunch of
high end offices in there. One of the question Councilman Myrin raised is design studio. We already
have an architect down there. Overall the applicant has done a good job of hearing what our concerns are.
P80
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
11
He is fine from the architecture standpoint. There is a difference from a money management standpoint
and a bank. Mr. Bendon said around ten years ago they differentiated office from service use on the first
floor. Councilman Frisch said he thinks it will be a disservice if we end up with a bank in there, law firm
or real estate office. He is fine with design studio. He would not be thrilled with a pharmacy either.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is supportive of keeping design in there. She does not think it will price
out anyone else. She agrees that law and real estate are not good for there. She sees a bank as a service
for the residents and the people working there. She thinks this is a good compromise.
Councilman Daily likes very much the direction this is going. It is a more focused proposal than the
overall rezoning to NC would accomplish. A number of the allowed uses have office elements and we
need to get away from the term office and prohibition of office in general.
Mayor Skadron said the list is generally good. He has reservations around the financial institutions. It
should be capped at one. Design studio need further refined. Regarding non-profit he likes that use
included. It is a delicate balance of decreasing vacancy while increasing vitality.
Councilman Myrin said if there is NC or SCI this is addressing the SCI. How much of that as a
percentage is there. Mr. Bendon replied about 80 of what we are discussing. Councilman Myrin said he
would be supportive of this if we struck number 2. Banks achieve the locally serving.
Councilman Frisch said he is happy that we don’t have to create any nonconforming uses. He thinks the
neighborhood is worse off in expanding financial uses. He does not think more banks or pharmacies is
what the SCI zone is for. He is happy to stick with the design studios.
Councilwoman Mullins would argue against eliminating the design studio. She supports getting rid of the
financial.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Dwayne Romero stated he supports that the applicant and council worked together to find a
solution. The design studio component adds more than the liabilities it may create. Relating to
banking and financial services his inclination is to defend the design studio. This is the 10th year
of structural vacancies there. The other uses being proposed there are quite creative.
2. Wally Obermeyer, chair of the condo association and resident said he supports the changes
council is considering. He thinks we can live without the financial firms in the SCI portions. He
highly encourages that architects be allowed. What is most exciting is seeing the people coming
in and out of the businesses. Having the police department there has been great. He thanked
Chris and Sara for trying to come up with a solution that addresses the current concerns.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mr. Simecek said they would support moving the banking out.
Mayor Skadron said there is consensus on removing the financial, the question is the design matter.
Councilman Myrin asked if there are other places where design studio has priced others out. Mr. Bendon
replied maybe the properties along the river. There has been a 20 to 30 year history of those being there.
He is not sure if they priced them out or they just gravitated there. Councilman Myrin said that’s the one
he feels most strongly about. It is a big chunk of the development and not as locally serving. Most of the
other things are locally serving.
P81
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
12
Councilman Frisch said he thinks it is fine. His preference is to remove pharmacy. He is more concerned
about making sure banks and financial are not there. He does think the design studio should be there for
people doing creative work.
Councilwoman Mullins would support the pharmacy. The design studio is important. There is an
architect there already. They are not going to price other people out. It is a dynamic interesting group
that will add vitality to the space. She could see banks going.
Mayor Skadron does not support design, financial or pharmacy. Good intentions generally don’t come to
fruition. Increase vibrancy and decrease vacancy.
Councilman Myrin said there is no downside to passing this how the Mayor proposed it.
Councilman Daily said he supports the design studio concept. It encourages creative and young
entrepreneurs.
Councilman Myrin moved to approve Ordinance #26, Series of 2015 with amendments to section 2 to
delete design studio, section 7 pharmacy and number 1 personal financial services including banks;
seconded by Mayor Skadron.
Councilwoman Mullins proposed to amend the motion to add section 2 design studios back in; seconded
by Councilman Daily.
Councilman Myrin said he feels strongly these can be added back in a year down the road. They have
opened up a very significant amount of opportunities in what is to be a limited space. Councilman Frisch
said design studio is fundamental to what the SCI zone is trying to get to. There is a link to the
community and creative aspect. There has not been a crowding out. He is happy to support the inclusion
and Councilwoman Mullin’s amendment. All in favor of supporting amendment to add back design
studio except Councilman Myrin and Mayor Skadron. Motion carried.
The motion is to delete from number 1 financial services including banks and section 7 pharmacy.
Mayor Skadron said changes like this should be incremental.
Councilwoman Mullins said this is encouraging creativity. There is a whole range of designers that will
be down there and adding diversity. Anything from a furniture designer to a website designer.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, no; Mayor Skadron, no.
Motion carried.
ACTION ITEMS
447 E. cooper St Call Up – HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2015
Sara Adams, community development, stated HPC approved conceptual, view plane and demolition.
This is a 9,000 square foot lot in the commercial core historic district. It is in the Wagner and Wheeler
view plane. HPC vote 4 to 0 in favor of the project. When HPC or P&Z is asked to review view plane
they are asked to determine the project has a minimal impact on the view plane. If it is not minimal it
P82
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
13
goes through a planned development process. If it is minimal it is exempt and continues through the
process. HPC did a site visit on the day of the hearing. Ultimately they felt comfortable the project had a
minimal impact. They considered the review criteria were met. Council has the option to request more
information, remand back to HPC or uphold the HPC decision.
The second issue had to deal with the conceptual design. Conceptual reviews the massing, proportion and
site plan. HPC had a thoughtful discussion and thought the design was appropriate. They voiced some
concerns for the final architectural features including materials, curved windows, brick details and trellis
and asked for more details at final. Staff echoed those comments. Staff is recommending Council uphold
resolution 25.
Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, showed pictures of the existing conditions. The frontage is on the
property line. The rear is set back behind nine parking spaces. He showed images of the proposed
design. The center portion will be set back from the ends by two feet. The existing is 22 feet high and
the proposed is 28. Originally they proposed the trash be shared with Casa Tua but enhanced.
For the view planes he showed images of the breadth of the Wheeler view plane. The height limit at the
front of the property is 21 to 22 feet. From the Wagner park goal post the restrooms are directly in the
way of the view. From the Wheeler view plane the property is completely blocked.
The building would need to be 39 feet high to clear the Wheeler view plane from the Wagner restrooms.
The Wheeler view plane is behind the paragon and red onion, both which are landmarked buildings. All 4
of the HPC voted to support the project.
They found the architecture, height, mass and scale all met the criteria. In regards to the view plane it
makes it clear that if there is a minimal impact there is no need for the planned development. If you are in
front of another building that already blocks the view plane and it will further infringe the view plane and
what is the likely hood of that building going away, if minimal, it shall be exempt.
This is a 28 foot tall proposal. The likelihood of the landmarked Independence Square going away is
minimal, therefore it shall be exempt.
Councilman Myrin asked if the building behind, Independence Square, is 100 percent blocking the view
plane space. Mr. Haas replied 30 years of view plane precedent says so. Councilman Myrin said for
example using the Jerome view plane why don’t we have to use the same logic between the Wheeler and
the Jerome.
Councilman Frisch said it still has to meet the underlying zoning.
Councilman Myrin said his concern is anything behind the city bathroom gets filled in. It is a precedent
issue on the view plane. He does not find it minimal and it should go through the planned development
process.
The other issue is the 25 percent public amenity space. We do get money but we never get the ground
floor back. Mr. Haas said the requirement is 10 percent. The city preferred the money since it is on the
mall and they requested the funding. Another alternative is to continue this after the view plane work
session.
Mr. Haas said it is routine to prefer cash in lieu when the public amenity is north of the building and in
the shade.
Councilman Myrin said to move the building back 10 percent.
P83
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
14
Councilman Frisch asked if the view plane issue did not come up with the city bathrooms. One of the
questions that we have not had an opportunity to discuss regarding the view plane is was there as much
protected views or another check on growth. Once the view plane has been violated do you give up.
Ms. Adams gave some history on view planes. The regulations were first adopted in 1973 in response to
the Gant. The current regulations were put in place in 1988.
Councilman Frisch asked was the only reason the restriction was put in place to make sure there was
access to the mountain and once it was gone this becomes irrelevant.
Mr. Bendon said the language of the code and the evolution of the view plane certainly was for the view
of the mountain but it was from the vantage point.
Councilman Frisch said he agrees HPC made the right call from standing on the origin point looking for
Mitch with a story pole.
Mr. True said there is a purpose statement in this section of the code. “Development within designated
view planes as set forth in section 26.04.050 shall be subject to heightened reviews so as to protect
mountain views from obstruction, strengthen the environmental and esthetic character of the city,
maintain property values, and enhance the cities tourist industry by maintaining the cities heritage as a
mountain community.
Councilman Myrin said if the view plane is minimal to the community why isn’t it minimal to the
applicant. There is more than a minimal impact on the view plane.
Councilwoman Mullins said we need to be looking at the overall experience of being downtown, view
plane, public amenity space and building design. The view plane, taken from the vantage point is
nonexistent. In this case it is blocked by buildings that are not going to go away. She is with HPC on the
minimal impact to the view plane. In terms of public amenity the guidelines say the building should go
out to the edge of the lot line. The mall itself is a historic resource and the minute you start to fragment
the edge of the mall you start to break up the resource. She supports the fee in lieu and the money go to
improvement of the mall. She would like more attention to the design of the building. Her first
impression is it looks like it came off the Stanford campus. It is not in character with Aspen. The set
backs are not appropriate or the trellis or upper deck. The fenestration is not fine enough.
Councilman Daily said the view plane matter is applying the present code language. HPC did not make a
subjective decision. They found the view plane was already blocked by other buildings that did not have
the ability to be redeveloped and had a minimal impact on the view plane. The exemption was proposed
and granted on that basis and I have nothing on which to argue otherwise. He is going to follow HPCs
lead and he believes they followed the code. For the public amenity he also agrees with HPC and staff
and Councilwoman Mullins and we do not need to have public amenity that will compete with our malls.
Cash in lieu is fine and proper and we are not losing anything. The applicant has already told us the
designs are not final and HPC has another opportunity to review at final.
Councilman Frisch said he thinks we are in a pickle that he wishes we weren’t in. Councilwoman
Mullins articulated the public amenity space well. Our hands are tied pretty well. We need to focus on a
view plane discussion. From a legal standpoint and where the code is written our hands are tied.
P84
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
15
Councilman Myrin said there is value in having space at grade on the mall for use.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Jay Maytin said the guy is going to finish the back of the building. Is that public amenity. This
project meets the code. It doesn’t have any speculative real estate. The view plane language is
horrible. If the majority of you think HPC made the right decision it is not a reason to remand it
back. It is a building that is one and 2/3 story as designed with no speculative real estate. It is a
no brainer.
2. Jim Farrey said it comes down to an esthetic play with the back looking as handsome as the front.
If you can’t see it in terms of the view plane it will be the same height as it is today just prettier.
Mayor Skadron asked how much consideration did HPC give to the buildings that are doing the blocking.
Ms. Adams said they considered the historic, non-historic and those with free market residential use. We
talked holistic about the main buildings. Mayor Skadron said the historic makes this discussion mute. I
need to know that HPC has given through consideration to what they were looking at. Councilwoman
Mullins said it is the historic buildings that are obstructing the view planes. If they were non-historic I
would fight for it.
Councilman Frisch said he is basing this on the fact they are historic buildings.
Councilman Myrin said they talked about in front of versus behind.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mayor Skadron said we need to decide which action to take. Is there any desire to continue this meeting
to request additional information. Councilman Myrin said he would like more clarity on adjacent
structure that could block the viewplane.
Mayor Skadron said because of the importance of the location of this building is there any desire to
remand this back and ask for reconsideration regarding the viewplanes. Councilwoman Mullins replied
no, the intrusion is minimal. The most important aspect is looking at the design and HPC has already
given that message. Cash in lieu is appropriate for the public amenity space.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to uphold HPC Resolution #25, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman
Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, no; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
Jay Maytin said using the reasoning of a small amount of HPC members present is inappropriate for a
reason for a call up. Mr. True said the basis of call up is discretionary for call up and having less than a
majority present is a legitimate basis for call up.
At 10:05 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 (b) conference with attorney, Councilwoman Mullins moved to
go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Daily did not stay for the executive session. At 10:15 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to
come out of executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Myrin moved to continue until 4:00 p.m. on November 10, 2015; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried
P85
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
16
November 10, 2015 4:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the continued regular meeting to order.
ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2015 – Code Amendment – Fee-in-Lieu Rate Schedule
Barry Crook, manager’s office, said in 2012 RRC and Reese consultants proposed a methodology for
revamping the fee in lieu referred to as the market gap method. It did not find favor. We came back in
January and Council tabled further study until the residential study could be completed. In March of this
year Council reviewed seven different methodology options and narrowed it to two. At a July
worksession we were asked to draft an ordinance that used a combination of historical and future
estimated development costs. Council indicated they preferred a density option that was at least a 25
percent reduction. At second reading Council decided to add another methodology that eliminated the
historical costs at Burlingame and looked at only future development at three different density options;
75, 62.5 and 50 percent. Those are the options we brought tonight. Options one, two and three are
historical and future at the three different options. Options four, five and six eliminate the recently
completed phase of Burlingame and look only at the future phase and in town properties and the three
different density considerations. The Staff recommendation is option four, all potential future
development at a 75 percent density level. Categories five, six and seven have been included so comdev
can calculate housing certificate conversions not fee in lieu options.
Councilman Frisch said there are two big questions; density and what do we want to include to figure out
future assumed costs. What should we include. I think futuristic Burlingame but not sure about the
completed Burlingame phase. He thinks we need to focus on 4, 5 and 6. There is some downside to
reducing the density too much. It is more expensive to build with less density. If a private developer was
building on the same site what would they be allowed to build. He appreciates the APCHA letter but
under no circumstance does he see Burlingame phase whatever not being part of something we should
plan for in the medium future. The more Burlingame you include the less money you need to collect.
Let’s be sure you collect enough money to build what you promised the community to build. There has
been a lot of talk that say nobody can build for these numbers. The category one option four say 328,000
dollars. No one is saying you can build for that but what isn’t talked about is the revenue from the buyer
of the unit. Those things together need to be the full cost of the unit. I’m with staff on the
recommendation of 4.
Councilman Myrin said he could live with 5. His original argument was for 50 percent.
Councilwoman Mullins said we are getting close. Her concern is more of whatever method we chose
when will be the first check in to make sure we chose the right method. Mr. Crook said we would
recommend no more than every five years. Councilman Frisch said after the first project gets approved
we should say did that density match up with what we thought it would. Councilwoman Mullins said and
cost as well. It is important that whatever option we back is the most defensible legally. Mr. True said
these options are defensible and choosing one is a decision Council gets to make in their discretion. 75
percent is reasonable to start with.
Councilman Daily said he agrees with Councilmembers Mullins and Frisch. Staff’s recommendation is
consistent and option 4 is a good place to start. There is a certain amount of flexibility. Councilman
Frisch is right with a check in after the first project. He likes the sense of not being committed for 5
years. Let’s choose the best we can. We have looked at a lot of options over the last few months.
P86
VII.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 and 10, 2015
17
Councilman Frisch said he is not sure about the density between 75 and 62.5. He could be convinced to
go to 5 if someone says 62.5 is more realistic. Mr. Crook said at 75 percent that is 9 units on the Main
Street project, 12 at Park Circle and 25 at Castle Creek. Councilman Frisch said the best check in is
Peter’s Main Street project. If our project is close to that is a good check.
Mayor Skadron said what is most important is the reliable, predictable, updatable and defensible criteria.
Option 4 appears as the hybrid approach that takes into account land costs, recent construction figures,
projected construction costs and build out to 75 percent max that is leading us to the point that can help us
to get something built. He is not opposed to considering option 5.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Peter Fornell thanked Barry and Chris. 4, 5 and 6 are better models to consider. He is supporting option
5. It most closely represents the current price he has been charging for certificates. 75 percent is
aggressive and 65.5 is more appropriate. Mr. Fornell passed out handout he previously emailed. If you
want to see the certificate program produce units at lower income there needs to be an incentive for the
developer who is willing to wait for his money. If you use option 5 there are more dollars in category two
than four.
2. Steve Stunda, member of APCHA board, said they endorsed an option that is not visible but they are
willing to endorse option 5. They felt not enough land value was allocated to Burlingame Phase II and it
is artificially low. They want the FTE program to survive. It needs to be competitively handled.
3. Cindy Christensen said when Snyder was built what was first going forward was a bunch more units and
what we ended up getting was 30 percent density. It was the first project the city ended up getting the
maximum price.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would support option 5.
Councilman Daily said he agrees with Councilwoman Mullins. He appreciates the public input. Option 5
is the best selection. Councilman Myrin favors it. He is prepared to go with 5.
Councilman Frisch is good with 5.
Councilman Myrin is glad he stands where he started.
Mayor Skadron asked for a comment on any concern with the staff recommendation and option 5. Mr.
Crook said he has no concern. Both are legally defensible. Mr. True agrees. It supports a rational
discussion and conclusion by Council based on input by knowledgeable individuals.
Mayor Skadron stated he will support option 5 as well.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 2015 amended to option 5 from option 4;
seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes;
Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Mayor Skadron said the ordinance supports using credits for categories 5 through 7. Mr. Fornell said you
can’t build 5 through 7 but you can receive credits for them.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 4:55 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P87
VII.e
Staff Memo
11.23.2015 – Second Reading
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: Definitions & Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations Code
Amendment
Ordinance 46, Series of 2015, Second Reading
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance includes proposed language to amend the Definitions and Miscellaneous
Supplemental Regulations of the Land Use Code. The objective of the code amendment is to clean
up incorrect text references, update and clarify definitions, measurements from grade and floor area
exemptions, allowances in setbacks, and simplify building envelope language. This update intends
to provide predictability in zoning review by clarifying existing regulations and in some cases
adding more specific language.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance on second reading.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This is the 2nd reading of proposed code amendments to the Definitions and Miscellaneous
Supplemental Regulations 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 the pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
The City’s Calculations and Measurements section of the Land Use Code is very technical and
very specific. It explains what does and does not count toward floor area, how to count internal
spaces, how to measure height, what is allowed in setbacks, etc. Every few years this section of
the Code needs updating to remain relevant to current building practice, to create more
predictability in zoning review, and to ensure that the purpose of the requirement is met.
P88
IX.a
Staff Memo
11.23.2015 – Second Reading
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 2 of 5
City Planning Staff maintain a “redline” version of the Land Use Code, largely for the
calculations and measurements section, which highlight areas that need to be updated, clarified
or rewritten. These highlights are largely informed by complex projects that expose existing
loopholes or confusing language. The “redline” changes and recent Code interpretations are
incorporated into the proposed Code amendment.
There are very few policy changes proposed. Most of the changes are clarifications and slight
adjustments. The proposed changes include: clarifying dwelling types, cleaning up
measurements from grade, clarifying allowed projections into setbacks, and simplifying building
envelope requirements. A summary of the proposed changes is below. Red-line versions of the
proposed language are attached as Exhibits B & C.
Definitions:
Staff proposes to add a definition for story, which is important for height and use allowance,
particularly for split-level buildings. Staff also proposes a definition for Urban Growth
Boundary, as this term is used within the Land Use Code. Staff is proposing to eliminate the
definition for dwelling, as it is repetitive of the definition for dwelling unit. Staff is also
proposing to eliminate the definition for Growth Management Commission since this is a
commission that no longer exists.
Dwelling Units: No substantive changes are proposed to the definition of dwelling units.
However, staff is proposing to clean up and clarify the definitions. The current definition of
dwelling unit states it is a structure or unit that in intended for living with a kitchen. This is a
fairly broad definition. The proposed changes provide more detail, including stating that a
dwelling unit has no internal connection to another residential or commercial use. This change
allows for a more holistic assessment of dwelling units during zoning review or building
inspection.
The code amendment also amends the size requirements related to dorm units. The current
language in the Land Use Code conflicts with the language in the APCHA Guidelines. Because
housing policy should be established by the Housing Board, staff proposes to refer all dorm size
requirements to the APCHA Guidelines.
The current code does not state how requirements such as Residential Design Standards and
parking apply to dormitory units. The code amendment classifies dorms as multi-family
dwelling units for such calculations, which is consistent with how they have been treated in the
past.
Measurements from Grade: Staff is proposing to clarify measurements from grade. This
includes adding new language around the measurement of finished grade, stating that for finished
grade to be used it must be flat (with exception for drainage requirements) for at least five feet.
This is proposed to address a recent trend of “planter boxes” being pushed up against a building
and artificially raising the height of a building. This change codifies existing City policy.
P89
IX.a
Staff Memo
11.23.2015 – Second Reading
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 3 of 5
Net Leasable and Net Livable Area: There are a few buildings in town that span two or more
property lines. When a property owner attempts to calculate their net leasable or net livable
space, they often ask Planning staff how to complete that calculation. The code is clear that floor
area is counted on the parcel in which it is developed. Staff has used this language to state that
net livable or net leasable is counted on the parcel in which it is developed. Staff proposed to
codify this policy.
Building Envelopes: There are a number of Planned Developments that rely on Building
Envelopes. These have site specific requirements that for the most part require areas outside of
the envelope to remain in a pristine, untouched condition. Other properties have building
envelopes because of when they were annexed into the city or because of a Stream Margin
Review. These building envelopes function more as setbacks than to preserve untouched
landscape. Staff proposed to amend the Building Envelope requirements to reflect this current
condition. All building envelopes would be treated like setbacks, unless otherwise specified in a
Site-Specific Development Plan.
The amendment provides more certainty for applicants and zoning officers for what can and
cannot be located outside building envelopes that do not have specific language. This may allow
some landscape features outside building envelopes that were not originally intended on a
limited number of properties.
Development in Setbacks: The code currently allows a number of projections in required
setbacks. This includes fences, landscaping, renewable energy systems, and stormwater
improvements. Hot tubs, pools, water features, and permanently affixed outdoor grills and
similar features are allowed within a setback that does not face a street if it is no more than 30
inches above or below grade. Staff is proposing clarifications on the rules related to hot tubs and
similar features to address unique site conditions, as there seems to be confusion about how this
regulation is applied. Development of such elements would be expressly prohibited between a
structure and a public street. This is consistent with the code today. The proposed change would
allow these items in side yards visible from the street if the element is screened by a fence or
landscaping.
The amendment more clearly states where these features are prohibited and requires screening to
reduce visual impacts. It also provides a flexible option for when placement of these features
cannot reasonably be met on unique properties and for multi-family buildings. More fences in
side yards may start appearing to screen these features.
Individual Unit Floor Area: Staff has recognized that there are two possible methods to
calculate floor area for an individual unit within a duplex, multi-family, or mixed-use building.
In the past, a unit’s gross square footage subgrade was multiplied by the exposed area of that
unit. The code amendment changes that methodology to multiplying the unit’s gross square
footage subgrade by the exposed area of the entire structure. The change brings this calculation
into alignment with other calculations for buildings with multiple units, such as the non-unit
space calculations.
P90
IX.a
Staff Memo
11.23.2015 – Second Reading
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 4 of 5
The amendment provides consistency in calculation methods. Many existing duplex and
multifamily developments will become nonconforming in regard to Floor Area.
Other Code Cleanups: There are several other miscellaneous amendments that are proposed in
this Ordinance. These are essentially cleanup items to fix Code references, remove conflicting
review authorities, and relocate text into the appropriate Code sections.
Earlier this year Council approved Ordinance 11, Series of 2015, regarding Public Projects. The
Ordinance did not update other sections of the code that reference this Chapter. Staff has
included the updates in this code amendment.
Staff has included updates in this code amendment to clean up conflicting authorities regarding
height and floor area variances. Council is the only review body with the authority to review
variances to height and floor area and the proposed updates reflect that. The Growth
Management Commission is also being deleted from the Code, as it is no longer a City board.
Ordinance 25, Series of 2015, approved by Council earlier this year, included deck exemptions
for free market units in the CC and C-1 Zone Districts. Staff proposes to relocate these
exemptions to the Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, where all other floor area
calculations and exemptions are located.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff sent out a description of the changes and a link to the proposed language in the Community
Development newsletter that reaches almost 600 professionals including contractors, architects,
attorneys, and planners. Staff has received some comments related to the measurements from
grade portion of the amendment expressing a concern that “flat” ground next to a building
contradicts drainage requirements for construction. Staff has modified the language to address
this concern.
Staff met with P&Z on October 6th to gain their input and feedback on the proposed code
amendments. P&Z mostly asked for clarifications and was comfortable with the proposed
changes. The meeting minutes are also attached as Exhibit D.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend the Definitions Section,
Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations Section, and other miscellaneous sections of the Land
Use Code.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015 approving amendments to the Land Use
Code upon second reading.”
P91
IX.a
Staff Memo
11.23.2015 – Second Reading
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 5 of 5
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendment Language - Definitions (red line version)
Exhibit C – Proposed Code Amendment Language - Miscellaneous (red line version)
Exhibit D – 10/6/15 P&Z minutes
P92
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 1 of 21
ORDINANCE NO. 46
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS TO 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 to the Definitions and Miscellaneous Supplemental
Regulations Chapters of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the
Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by
City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the
recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on October 26, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.111, Series of 2015, requesting
code amendments to the Definitions and Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations Chapters of the
Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapters 26.575 – Miscellaneous
Supplemental Regulations, 26.104.100 – Definitions, 26.208 – City Council, 26.210, Community
Development Director, 26.212 – Planning and Zoning Commission, 26.220 – Historic
Preservation Commission, 26.304 – Common Development Review Procedures, 26.314 –
Variances, 26.316 – Appeals, and 26.710 – Zone Districts; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The goals and objectives of the code amendment are to update and clarify the Definitions and
Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations in the Land Use Code.
P93
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 2 of 21
Section 1: The following definitions in Section 26.104.100, Definitions, shall be amended and
added as follows:
Affordable housing. A dwelling unit or units subject to the size, type, rental, sale and
occupancy restrictions and guidelines for affordable housing adopted by the City as part of the
Affordable Housing Guidelines and Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Aspen community growth boundary. Same as Aspen metropolitan (metro) boundary and the
Urban Growth Boundary.
Aspen metropolitan (metro) boundary. That geographic area described and illustrated in the
Aspen Area Community Plan, as amended from time to time, encompassing both the City and its
environs. (Also known as the Urban Growth Boundary and Aspen community growth
boundary).
Building envelope. A designated area on a lot or parcel in which all structures shall be located,
unless specifically excepted or exempted. (See Supplementary Regulations — Section
26.575.110, Building envelopes).
Density. The number of dwelling units or lodge units per unit of land.
Dwelling, attached residential. A residential Dwelling Unit which is physically connected to
one or more other dwellings in either an over-and-under or side-by-side configuration with
common unpierced demising walls or floors/ceilings as applicable.
Dwelling, multi-family. A residential structure containing three (3) or more attached Dwelling
Units in either an over-and-under or side-by-side configuration with common unpierced
demising walls or floors/ceilings as applicable, not including hotels and lodges, but including
townhomes, that may include accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation
facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. One (1) or more Dwelling Units located
within a Mixed-Use building shall also be considered a multi-family dwelling. The term "multi-
family dwelling" also includes properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures consisting of three (3) or more Detached Residential Dwellings.
Dwelling unit. A structure or portion thereof, providing complete, independent living facilities
for one or more persons, including, but not limited to, permanent provisions for living, sleeping,
eating, cooking, and sanitation, and which shall not have an internal connection to any other
residential or non-residential unit or use. Also known as a Dwelling or a Residence.
Fence. A constructed barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary or
shield or screen view or to perform any similar function. (See, Supplementary Regulations —
Section 26.575.050, Fences)
Floor area. The sum total of the gross horizontal areas of each story of the building measured
from the exterior walls of the building. (See, Supplementary Regulations — Section 26.575.020,
Calculations and measurements).
P94
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 3 of 21
Grade, finished. The elevation of the ground surface measured where it meets the exterior wall
of a structure upon completion of construction. A surface must be flat (with exception for
drainage requirements) for at least 5 feet measured horizontally from an exterior wall or flat
(with exception for drainage requirements) between the exterior wall of a building and the
property line to be considered finished grade.
Kitchen. A room or other portion of a structure used for the preparation and cooking of food.
Story. A space in a building between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor or
ceiling above, which is more than 50 percent above finished grade.
Urban Growth Boundary. Same as Aspen metropolitan (metro) boundary and the Aspen
community growth boundary.
Section 2: The definitions “dwelling” and “Growth Management Commission” in Section
26.104.100, Definitions, are hereby deleted.
Section 3: Chapter 26.208.010.M – City Council, which section describes the power and duties of
City Council, shall be amended as follows:
To hear, review and approve, approve with conditions or disapprove an application for Public
Projects Review, pursuant to Chapter 26.500, and to determine if a private development
application is eligible for Public Project Review, pursuant to Section 26.500.040.D.
Section 4: Chapter 26.210.020.B – Community Development Director, which section described the
power and duties of the Community Development Director, shall be amended as follows:
[No Changes to Subsections 1-23]
24. To approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application for Administrative Public
Project review, pursuant to Chapter 26.500, and to determine if a private development
application is eligible for Public Project Review, pursuant to Section 26.500.040.D.
Section 5: Chapter 26.212.010.N – Planning and Zoning Commission, which section describes the
power and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be amended as follows:
To grant variances, not including variances to allowable FAR or height, from the provisions of
this Title when a consolidated application is presented to the Commission for review and
approval pursuant to Chapter 26.314;
Section 6: Chapter 26.212.010 – Planning and Zoning Commission, which section describes the
power and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be amended as follows:
[No Changes to Subsections A – Q]
R. To hear, review and approve, approve with conditions or disapprove an application for
Public Projects Review, pursuant to Chapter 26.500.
P95
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 4 of 21
Section 7: Chapter 26.220.010.H – Historic Preservation Commission, which section describes
the power and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
To grant variances, not including variances to allowable FAR or height, from the provisions of
this Title when a consolidated application is presented to the Commission for review and
approval pursuant to Chapter 26.314;
Section 8: Chapter 26.220.010 – Historic Preservation Commission, which section describes the
power and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
[No Changes to Subsections A-K]
L. To hear, review and approve, approve with conditions or disapprove an application for
Public Projects Review, pursuant to Chapter 26.500.
Section 9: Chapter 26.304.060.B.3 – Common Development Review Procedures, which section
describes modification of review process, shall be amended as follows:
Public Projects. If the Community Development Director, or City Council, determines that a
proposed development is authorized for Public Project Review in accordance with Section
26.500.040.D, the Community Development Director shall cause the application to proceed in
accordance with Section 26.500.040.
Section 10: Chapter 26.314.080 – Variances, which section describes the authority to hear appeals
for variances, shall be amended as follows:
An applicant may appeal an adverse determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission or
Historic Preservation Commission on an application for a variance, not including variances to
allowable FAR or height, that is consolidated with other development applications to the Board
of Adjustment. Such appeals shall follow the general appeal procedures set forth in Chapter
26.316.
Section 11: Chapter 26.316.010 – Appeals, which section describes the authority to hear appeals,
shall be amended as follows:
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the
procedures for said appeals.
Section 12: Chapter 26.575.020.D.1 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Floor Area, which section describes how to measure floor area in general, shall be amended as
follows:
1. General. Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. In
measuring a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor
area, there shall be included all areas within the surrounding exterior walls of the
P96
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 5 of 21
building. When measuring from the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from
the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, exterior face of straw bale,
or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier,
weatherproofing membrane, exterior-mounted insulation systems, and excluding all
exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards
or other similar exterior veneer treatments. (Also, see setbacks.)
Section 13: Chapter 26.575.020.D.4 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Floor Area, which section describes how to measure floor area for decks and similar features,
shall be amended as follows:
4. Decks, Balconies, Loggias, Gazebos, Trellis, Exterior Stairways, and non-Street-facing
porches.
a. The calculation of the Floor Area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include
decks, balconies, trellis, exterior stairways, non-Street facing porches, gazebos and
similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen percent (15%)
of the allowable floor area for the property and the use and density proposed, or as
otherwise exempted by this Section.
b. If the area of these features exceeds fifteen percent (15%) of the property’s allowable
Floor Area (for that use and density proposed) only the areas in excess of the fifteen
percent (15%) shall be attributed towards the allowable Floor Area for the property.
The allowable Floor Area for the purpose of this calculation refers to the Floor Area
calculation based on the Net Lot Area, as defined in this chapter or as prescribed by a
site specific approval, with the following exceptions: Floor Area bonus, or established
or extinguished Transferrable Development Right certificates are not included.
c. Decks, balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and similar features of a mixed use,
commercial, or lodge building located within the Commercial Core (CC) Zone
District, Mixed Use (MU) Zone District, the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone District, the Lodge (L) Zone District, or the
Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations.
d. For free-market residential units located within the Commercial Core (CC) Zone
District and Commercial (C-1) Zone District, at-grade patios, decks (other than roof-
top decks), balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and other similar features may only
be expanded up to 15% of the total free-market residential floor area. Such free-
market units shall not be able to utilize any other exemptions to floor area outlined in
Section 26.575.020(D).
e. The area of the following features count toward deck calculation: railing, permanently
fixed seating, permanently fixed grills, and similar permanently fixed features.
Permanent planter boxes and green roofs that are a minimum of 30” in height above
or below the deck surface, measured from the deck surface to the bottom of the
planter box or green roof surface, and that are permanently built into the structure of
the roof or deck are not included in the deck calculation. Permanent planter boxes and
green roofs that do not meet the minimum requirement count toward deck calculation.
P97
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 6 of 21
f. Unenclosed areas beneath decks, balconies, and exterior stairways shall be exempt
from Floor Area calculations unless that area is used as a carport. (See provisions for
garages and carports, Subsection 7.) Enclosed and unconditioned areas beneath
porches, gazebos, and decks or balconies when those elements have a finished floor
level within thirty (30) inches of the surrounding finished grade shall be exempt from
Floor Area calculations regardless of how that area is used.
Section 14: Chapter 26.575.020.D.6 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Floor Area, which section describes how to measure floor area for patios, shall be amended as
follows:
6. Patios. Patios developed at or within six inches of finished grade shall not be counted
towards Floor Area. These features may be covered by roof overhangs or similar
architectural projections of up to four feet, as measured from the face of the building,
and remain exempt from Floor Area calculations. When roof overhangs or similar
architectural projections exceed four feet, the entire feature shall be subject to deck
calculations. Railing, permanently fixed seating, permanently fixed grills, and similar
permanently fixed features located on patios shall count toward deck calculation.
Section 15: Chapter 26.575.020.D.7 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Floor Area, which section describes how to measure floor area for garages and carports, shall be
amended as follows:
7. Garages and carports. For all multi-family buildings, parcels containing more than two
residential units, and residential units located within a mixed-use building, 250 square
feet of the garage or carport area shall be excluded from the calculation of floor area per
residence on the parcel. All garage and carport area in excess of 250 square feet per
residence shall be attributed towards Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio with no exclusion.
Garage and carport areas for properties containing no residential units shall be attributed
towards Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio with no exclusion.
In the R-15B Zone District, garage and carport areas shall be excluded from the
calculation of Floor Area up to a maximum exemption of five-hundred-square-foot total
for the parcel.
In zone districts other than the R-15B Zone District, properties containing solely a
Single- Family, two single-family residences, or a Duplex, the garage and carport area
shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area as follows:
Table 26.575.020-2
Size of Garage or Carport Area excluded per primary dwelling unit (not including
Accessory Dwelling Units or Carriage Houses)
First 0 to 250 square feet 100% of the area
Next 251 to 500 square feet 50% of the area
P98
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 7 of 21
For any property abutting an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the
property, the garage or carport area shall only be excluded from floor area calculations as
described above if the garage or carport is accessed from said alley or road. If an alley or
private road does exist and is not utilized for garage or carport access, the garage or
carport area shall be attributed towards Floor Area calculations with no exclusion. If an
alley or private road does not abut the property, the garage or carport area shall be
excluded from floor area calculations as described above.
Section 16: Chapter 26.575.020.D.8 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Floor Area, which section describes how to measure floor area for subgrade areas, shall be
amended as follows:
8. Subgrade areas. Subgrade or partially subgrade levels of a structure are included in the
calculation of Floor Area based on the portion of the level exposed above grade.
The percentage of the gross area of a partially subgrade level to be counted as Floor Area
shall be the surface area of the exterior walls exposed above natural or finished grade,
whichever is lower, divided by the total exterior wall area of that level. Subgrade stories
with no exposed exterior surface wall area shall be excluded from floor area calculations.
Example: If the walls of a 2,000 square foot level are forty percent (40%)
exposed above the lower of natural or finished grade then forty percent (40%) of
that level, 800 square feet is counted as Floor Area.
For the purposes of this section, the exterior wall area to be measured shall be the interior
Areas above 500 square feet No area excluded.
Figure 4: Determining the amount of a subgrade floor to be counted as Floor Area
AArea
Window
Area below more restrictive
Exposed Percentage of exterior wall that’s exposed
equals the amount of subgrade area that will
count towards floor area calculation
P99
IX.a
wall area projected outward and shall not include exterior wall
foundation or floors of the structure. Floor structure does not include drop cei
When considering multi-level subgrade spaces, ad
considered on the same story if the vertical separation between the ceilings of the spaces
is less than 50% of the distance between the floor and ceiling of either sp
When a partially subgrade space also contains a vaulted ceiling within a pitched roof, the
wall area shall include the area within the gable of the roof.
Space
while Space
Figure 6: Determining different building levels
Ordinance No. 46
Misc. Code Amendment
wall area projected outward and shall not include exterior wall areas adjacent to
floors of the structure. Floor structure does not include drop cei
level subgrade spaces, adjacent interior spaces shall be
considered on the same story if the vertical separation between the ceilings of the spaces
is less than 50% of the distance between the floor and ceiling of either sp
When a partially subgrade space also contains a vaulted ceiling within a pitched roof, the
area shall include the area within the gable of the roof.
Space A and B are on the same level,
while Space A and C are on different levels.
Figure 6: Determining different building levels
No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 8 of 21
areas adjacent to
floors of the structure. Floor structure does not include drop ceilings.
jacent interior spaces shall be
considered on the same story if the vertical separation between the ceilings of the spaces
is less than 50% of the distance between the floor and ceiling of either space.
When a partially subgrade space also contains a vaulted ceiling within a pitched roof, the
P100
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 9 of 21
For garages that are part of a subgrade area, the garage exemption is taken from the total
gross below-grade area prior to calculating the subgrade exemption. For example, a 2,000
square foot story containing a 350 square foot garage which is 40% above grade, the
calculation shall be as follows:
Garage exemption – the first 250 square feet is exempt and the next 100 square feet
counts 50% or 50 square feet = 300 square feet of the garage which is exempt.
Subgrade exemption – 2,000 gross square feet minus 300 square feet of exempt
garage space = 1,700 gross square feet multiplied by 40% = 680 square feet of that
level which counts towards allowable Floor Area.
For subgrade spaces with adjoining crawl spaces exempt pursuant to Section
26.575.020.D.3, a line is drawn to separate the basement space from the crawl space for
the purposes of calculating the perimeter and gross area measurements. Exempt crawl
space is not included in the perimeter, wall area, and floor area measurements.
Single-family and duplex structures shall contain no more than one floor level below
finished grade. A basement with a stepped floor is allowed. The finished floor level
shall be no more than 15 feet below finished grade. A crawl space below the basement,
compliant with the limitations of Section 26.575.020.D.3, shall be exempt from this depth
limitation.
When it is necessary to determine the floor area of an individual unit within a duplex or
multi-family building, it shall be calculated from the exterior walls to the centerline of
any party walls it shares with other units.
In order to determine the subgrade area of an individual unit in a duplex or multi-family
building that applies toward Floor Area calculations, the subgrade gross square footage of
Area counts
towards wall
calculation
Figure 7: Pitched roof with subgrade calculation
P101
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 10 of 21
an individual unit shall be multiplied by the percentage of exterior walls exposed above
grade for the entire structure.
Example:
a. The subgrade exemption for the structure is 40% (exposed wall divided by total
wall).
b. Unit A has 500 square feet below grade, measured from exterior wall to the
centerline of the party walls it shares with Unit B. Unit B has 900 square feet.
c. 0.40 (entire duplex exposed percentage) x 500 (Unit A subgrade gross square
footage) = 200 square feet subgrade floor area that applies toward the total Floor
Area for Unit A. 0.40 (entire duplex exposed percentage) x 900 (Unit B subgrade
gross square footage) = 360 square feet subgrade floor area that applies toward
the Floor Area for Unit B.
Unit A: 500 sq. ft.
Unit B: 900 sq. ft.
Duplex subgrade area
40% exposed above grade
P102
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 11 of 21
Section 17: Chapter 26.575.020.D.11 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Floor Area, which section describes how to measure floor area for sheds, storage areas, and
similar accessory structures, shall be amended as follows:
11. Sheds, Storage Areas, and similar Accessory Structures. Sheds, storage areas,
greenhouses, and similar uninhabitable accessory structures, not within a garage, are
exempt from floor area limitations up to a maximum exemption of thirty-two (32) square
feet per residence. Storage areas within a garage shall be treated as garage space eligible
for the garage exemption only. Accessory structures thirty-six inches or less in height, as
measured from finished grade, shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations (also see
setback limitations). Accessory structures that are both larger than thirty-two square feet
per primary residence and more than thirty-six inches in height shall be included in their
entirety in the calculation of Floor Area. Properties which do not contain residential units
are not eligible for this Floor Area exemption.
Section 18: Chapter 26.575.020.E.5 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Setbacks, which section describes the allowed projections into setbacks, shall be amended as
follows:
5. Allowed Projections into Setbacks. Setback areas shall be unobstructed above and below
ground except for the following allowed projections:
a) Above or below ground utilities, including transformers and vaults, below-grade
heating or cooling conduit or infrastructure such as a ground-source heat pump
system, below-grade dry wells or other at-grade or below-grade drainage
infrastructure.
b) Trees and vegetation.
c) Artwork, sculpture, seasonal displays.
d) Flagpoles, mailboxes, address markers.
e) Foundation footers, soil nails or below-grade tiebacks, and similar improvements
necessary for the structural integrity of a building or other structures.
f) The minimum projection necessary to accommodate exterior mounted utility
junctions, meters, cable boxes, vent flues, standpipes, and similar apparatus and
including any protective structure as may be required by the utility provider.
g) Building eaves, bay windows, window sills, and similar architectural projections up
to eighteen (18) inches as measured from the setback boundary.
h) The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement
stairwells as required by adopted Building or Fire Codes as long as these features are
entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building
façade(s) closest to any Street(s).
If any portion of the feature projects into the setback, the entire feature may be no
larger than the minimum required.
P103
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 12 of 21
Features required for adjacent subgrade interior spaces may be combined as long as
the combined feature represents the minimum projection into the setback. There is no
vertical depth limitation for these features.
This exemption does not apply to Areaways. This exemption does not apply to light
wells and exterior basement stairwells which are not required by adopted Building or
Fire Codes.
i) The minimum projection necessary to accommodate an exterior-mount fire escape to
an existing building, as may be required by adopted Building or Fire Codes.
j) Uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks and similar features,
which do not exceed six (6) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished
grade for the entire feature.
k) Landscape walls, berms, retaining walls, stairways and similar structures, which do
not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the lower of natural or
finished grade Improvements may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below grade
simultaneously, for up to a sixty (60) inch total. Improvements may exceed thirty (30)
inches below grade if determined to be necessary for the structural integrity of the
improvement. (See Figure 17). Berms are prohibited in the front yard setback.
l) Drainage swales, stormwater retention areas, bio retention areas, rain collection
systems, and similar stormwater retention, filtration or infiltration devices or facilities
are permitted in setbacks as long as the finished grade of the top of the improvement
does not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished
grade. Stormwater improvements or portions thereof may be buried and exceed thirty
(30) inches below grade as long as the finished grade above the facility does not
exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade.
These features may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade
simultaneously.
m) Hot tubs, spas, pools, water features, and permanently affixed outdoor grills,
furniture, seating areas, and similar permanent structures shall have the following
requirements:
a. Prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure; and
b. Shall be located at least double the minimum setback for a primary
structure from any lot line adjacent to a street; and
c. If visible from the street, these features shall be screened in accordance
with Section 26.575.050, Fences; and
d. If located within a setback not adjacent to a street, these features shall not
exceed thirty (30) inches above or below finished grade. These features
may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade
simultaneously. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade
if necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement.
P104
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 13 of 21
n) Heating and air conditioning equipment and similar mechanical equipment shall have
the following requirements:
a. Prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure; and
b. Shall be located at least double the minimum setback for a primary
structure from any lot line adjacent to a street; and
c. If visible from the street, these features shall be screened in accordance
with Section 26.575.050, Fences; and
d. If located within a setback not adjacent to a street, these features shall not
exceed thirty (30) inches above or below finished grade. These features
may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade
simultaneously.
The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to the requirements
of m) and n) above. The Community Development Director must first determine that
the visual impact of the exemption is minimal and that no other reasonable option
exists. Approval shall be in the form of a recordable administrative determination.
Figure 16
P105
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 14 of 21
o) The height and placement of energy efficiency or renewable energy production
systems and equipment which are located adjacent to or independent of a building
shall be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the
procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.430 – Special Review. These systems are
discouraged between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure. For energy
production systems and equipment located on top of a structure, see sub-section F.4.
p) Fences and hedges less than forty-two (42) inches in height, as measured from
finished grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to
six (6) feet in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas
entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building
facade which is closest to the Street. This restriction applies on all Street-facing
facades of a parcel. (Also see Section 26.575.050 – Supplementary Regulations for
limitations on fence materials.)
q) Driveways not exceeding twenty-four (24) inches above or below finished grade
within any setback of a yard facing a Street. Within all other required setbacks,
Area below grade
30
”
30
Spa
Figure 16: 30”
42” fence
height
Front
Façade line
Of house
72” fence
height
Figure 18
P106
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 15 of 21
finished grade of a driveway shall not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below
finished grade.
r) Parking may occur in required setbacks if within an established driveway or parking
area and the curb cut or vehicular access is from an alleyway, if an alleyway abuts the
property, or has otherwise been approved by the City.
s) Non-permanent features which are not affixed to the ground such as movable patio
furniture, outdoor seating or a picnic table, barbeque grills, children’s play
equipment, and similar non-permanent features which are not affixed to the ground.
This exemption shall not allow storage sheds or containers.
t) Wildlife-resistant Trash and Recycling enclosures located in residential zone districts
shall be prohibited in all yards facing a Street. These facilities may be placed within
non-street facing yards if the enclosure is the minimum reasonably necessary in both
height and footprint, is an unconditioned space not integrated with other structures on
the property, and serves no other purpose such as storage, garage space, or other
purposes unrelated to protecting wildlife. Wildlife-resistant trash and recycling
enclosures located in commercial, mixed-use, or lodging zone districts are not exempt
from setback requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements for
Utility/Trash/Recycle areas.
Temporary intermittent placement of trash and recycling containers in or along yards
facing a Street is allowed. For example, on “trash day.”
Enclosures shall be located adjacent to the alley where an alley borders the property
and shall not be located in a public right-of-way. Unless otherwise approved by the
Historic Preservation Commission, enclosures shall not abut or be attached to a
historic structure. Enclosures may abut other non-historic structures.
Section 19: Chapter 26.575.020.F.4 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measuring
Building Heights, which section describes the allowed exceptions to height limitations, shall be
amended as follows:
4. Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations.
a) Chimneys, flues, and similar venting apparatus. Chimneys, flues, vents, and similar
venting apparatus may extend no more than ten (10) feet above the height of the
building at the point the device connects. For roofs with a pitch of 8:12 or greater,
these elements may not extend above the highest ridge of the structure by more than
required by adopted building codes or as otherwise approved by the Chief Building
Official to accommodate safe venting. To qualify for this exception, the footprint of
these features must be the minimum reasonably necessary for its function the features
must be combined to the greatest extent practical. Appurtenances such as hoods,
caps, shields, coverings, spark arrestors, and similar functional devices or ornamental
do-dads shall be contained within the limitations of this height exception.
On structures other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory
building, all Chimneys, flues, vents, and similar venting apparatus should be set back
P107
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 16 of 21
from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of twenty (20) feet and the
footprint should be minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable.
b) Communications Equipment. Antennas, satellite dishes, and similar communications
equipment and devices shall comply with the limitations of Section 26.575.130 –
Wireless Telecommunication Services Facilities and Equipment.
c) Elevator and Stair Enclosures. On structures other than a single-family or duplex
residential building or an accessory building, elevator overrun enclosures and stair
enclosures may extend up to five (5) feet above the specified maximum height limit.
Elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to ten (10) feet above the specified
maximum height limit if set back from any Street facing façade of the building a
minimum of twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the elevators or stair enclosures are
minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable.
For single-family and duplex residential buildings and for accessory buildings,
elevator and stair enclosures are not allowed a height exception.
d) Rooftop Railings. On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential
building, rooftop railings and similar safety devices permitting rooftop access may
extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the railing
connects. To qualify for this exception, the railing must be the minimum reasonably
necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing
must be 50% or more transparent. All railings shall be set back from any Street facing
facade of the building by an amount equal to the height of the railing.
For single-family and duplex residential buildings, rooftop railings shall not be
allowed a height exception.
e) Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and
similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building may
extend up to six (6) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is
attached. This allowance is inclusive of any pad the equipment is placed on, as well
as any screening. Mechanical equipment shall be screened, combined, and co-located
to the greatest extent practicable. On structures other than a single-family or duplex
residential building or an accessory building, all mechanical equipment shall be set
back from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
f) Energy Efficiency or Renewable Energy Production Systems and Equipment. Energy
efficiency systems or renewable energy production systems and equipment including
solar panels, wind turbines, or similar systems and the system’s associated equipment
which is located on top of a building may extend up to five (5) feet above the height
of the building at the point the equipment is attached.
On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an
accessory building, these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above height of the
building at the point the equipment is attached if set back from any Street facing
façade of the building a minimum of twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the
equipment is minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable. Certain
additional restrictions may apply pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Review.
P108
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 17 of 21
The height and placement of energy efficiency or production systems which are not
located on top of a building (located independent of a building) shall be established
by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures and criteria of
Chapter 26.430 – Special Review. (Also see setback requirements for these systems at
sub-section E.5.)
g) Church spires, bell towers and like architectural projections on Arts, Cultural and
Civic buildings may extend over the height limit as may be approved pursuant to
Commercial Design Review.
h) Flag poles may extend over the specified maximum height limit.
i) Exceptions for buildings on slopes. For properties with a slope that declines by 10%
or greater from the front lot line, the maximum height of a building's front (street-
facing) facade may extend horizontally for the first ten (10) feet of the building's
depth.
j) Exceptions for lightwells and basement stairwells. A basement stairwell required by
Building Code for egress shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height.
On street facing facades the minimum size lightwell entirely recessed behind the
vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to any
Street(s), and enclosed on all sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor
level (e.g. not a walk-out style light well) shall not be counted towards maximum
permissible height. On non-street facing facades a lightwell that is no more than one
hundred (100) square feet shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height.
This exception does not apply to lightwells and stairwells that are located within a
setback.
The Historic Preservation Commission is authorized to grant an exception to height
for lightwells larger than one hundred (100) square feet on historic landmark
properties that contain a historic resource upon a finding that the following conditions
are met:
a. Lightwell is not easily visible from the right of way.
b. Approval of the exemption supports the preservation of the historic resource.
k) Permanent Rooftop Amenities. Permanent rooftop amenities, such as built-in wet
bars, built-in barbeque grills, cabinets, sinks, firepits, pools, hot tubs, etc. shall be
permanently installed and shall meet the following height and setback requirements to
qualify for a
height exemption. This only applies to a mixed use, lodge, or commercial building
located in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, Mixed Use (MU) Zone District,
the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, the Lodge (L) Zone District, the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) Zone District, or the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District.
Permanent rooftop amenities may extend up to five (5) feet above height of the
building at the point the equipment is attached to the roof. This allowance is
inclusive of any pad the equipment is placed on. A trellis with a maximum height of
ten (10) feet and a maximum floor area of no more than 5% of the useable deck area
is permitted. All permanent rooftop amenities shall be set back from any Street
facing façade of the building by a minimum of ten (10) feet.
P109
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 18 of 21
l) Exceptions for skylight and light tubes A skylight or light tube typical of industry
standards and meeting minimum Building Code standards shall not be counted
towards maximum permissible height.
Section 20: Chapter 26.575.020.G – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Measurement of
Net Leasable Area and Net Livable Area, which section describes how to measure net leasable
area and net livable area, shall be amended as follows:
G. Measurement of Net Leasable Area and Net Livable Area. The calculation of net leasable
area and net livable area shall include all interior space of a building measured from interior wall
to interior wall, including interior partitions. Net leasable area and net livable area shall be
attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. Net leasable area includes all interior
areas which can be leased to an individual tenant with the exceptions noted below. Net livable
area includes those areas of a building that are used or intended to be used for habitation with the
exceptions noted below. Garages and carports are exempt from net leasable area and net livable
area calculations.
1. Permanently installed interior airlock spaces are exempt from the calculation of net
leasable space up to a maximum exemption of 100 square feet. Seasonal airlocks of more
than 10 square feet, installed on the exterior of a building, shall be considered net
leasable area and shall be subject to all requirements of the Land Use Code, including
employee mitigation, prorated according to the portion of the year in which it is installed.
2. Unless specifically exempted through other provisions of this Title, outdoor displays,
outdoor vending, and similar commercial activities located outside (not within a building)
shall also be included in the calculation of net leasable area. The calculation of such area
shall be the maximum footprint of the display or vending apparatus. For vending carts or
similar commercial activities requiring an attendant, the calculation shall also include a
reasonable amount of space for the attendant. Exterior decks and exterior seating are not
included in the calculation of net leasable area. Vending machines, gas pumps, and
similar devices without an attendant shall not be considered net leasable area.
The calculation of net leasable area and net livable area shall exclude areas of a building that are
integral to the basic physical function of the building. All other areas are attributed to the
measurement of net leasable commercial space or net livable area. When calculating interior
stairways or elevators, the top most interior level served by the stairway or elevator is exempt
from net livable or net leasable area calculations.
Shared areas that count toward net leasable area and net livable area shall be allocated on a
proportionate basis of the use category using the percentages that are generated pursuant to
Section 26.575.020.D.14 Allocation of non-unit space in a mixed use building.
Examples:
1. A broom closet of a minimum size to reasonably accommodate the storage of janitorial
supplies for the entire building is considered integral to the physical function of the
building and does not count toward net leasable area.
P110
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 19 of 21
2. A shared commercial storage area that is larger than needed for the basic functionality of
the building counts toward net leasable area because it is useable by the businesses.
3. A shared stairway and a shared circulation corridor (that access more than one use) are
integral to the physical function of the building and do not count in the measurement of
net livable area or net leasable area.
4. A stairway that is entirely within one residential unit counts toward the measurement of
net livable area.
5. A private elevator that serves more than one residential unit, and does not provide access
to other uses, does not count toward the measurement of net livable area.
6. A private elevator that serves only one residential unit, and does not provide access to
other uses, counts toward the measurement of net livable area.
7. A shared mechanical room that is larger than the minimum space required to reasonably
accommodate the mechanical equipment counts toward the measurement of net livable
area or net leasable area as applicable. The area of the mechanical room that is the
minimum size required for the mechanical equipment does not count in net livable area or
net leasable area.
Section 21: Chapter 26.575.050 – Fence Materials, which section describes height and material
requirements for fences, shall be amended as follows:
26.575.050 Fences
Fences shall be permitted in every zone district, provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet
above finished grade or as otherwise regulated by the, Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
(see Chapter 26.415), the Commercial Design Standards (see Chapter 26.412), Calculations and
Measurements – setbacks (see Chapter 26.575.020.5), or the Engineering Design Standards (see
landscaping). Fences shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought iron, concrete, metal, wire, or
masonry. Chain link, plastic, vinyl or synthetic fences are prohibited.
Section 22: Chapter 26.575.110 – Building envelopes, which section describes regulations on
building envelopes, shall be amended as follows:
For the purposes of this Chapter, an approved building envelope shall have the same
requirements and allowances as the underlying zoning setbacks, unless otherwise noted in a site-
specific development plan.
For purposes of site-specific development plans, building envelopes may be established to
restrict development to protect slopes, important vegetation, water courses, privacy or other
considerations. Building envelopes required or designated as part of a development approval
shall be described on recorded plats, site-specific development plans, ordinances, resolutions and
building permit site plans.
Section 23: Chapter 26.575.160 – Dormitory, which section described regulations on dormitory
uses, shall be amended as follows:
P111
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 20 of 21
Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more than eight (8) persons. Each unit shall
provide a minimum square footage per person in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Standards for use and design of such facilities shall
be established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A dormitory unit shall be
considered the same as a multi-family unit for all requirements of the Land Use Code other than
permitted and conditional uses.
Section 24: Chapter 26.710.140.D.12(e) – Commercial Core (CC), shall be amended as follows:
Free-Market multi-family housing: Limited to the existing FAR. Any subsequent reduction in
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.
Section 25: Chapter 26.710.150.D.12(f) – Commercial (C-1), shall be amended as follows:
Free-Market multi-family housing: Limited to the existing FAR. Any subsequent reduction in
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.
Section 26:
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 27: 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 28: 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 29: 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 30:
A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 23rd day of November, 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.
P112
IX.a
Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2015
Misc. Code Amendment
Page 21 of 21
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of November, 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
P113
IX.a
Exhibit A
Staff Findings
Misc. Code Amendment
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: There are no known conflicts with any other portions of this Title. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective
cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
Staff Findings: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to fix incorrect text references, update
regulations to remain relevant to current building practice, and create more predictability in
zoning review. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the
City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this
Title.
Staff Findings: The proposed amendment helps to clarify language and expose loopholes in
order to maintain consistent application of the Code throughout the community. It is in the
public interest to maintain consistency and have reliability in the language of the Code. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
P114
IX.a
Exhibit B
Definitions - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B
DEFINITIONS – REDLINE VERSION
Affordable housing. A dwelling unit or units subject to the size, type, rental, sale and occupancy
restrictions and guidelines for affordable housing adopted by the City as part of the Affordable
Housing Guidelines and Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. (See Supplementary
Regulations — Chapter 26.520, Affordable Housing).
Aspen community growth boundary. Same as Aspen metropolitan (metro) boundary and the
Urban Growth Boundary.
Aspen metropolitan (metro) boundary. That geographic area described and illustrated in the
Aspen Area Community Plan, as amended from time to time, encompassing both the City and its
environs. (Also known as the Urban Growth Boundary and Aspen community growth boundary).
Building envelope. A designated area on a lot or parcel in which all structures and development
shall be locatedconstructed or occur, unless specifically excepted or exempted., including but not
limited to excavation, landscaping, building, grading, demolition or filling. (See Supplementary
Regulations — Section 26.575.110, Building envelopes).
Density. The number of dwelling units or bedrooms or lodge units per unit of land as permitted in
the Zone District.
Dwelling. A structure or portion thereof, intended and used as a shelter in which a person or people
reside and sleep.
Dwelling, attached residential. A residential Ddwelling Unit which is physically connected to one
or more other dwellings or buildings in either an over-and-under or side-by-side configuration with
common unpierced demising walls or floors/ceilings as applicable.on one or more sides.
Dwelling, multi-family. A residential structure containing three (3) or more attached Dwelling Units
in either an over-and-under or side-by-side configuration with common unpierced demising walls or
floors/ceilings as applicable, not including hotels and lodges, but including townhomes, that may
include accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street
parking used by the occupants. One (1) or more Dwelling Units located within a Mixed-Use building
shall also be considered a multi-family dwelling. The term "multi-family dwelling" also includes
properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures consisting of
three (3) or more Detached Residential Dwellings.Units where permitted by the Zone District.
Dwelling unit. A structure or portion thereof, intended and used as a shelter in which a person or
people reside and sleep which contains a kitchen and bathroom and which is designed for or used as
an individual residenceproviding complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons,
including, but not limited to, permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and
sanitation, and which shall not have an internal connection to any other residential or non-residential
unit or use. Also known as a Dwelling or a Residence. (Ord. No. 22-2008, § 2)
P115
IX.a
Exhibit B
Definitions - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 2 of 2
Fence. A constructed barrier, including berms, intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a
boundary or shield or screen view or to perform any similar function. (See, Supplementary
Regulations — Section 26.575.050, Fences)
Floor area. The sum total of the gross horizontal areas of each story of the building measured from
the exterior walls of the building. or from the centerline of the party walls. (See, Supplementary
Regulations — Section 26.575.020, Calculations and measurements).
Grade, finished. The elevation of the ground surface measured where it meets the exterior wall of a
structure upon completion of construction. A surface must be flat (with exception for drainage
requirements) for at least 5 feet measured horizontally from an exterior wall or flat (with exception
for drainage requirements) between the exterior wall of a building and the property line to be
considered finished grade.
Growth Management Commission: Same as Planning and Zoning Commission. See Chapter
26.212 — Planning and Zoning Commission
Kitchen. A room or other portion of a structure used for the preparation and cooking of food. and
which contains a refrigerator, sink, stove, range, cook top or similar cooking device.
Story. A space in a building between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor or ceiling
above, which is more than 50 percent above finished grade.
Urban Growth Boundary. Same as Aspen metropolitan (metro) boundary and the Aspen
community growth boundary.
P116
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 1 of 17
EXHIBIT C
MISCELLANEOUS - REDLINE VERSION
D. Measuring Floor Area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor
area, the following applies:
1. General. Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. In
measuring a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor
area, there shall be included all areas within the surrounding exterior walls of the
building. or portion thereof. When measuring from the exterior walls, the measurement
shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, exterior
face of straw bale, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding
sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior-mounted insulation
systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco,
bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. (Also, see
setbacks.)
Figure 2: Measuring to Face of Framing
4. Decks, Balconies, Loggias, Gazebos, Trellis, Exterior Stairways, and non-Street-facing
porches.
a. The calculation of the Floor Area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include
decks, balconies, trellis, exterior stairways, non-Street facing porches, gazebos and
similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen percent (15%) of
the allowable floor area for the property and the use and density proposed, or as
otherwise exempted by this Section.
Framing
Exterior Face
of Framing Property
Line
Window
Window Sill
Wood Veneer
Stone Veneer
Floor Area Measured to Face of Framing Setback measured to
edge of veneer
P117
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 2 of 17
b. If the area of these features exceeds fifteen percent (15%) of the property’s allowable
Floor Area (for that use and density proposed) only the areas in excess of the fifteen
percent (15%) shall be attributed towards the allowable Floor Area for the property.
The allowable Floor Area for the purpose of this calculation refers to the Floor Area
calculation based on the Net Lot Area, as defined in this chapter or as prescribed by a
site specific approval, with the following exceptions: Floor Area bonus, or established
or extinguished Transferrable Development Right certificates are not included.
c. Decks, balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and similar features of a mixed use,
commercial, or lodge building located within the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District,
Mixed Use (MU) Zone District, the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) Zone District, the Lodge (L) Zone District, or the Commercial Lodge
(CL) Zone District shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations.
c.d. For free-market residential units located within the Commercial Core (CC) Zone
District and Commercial (C-1) Zone District, at-grade patios, decks (other than roof-top
decks), balconies, exterior stairways, trellis, and other similar features may only by
expanded up to 15% of the total free-market residential floor area. Such free-market
units shall not be able to utilize any other exemptions to floor area outlined in Section
26.575.020(D).
d.e. The area of the following features count toward deck calculation: railing, permanently
fixed seating, permanently fixed grills, and similar permanently fixed features.
Permanent planter boxes and green roofs that are a minimum of 30” in height above or
below the deck surface, measured from the deck surface to the bottom of the planter
box or green roof surface, and that are permanently built into the structure of the roof or
deck are not included in the deck calculation. Permanent planter boxes and green roofs
that do not meet the minimum requirement count toward deck calculation.
f. Unenclosed areas beneath decks, balconies, and exterior stairways shall be exempt from
Floor Area calculations unless that area is used as a carport. (See provisions for
garages and carports, Subsection 7.) Enclosed and unconditioned areas beneath
porches, gazebos, and decks or balconies when those elements have a finished floor
level within thirty (30) inches of the surrounding finished grade shall be exempt from
Floor Area calculations regardless of how that area is used.
6. Patios. Patios developed at or within six inches of finished grade shall not be counted
towards Floor Area. These features may be covered by roof overhangs or similar
architectural projections of up to four feet, as measured from the face of the building,
and remain exempt from Floor Area calculations. When roof overhangs or similar
architectural projections exceed four feet, the entire feature shall be subject to deck
calculations.counts toward Floor Area. Railing, permanently fixed seating, permanently
fixed grills, and similar permanently fixed features located on patios shall count toward
deck calculation.
P118
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 3 of 17
7. Garages and carports. For all multi-family buildings,and mixed-use buildings or parcels
containing more than two residential units, and residential units located within a mixed-
use building, 250 square feet of the garage or carport area shall be excluded from the
calculation of floor area per residence on the parcel. All garage and carport area in excess
of 250 square feet per residence shall be attributed towards Floor Area and Floor Area
Ratio with no exclusion. Garage and carport areas for properties containing no
residential units shall be attributed towards Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio with no
exclusion.
In the R-15B Zone District, garage and carport areas shall be excluded from the
calculation of Floor Area up to a maximum exemption of five-hundred-square-foot total
for the parcel.
In zone districts other than the R-15B Zone District, properties containing solely a
Single- Family, two single-family residences, or a Duplex, the garage and carport area
shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area as follows:
For any property abutting an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the
property, the garage or carport area shall only be excluded from floor area calculations as
described above if the garage or carport is accessed from said alley or road. If an alley or
private road does exist and is not utilized for garage or carport access, the garage or
carport area shall be attributed towards Floor Area calculations with no exclusion. If an
alley or private road does not abut the property, the garage or carport area shall be
excluded from floor area calculations as described above.
8. Subgrade areas. Subgrade or partially subgrade levels of a structure are included in the
calculation of Floor Area based on the portion of the level exposed above grade.
The percentage of the gross area of a partially subgrade level to be counted as Floor Area
shall be the surface area of the exterior walls exposed above the lower of natural and
finished grade natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, divided by the total exterior
wall area of that level. Subgrade stories with no exposed exterior surface wall area shall
be excluded from floor area calculations.
Table 26.575.020-2
Size of Garage or Carport Area excluded per primary dwelling unit (not including
Accessory Dwelling Units or Carriage Houses)
First 0 to 250 square feet 100% of the area
Next 251 to 500 square feet 50% of the area
Areas above 500 square feet No area excluded.
P119
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 4 of 17
Example: If the walls of a 2,000 square foot level are forty percent (40%)
exposed above the lower of natural or finished grade then forty percent (40%) of
that level, 800 square feet is counted as Floor Area.
For the purposes of this section, the exterior wall area to be measured shall be the interior
wall area projected outward and shall not include exterior wall areas adjacent to
foundation or floors of the structure. Floor structure does not include drop ceilings.
Figure 4: Determining the amount of a subgrade floor to be counted as Floor Area
Window
Area below more restrictive
Exposed Percentage of exterior wall that’s exposed
equals the amount of subgrade area that will
count towards floor area calculation
P120
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 5 of 17
When considering multi-level subgrade spaces, adjacent interior spaces shall be
considered on the same story if the vertical separation between the ceilings of the spaces
is less than 50% of the distance between the floor and ceiling of either space.
When a partially subgrade space also contains a vaulted ceiling within a pitched roof, the
wall area shall include the area within the gable of the roof.
Space A and B are on the same level,
while Space A and C are on different levels.
Figure 6: Determining different building levels
Area counts
towards wall
calculation
Figure 7: Pitched roof with subgrade calculation
P121
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 6 of 17
For garages that are part of a subgrade area, the garage exemption is taken from the total
gross below-grade area prior to calculating the subgrade exemption. For example, a 2,000
square foot story containing a 350 square foot garage which is 40% above grade, the
calculation shall be as follows:
Garage exemption – the first 250 square feet is exempt and the next 100 square feet
counts 50% or 50 square feet = 300 square feet of the garage which is exempt.
Subgrade exemption – 2,000 gross square feet minus 300 square feet of exempt
garage space = 1,700 gross square feet multiplied by 40% = 680 square feet of that
level which counts towards allowable Floor Area.
For subgrade spaces with adjoining crawl spaces exempt pursuant to Section
26.575.020.D.3, a line is drawn to separate the basement space from the crawl space for
the purposes of calculating the perimeter and gross area measurements. Exempt crawl
space is not included in the perimeter, wall area, and floor area measurements.
Single-family and duplex structures shall contain no more than one floor level below
finished grade. A basement with a stepped floor is allowed. The finished floor level
shall be no more than 15 feet below finished grade. A crawl space below the basement,
compliant with the limitations of Section 26.575.020.D.3, shall be exempt from this depth
limitation.
When it is necessary to determine the floor area of an individual unit within a duplex or
multi-family building, it shall be calculated from the exterior walls to the centerline of
any party walls it shares with other units.
In order to determine the subgrade area of an individual unit in a duplex or multi-family
building that applies toward Floor Area calculations, the subgrade gross square footage of
an individual unit shall be multiplied by the percentage of exterior walls exposed above
grade for the entire structure.
Example:
a. The subgrade exemption for the structure is 40% (exposed wall divided by total
wall).
b. Unit A has 500 square feet below grade, measured from exterior wall to the
centerline of the party walls it shares with Unit B. Unit B has 900 square feet.
c. 0.40 (entire duplex exposed percentage) x 500 (Unit A subgrade gross square
footage) = 200 square feet subgrade floor area that applies toward the total Floor
Area for Unit A. 0.40 (entire duplex exposed percentage) x 900 (Unit B subgrade
gross square footage) = 360 square feet subgrade floor area that applies toward
the Floor Area for Unit B.
P122
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 7 of 17
11. Sheds, Storage Areas, and similar Accessory Structures. Sheds, storage areas,
greenhouses, and similar uninhabitable accessory structures, not within a garage, are
exempt from floor area limitations up to a maximum exemption of thirty-two (32) square
feet per residence. Storage areas within a garage shall be treated as garage space eligible
for the garage exemption only. Accessory structures thirty-six inches or less in height, as
measured from finished grade, shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations (also see
setback limitations). Accessory structures that are both larger than thirty-two square feet
per primary residence and more than thirty-six inches in height shall be included in their
entirety in the calculation of Floor Area. Properties which do not contain residential units
are not eligible for this Floor Area exemption.
E. Measuring Setbacks.
Unit A: 500 sq. ft.
Unit B: 900 sq. ft.
Duplex subgrade area
40% exposed above grade
P123
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 8 of 17
6.5.Allowed Projections into Setbacks. Setback areas shall be unobstructed above and below
ground except for the following allowed projections:
a) Above or below ground utilities, including transformers and vaults, below-grade
heating or cooling conduit or infrastructure such as a ground-source heat pump
system, below-grade dry wells or other at-grade or below-grade drainage
infrastructure.
b) Trees and vegetation.
c) Artwork, sculpture, seasonal displays.
d) Flagpoles, mailboxes, address markers.
e) Foundation footers, soil nails or below-grade tiebacks, and similar improvements
necessary for the structural integrity of a building or other structures.
f) The minimum projection necessary to accommodate exterior mounted utility
junctions, meters, cable boxes, vent flues, standpipes, and similar apparatus and
including any protective structure as may be required by the utility provider.
g) Building eaves, bay windows, window sills, and similar architectural projections up
to eighteen (18) inches as measured from the setback boundary.
h) Balconies not utilized as an exterior passageway may extend the lesser of one-third
(⅓) of the way between the required setback and the property line or four (4) feet. In
no case shall the projection be allowed closer than five (5) feet to a property line.
This projection is allowed for balconies only and does not permit projections of other
improvements, such as garages or carports.
i)h) The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement
stairwells as required by adopted Building or Fire Codes as long as these features are
entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building
façade(s) closest to any Street(s).
If any portion of the feature projects into the setback, the entire feature may be no
larger than the minimum required.
Features required for adjacent subgrade interior spaces may be combined as long as
the combined feature represents the minimum projection into the setback. There is no
vertical depth limitation for these features.
This exemption does not apply to Areaways. This exemption does not apply to light
wells and exterior basement stairwells which are not required by adopted Building or
Fire Codes.
j)i) The minimum projection necessary to accommodate an exterior-mount fire escape to
an existing building, as may be required by adopted Building or Fire Codes.
j) Uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks, and similar features,
which do not exceed six (6) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished
grade for the entire feature.
P124
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 9 of 17
k) lLandscape walls, earthen berms, retaining walls, stepsstairways and similar
structures, which do not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the lower
of natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. (Also see Chapter
26.410 – Residential Design Standards for limits on the location of berms.)
Improvements may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below grade simultaneously,
for up to a sixty (60) inch total. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below
grade if determined to be necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement.
(See Figure 16). Berms are prohibited in the front yard setback.
l) Drainage swales, stormwater retention areas, bio retention areas, rain collection
systems, and similar stormwater retention, filtration or infiltration devices or facilities
are permitted in setbacks as long as the finished grade of the top of the improvement
does not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished
grade. Stormwater improvements or portions thereof may be buried and exceed thirty
(30) inches below grade as long as the finished grade above the facility does not
exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade.
These features may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade
simultaneously.
m) Hot tubs, spas, pools, water features, and permanently affixed outdoor grills,
furniture, seating areas, and similar permanent structures shall have the following
requirements:are prohibited in all yards facing a Street. These elements may be
placed within non-street facing yards but
i. Prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure; and
ii. Shall be located at least double the minimum setback for a primary
structure from any lot line adjacent to a street; and
iii. If visible from the street, these features shall be screened in accordance
with Section 26.575.050, Fences; and
i.iv. If located within a setback not adjacent to a street, these features shall not
exceed thirty (30) inches above or below finished grade. These features
may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade
simultaneously. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade
if necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement.
P125
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 10 of 17
n) Heating and air conditioning equipment and similar mechanical equipment shall have
the following requirements: are prohibited in all yards facing a Street. Mechanical
equipment may be placed within non-street facing yards but
i. Prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure; and
ii. Shall be located at least double the minimum setback for a primary
structure from any lot line adjacent to a street; and
iii. If visible from the street, these features shall be screened in accordance
with Section 26.575.050, Fences; and
iv. If located within a setback not adjacent to a street, these features shall not
exceed thirty (30) inches above or below finished grade. These features
may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade
simultaneously. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider
exceptions to this requirement pursuant to the procedures and criteria of
Chapter 26.430 – Special Review.
Figure 16
P126
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 11 of 17
The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to the requirements
of m) and n) above. The Community Development Director must first determine that
the visual impact of the exemption is minimal and that no other reasonable option
exists. Approval shall be in the form of a recordable administrative determination.
m)o) The height and placement of energy efficiency or renewable energy production
systems and equipment which are located adjacent to or independent of a building
shall be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the
procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.430 – Special Review. These systems are
discouraged between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure.in all yards
facing a Street. For energy production systems and equipment located on top of a
structure, see sub-section F.4.
n)p) Fences and hedges less than forty-two (42) inches in height, as measured from
finished grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to
six (6) feet in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas
entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building
facade which is closest to the Street. This restriction applies on all Street-facing
Area below grade
30
30
Spa
Figure 176: 30”
42” fence
height Front
Façade line
Of house
72” fence
height
Figure 187
P127
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 12 of 17
facades of a parcel. (Also see Section 26.575.050 – Supplementary Regulations for
limitations on fence materials.)
o)q) Driveways not exceeding twenty-four (24) inches above or below natural finished
grade within any setback of a yard facing a Street. Within all other required setbacks,
finished grade of a driveway shall not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below
natural finished grade.
p)r)Parking may occur in required setbacks if within an established driveway or parking
area and the curb cut or vehicular access is from an alleyway, if an alleyway abuts the
property, or has otherwise been approved by the City.
q)s) Non-permanent features which are not affixed to the ground such as movable
patio furniture, outdoor seating or a picnic table, barbeque grills, children’s play
equipment, and similar non-permanent features which are not affixed to the ground.
This exemption shall not allow storage sheds or containers.
r)t) Wildlife-resistant Trash and Recycling enclosures located in residential zone districts
shall be prohibited in all yards facing a Street. These facilities may be placed within
non-street facing yards if the enclosure is the minimum reasonably necessary in both
height and footprint, is an unconditioned space not integrated with other structures on
the property, and serves no other purpose such as storage, garage space, or other
purposes unrelated to protecting wildlife. Wildlife-resistant trash and recycling
enclosures located in commercial, mixed-use, or lodging zone districts are not exempt
from setback requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements for
Utility/Trash/Recycle areas.
Temporary intermittent placement of trash and recycling containers in or along yards
facing a Street is allowed. For example, on “trash day.”
Enclosures shall be located adjacent to the alley where an alley borders the property
and shall not be located in a public right-of-way. Unless otherwise approved by the
Historic Preservation Commission, enclosures shall not abut or be attached to a
historic structure. Enclosures may abut other non-historic structures.
F. Measuring Building Heights.
2. Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations.
a) Chimneys, flues, and similar venting apparatus. Chimneys, flues, vents, and similar
venting apparatus may extend no more than ten (10) feet above the height of the
building at the point the device connects. For roofs with a pitch of 8:12 or greater,
these elements may not extend above the highest ridge of the structure by more than
required by adopted building codes or as otherwise approved by the Chief Building
Official to accommodate safe venting. To qualify for this exception, the footprint of
these features must be the minimum reasonably necessary for its function the features
must be combined to the greatest extent practical. Appurtenances such as hoods,
caps, shields, coverings, spark arrestors, and similar functional devices or ornamental
do-dads shall be contained within the limitations of this height exception.
P128
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 13 of 17
On structures other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory
building, all Chimneys, flues, vents, and similar venting apparatus should be set back
from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of twenty (20) feet and the
footprint should be minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable.
b) Communications Equipment. Antennas, satellite dishes, and similar communications
equipment and devices shall comply with the limitations of Section 26.575.130 –
Wireless Telecommunication Services Facilities and Equipment.
c) Elevator and Stair Enclosures. On structures other than a single-family or duplex
residential building or an accessory building, elevator overrun enclosures and stair
enclosures may extend up to five (5) feet above the specified maximum height limit.
Elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to ten (10) feet above the specified
maximum height limit if set back from any Street facing façade of the building a
minimum of twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the elevators or stair enclosures are
minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable.
For single-family and duplex residential buildings and for accessory buildings,
elevator and stair enclosures are not allowed a height exception.
d) Rooftop Railings. On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential
building, rooftop railings and similar safety devices permitting rooftop access may
extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the railing
connects. To qualify for this exception, the railing must be the minimum reasonably
necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing
must be 50% or more transparent. All railings shall be set back from any Street facing
facade of the building by an amount equal to the height of the railing.
For single-family and duplex residential buildings, rooftop railings shall not be
allowed a height exception.
e) Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and
similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building may
extend up to six (6) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is
attached. This allowance is inclusive of any pad the equipment is placed on, as well
as any screening. Mechanical equipment shall be screened, combined, and co-located
to the greatest extent practicable. On structures other than a single-family or duplex
residential building or an accessory building, all mechanical equipment shall be set
back from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
f) Energy Efficiency or Renewable Energy Production Systems and Equipment. Energy
efficiency systems or renewable energy production systems and equipment including
solar panels, wind turbines, or similar systems and the system’s associated equipment
which is located on top of a building may extend up to five (5) feet above the height
of the building at the point the equipment is attached.
On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an
accessory building, these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above height of the
building at the point the equipment is attached if set back from any Street facing
P129
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 14 of 17
façade of the building a minimum of twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the
equipment is minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable. Certain
additional restrictions may apply pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Review.
The height and placement of energy efficiency or production systems which are not
located on top of a building (located independent of a building) shall be established
by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures and criteria of
Chapter 26.430 – Special Review. (Also see setback requirements for these systems at
sub-section E.5.)
g) Church spires, bell towers and like architectural projections on Arts, Cultural and
Civic buildings may extend over the height limit as may be approved pursuant to
Commercial Design Review.
h) Flag poles may extend over the specified maximum height limit.
i) Exceptions for buildings on slopes. For properties with a slope that declines by 10%
or greater from the front lot line, the maximum height of a building's front (street-
facing) facade may extend horizontally for the first thirtyten (310) feet of the
building's depth.
j) Exceptions for light wells and basement stairwells. A basement stairwell required by
Building Code for egress shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height.
On street facing facades the minimum size lightwell entirely recessed behind the
vertical plane established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to any
Street(s), and enclosed on all sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor
level (e.g. not a walk-out style light well) shall not be counted towards maximum
permissible height. On non-street facing facades a lightwell that is no more than one
hundred (100) square feet shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height.
This exception does not apply to lightwells and stairwells that are located within a
setback.
The Historic Preservation Commission is authorized to grant an exception to height
for lightwells larger than one hundred (100) square feet on historic landmark
properties that contain a historic resource upon a finding that the following conditions
are met:
a. Lightwell is not easily visible from the right of way.
b. Approval of the exemption supports the preservation of the historic resource.
k) Permanent Rooftop Amenities. Permanent rooftop amenities, such as built-in wet
bars, built-in barbeque grills, cabinets, sinks, firepits, pools, hot tubs, etc. shall be
permanently installed and shall meet the following height and setback requirements to
qualify for a
height exemption. This only applies to a mixed use, lodge, or commercial building
located in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District, Mixed Use (MU) Zone District,
the Commercial (C-1) Zone District, the Lodge (L) Zone District, the Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) Zone District, or the Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone District.
P130
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 15 of 17
Permanent rooftop amenities may extend up to five (5) feet above height of the
building at the point the equipment is attached to the roof. This allowance is
inclusive of any pad the equipment is placed on. A trellis with a maximum height of
ten (10) feet and a maximum floor area of no more than 5% of the useable deck area
is permitted. All permanent rooftop amenities shall be set back from any Street
facing façade of the building by a minimum of ten (10) feet.
l) Exceptions for skylight and light tubes A skylight or light tube typical of industry
standards and meeting minimum Building Code standards shall not be counted
towards maximum permissible height.
G. Measurement of Net Leasable Area and Net Livable Area. The calculation of net leasable
area and net livable area shall include all interior space of a building measured from interior wall
to interior wall, including interior partitions. Net leasable area and net livable area shall be
attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. Net leasable area includes all interior
areas which can be leased to an individual tenant with the exceptions noted below. Net livable
area includes those areas of a building that are used or intended to be used for habitation with the
exceptions noted below. Garages and carports are exempt from net leasable area and net livable
area calculations.
1. Permanently installed interior airlock spaces are exempt from the calculation of net
leasable space up to a maximum exemption of 100 square feet. Seasonal airlocks of more
than 10 square feet, installed on the exterior of a building, shall be considered net
leasable area and shall be subject to all requirements of the Land Use Code, including
employee mitigation, prorated according to the portion of the year in which it is installed.
2. Unless specifically exempted through other provisions of this Title, outdoor displays,
outdoor vending, and similar commercial activities located outside (not within a building)
shall also be included in the calculation of net leasable area. The calculation of such area
shall be the maximum footprint of the display or vending apparatus. For vending carts or
similar commercial activities requiring an attendant, the calculation shall also include a
reasonable amount of space for the attendant. Exterior decks and exterior seating are not
included in the calculation of net leasable area. Vending machines, gas pumps, and
similar devices without an attendant shall not be considered net leasable area.
The calculation of net leasable area and net livable area shall exclude areas of a building that are
integral to the basic physical function of the building. All other areas are attributed to the
measurement of net leasable commercial space or net livable area. When calculating interior
stairways or elevators, the top most interior level served by the stairway or elevator is exempt
from net livable or net leasable area calculations.
Shared areas that count toward net leasable area and net livable area shall be allocated on a
proportionate basis of the use category using the percentages that are generated pursuant to
Section 26.575.020.D.14 Allocation of non-unit space in a mixed use building.
Examples:
P131
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 16 of 17
1. A broom closet of a minimum size to reasonably accommodate the storage of janitorial
supplies for the entire building is considered integral to the physical function of the
building and does not count toward net leasable area.
2. A shared commercial storage area that is larger than needed for the basic functionality of
the building counts toward net leasable area because it is useable by the businesses.
3. A shared stairway and a shared circulation corridor (that access more than one use) are
integral to the physical function of the building and do not count in the measurement of
net livable area or net leasable area.
4. A stairway that is entirely within one residential unit counts toward the measurement of
net livable area.
5. A private elevator that serves more than one residential unit, and does not provide access
to other uses, does not count toward the measurement of net livable area.
6. A private elevator that serves only one residential unit, and does not provide access to
other uses, counts toward the measurement of net livable area.
7. A shared mechanical room that is larger than the minimum space required to reasonably
accommodate the mechanical equipment counts toward the measurement of net livable
area or net leasable area as applicable. The area of the mechanical room that is the
minimum size required for the mechanical equipment does not count in net livable area or
net leasable area.
26.575.050 Fences Materials
Fences shall be permitted in every zone district, provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet
above naturalfinished grade or as otherwise regulated by the Residential Design Standards (see
Chapter 26.410), Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (see Chapter 26.415), the Commercial
Design Standards (see Chapter 26.412), Calculations and Measurements – setbacks (see Chapter
26.575.020.5), or the Engineering Design Standards (see landscaping). Fences visible from the
public right-of-way shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought iron, concrete, metal, wire, or
masonry. Chain link, plastic, vinyl or synthetic fences are prohibited.
26.575.110 Building envelopes
Approved plantings of landscape materials on natural grade and approved walkways and
driveways may occur outside of a building envelope. Otherwise, all areas outside of a building
envelope shall remain in pristine and untouched condition unless approved by the Community
Development Director.For the purposes of this Chapter, an approved building envelope shall
have the same requirements and allowances as the underlying zoning setbacks, unless otherwise
noted in a site-specific development plan.
For purposes of site-specific development plans, building envelopes may be established to
restrict development to protect slopes, important vegetation, water courses, privacy or other
considerations. Building envelopes required or designated as part of a development approval
P132
IX.a
Exhibit C
Miscellaneous - Redline Version
Miscellaneous Code Amendment
Page 17 of 17
shall be described on recorded plats, site-specific development plans, ordinances, resolutions and
building permit site plans. Building envelopes required or designated as part of a development
approval shall be depicted on the applicable plat, site plan, site-specific development plan, map
or building permit.
26.575.160 Dormitory
Occupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more than eight (8) persons. Each unit shall
provide a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feetfootage per person of net living area,
including sleeping, bathroom, cooking and lounge used in commonin accordance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Standards for use and design
of such facilities shall be established by the City's housing designeeAspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority. A dormitory unit shall be considered the same as a multi-family unit for all
requirements of the Land Use Code other than permitted and conditional uses.
P133
IX.a
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
Mr. McNellis asked about the slope in the back yard. Mr. Johns stated it is near vertical and added the
topography bows out in the front of the structure so there may be concerns regarding the house above
if they excavated the slope.
Mr. McNellis asked Staff is this was the only area zoned as R-lSB. Ms. Nadolny stated she is not aware of
the exact boundary but the zone district is focused in this area and consists of two subdivisions.
Mr. Mesi row asked the commissioners if they feel the shallowness of the lot is sufficient to meet the
criteria. Ms. Tygre asked if in fact the lot is shallower than the other lots on the displayed map to which
no one could answer. Mr. Mesi row felt based on the available map, the lot is shallower.
Ms. Tygre asked if someone wanted to make a motion. Mr. Mesirow stated he wanted to hear from
other commissioners. Mr. McKnight stated based on the discussion to this point, he feels comfortable
finding the criteria to be met.
Mr. Elliott stated he could also find the criteria to be met, but he does not feel the hardship stated by
the applicant is valid because they should have known and understood the layout of the home before
purchasing it. He understands digging into the slope could unveil issues unknown at this time and could
bring hardship. He also feels the setback is visually met. He could support the application, but stated he
had to wander to get there.
Mr. McNellis agrees with Mr. Elliott in regards to meeting the criteria. He feels requiring them to move
the garage would potentially place hardship on the owner as well as the community. He feels the
existing garage meets the purpose of the code as well as the characteristics of the neighborhood. He is
frustrated with the code but feels he could find a way to approve it.
Mr. Elliott motioned to approve Resolution number 19, Series 2015 as presented in the agenda packet
on p 14. Mr. Mesirow seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre asked for a roll call: Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr.
Mesi row, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, no. The motion passed with a four to one (4-
1)vote.
Ms. Tygre closed the public hearing.
Ms. Tygre then turned the floor over to Mr. Bendon for discussion regarding miscellaneous code
amendments.
Mr. Bendon stated miscellaneous code amendments are generally housekeeping updates to the code to
include a missed citation or update to provide more clarity. Sometimes updates are the result of a
formal interpretations of the code.
Dwelling Units: This basically will not allow internal connections to other units or other uses to ensure a
dwelling unit is a standalone item.
Measurements from Grade: When the height of building is measured, it is measured from the finished
grade. The department is starting to see a planted area or planter box pushed up against the building to
be used as the measurable grade. The update attempts to eliminate the attempts to utilize planter
boxes as the finished grade.
Internal Skylights: Update to clarify the skylights do not count when measuring subgrade portions of the
structure.
Net Leasable and Net Livable Area: There have been a couple of recent examples where a commercial
building spans a property line. To date, Staff has assumed the structures or portions of a structure on a
6
EXHIBIT DP134
IX.a
Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015
property belong to the property owner even if the majority of a structure is on a neighboring property.
The update clarifies if the structure crosses a property line, the floor area is associated only with the
property where it resides.
Building Envelopes: The surveying community has had a tendency to describe setbacks as a building
envelope. The department catches this now, but there are older surveys from the 1980's and 1990's as
well as property annexed into the City which incorrectly describe setback as the building envelope on
plats. If there is no actual requirement for a building envelope, the department will treat those as
setbacks. There are several subdivisions where they did intend to treat it as a building envelope. The
code amendment allows Staff to make the differentiation. Mr. McNellis asked if the differentiation
allows for pristine conditions to identify setbacks appropriately and Mr. Bendon agreed.
Development in Setbacks: There have been more and more issues with items being placed in setbacks.
The most recent occurrences have been hot tubs in the setbacks. Houses tend to take up all the lot
except the front yard. This includes the packaged portable hot tubs. The updates would clarify these
items cannot be located in yards facing a street. They can exist in yards visible by the street if they are
properly screened by a fence or landscaping. He pointed to a diagram provided (p 33) in the packet and
noted it becomes an issue particularly on corner lots because more of the property is visible. He clarified
forward of the front fac;:ade, fences are limited to 42 inches in height. In back of the fac;:ade, they may be
six ft in height. He also noted the list of items includes air conditioning units, utility pedestals, grills, built
in furniture, and waterfalls. Mr. McNellis asked if the prohibited area was double the setback as
depicted on the diagram. Mr. Bendon was not certain how the department determined the prohibited
area and it may be double the setback.
The commissioners stated they felt all the proposed changes looked good.
Ms. Tygre asked Mr. Bend on to confirm the updates relating to skylights would not change any of the
calculations such as FAR or sf at which he confirmed she was correct. He added they are technically the
roof of the basement level. She stated she has seen a lot of skylights over rooms that are not really
supposed to be bedrooms because they don't have access, but there are beds in them.
Mr. Mesi row asked for the size requirements of an egress for a subgrade bedrooms. Mr. Bendon
thought it was 30 in X 30 in or 36 in X 36 in.
Mr. Bendon stated he would summarize that he reviewed the proposed amendments with P&Z and they
were fine with them.
Ms. Tygre then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk's Office, Records Manager
7
P135
IX.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director
THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 16, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: 2016 Fee Schedule – Second Reading
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memorandum outlines the proposed ordinance related to the
adoption of departmental fees included in the City’s Municipal Code under sections 2.12
(Administrative) and 26.104 (Land Use), plus revisions to section 8.12 concerning liability
coverage for contractors doing business within the City of Aspen or Pitkin County.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Each year, City Council adopts a new fee structure that
brings current fees forward, and adjusts any fees that do not properly align with projected service
demand and/or required revenue generation. Fee changes were most recently adopted for the
2015 fiscal year.
BACKGROUND: Fees are reviewed annually by both City staff and Council, prior to their
renewed adoption. As part of the City’s internal review process, a Pricing Committee was
established. The Committee is comprised of the City Manager, Assistant City Managers and
peer Department Heads, and is responsible for providing feedback to selected departments’ deep
dive on their rate structures and desired cost recoveries or outcomes. For 2016, departments’
fees selected for review included Recreation, Community Development / Engineering, and
Stormwater - each of these departments had a different perspective on what to focus on:
Recreation: This department is reviewed annually given its subsidy level. In total,
Recreation programs achieve roughly 50% cost recovery, with the subsidy coming from general
tax revenues. Though the average recovery is roughly 50%, the percentage varies by program –
adult programming is targeted for a higher recovery rate than youth programs; facility rentals are
set for 100% recovery; club uses are set higher than general public uses. For 2016, Recreation
focused on high and low performing programs and began evaluating how fees could affect
outcomes in those areas.
Community Development / Engineering: As noted in the past, cost recovery for these
departments fluctuates depending on the level of development activity – during economic
slowdowns, recovery falls below desired levels; during periods of growth, it exceeds recovery
targets. Therefore, a multi-year perspective on these departments’ cost recovery is center to the
analysis. For 2016, a review of the fully loaded hourly rate for non-routine functions was
P136
IX.b
assessed and determined to be short of full recovery. As these efforts are often ad hoc in nature
and less beneficial to the public / more beneficial to the development community, the
recommendation was to increase this hourly rate.
Stormwater: Stormwater revenues sources are limited to a few sources. Annually, this
program receives proceeds from a voter approved mill levy, capped at 0.650 mills. Additionally,
this program receives a portion of Engineering fees from building permit reviews and land lease
rentals, and finally from in-lieu of development fees. Collections from this last fee source has
fallen dramatically as developers elect to do on-site mitigation. As such, the focus for
Stormwater this year was how to address this loss in annual income and whether there should be
changes on expenditure timing or to seek out additional revenue options.
DISCUSSION: Updated from first reading, two additional fees are proposed for Community
Development section 2.12.100, pertaining to roofing and interior adjustments. The proposed
rates are for a $25 permit fee plus 1) a $25 per 100 sqft of roofing, or 2) $325/hr plan review fee
for interior adjustments. These fees have not been adopted by ordinance in the past.
RE-ROOFING AND ROOFING FEE
Permit Fee: $25.00
Plan Review Fee: $25.00/100 sqft of
roofing
INTERIOR FINISH & FIXTURE REMOVAL FEE
Permit Fee: $25.00 (minimum)
Plan Review Fee: $325.00/hr. (1 hr.
minimum)
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Fee revenues are expected to fluctuate as a result of
proposed fee changes, however, the actual amount raised or lost will depend on the volume of
sales or services rendered. Programs have incorporated anticipated revenue impacts into their
2016 budgets.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance
amending the current fee schedule.
ALTERNATIVES: Any fee can be amended in any manner as desired by the Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance #43, Series of 2015 approving 2016 fees
as proposed.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
P137
IX.b
1
ORDINANCE NO. 43
Series of 2015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ADJUST
CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES INCLUDED UNDER SECTION 2 AND 26 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, PLUS UPDATING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONTRACTORS UNDER SECTION 8.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of
the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the
costs of providing such programs and services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not
raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services,
or are set above levels necessary to achieve full reimbursement of costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That Section 2.12.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Aspen Municipal Golf Course, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.010. Aspen Municipal Golf Course
Early Season Regular Season
Greens Fees / Passes
Platinum N/A $2,349.00
Gold $1,349.00 $1,449.00
Silver $824.00 $899.00
20 Punch $659.00 $749.00
Bronze $319.00 $319.00
Junior $199.00 $199.00
Senior Greens Fee – 9 Hole $36.00 $36.00
Senior Greens Fee – Resident $69.50 $69.50
Military Rate (Must Show Proper ID) N/A $80.50
Green Fee – Max Rate N/A $160.00
Green Fee – Junior N/A $48.00
Green Fee – Guest of Member N/A $80.50
Cart and Club Rentals
Golf Cart – 18 Holes N/A $22.00
Golf Cart – Members: 18 Holes N/A $20.00
Golf Cart – 9 Holes N/A $17.00
Golf Cart – Members: 9 Holes N/A $16.00
Golf Cart Punch Pass N/A $380.00
Pull Cart – 18 Holes N/A $16.00
Pull Cart – Members: 18 Holes N/A $14.00
Pull Cart – 9 Holes N/A $11.00
P138
IX.b
2
Early Season Regular Season
Pull Cart – Members: 9 Holes N/A $9.00
Rental Clubs – 18 Holes N/A $58.00
Rental Clubs – 9 Holes N/A $37.00
Lockers and Range
Locker for Season N/A $325.00
Range Large Bucket N/A $11.00
Range Large Bucket – Members N/A $10.00
Range Small Bucket N/A $9.00
Range Small Bucket – Members N/A $7.00
Range Punch Pass N/A $199.00
(Code 1971, §2-33; Ord. No. 44-1991, §12; Ord. No. 77-1992, §16; Ord. No. 68-1994, §5; Ord.
No. 53-1995, §2; Ord. No. 43-1996, §1; Ord. No. 49-1998, §1; Ord. No. 45-1999, §1; Ord. No.
57-2000, §1; Ord. No. 5-2002 §1; Ord. No. 47-2002 §18; Ord. No. 63-2003, §8; Ord. No. 2-
2004, §1; Ord. No. 38-2004, §10; Ord. No. 49-2005, §12; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §1; Ord. No. 52-
2007; Ord. No. 29-2010§12; Ord. No. 33-2011§1; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord.
No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.014 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for Recreation Department Fun Passes, is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.12.014 Recreation Department Fun Pass
The Recreation Department shall issue Fun Passes that provides access to the holder of such a
pass to the following facilities and activities: use of the James E. Moore Pool, public or open
skating at the Lewis Ice Arena or Aspen Ice Garden, use of the climbing wall at the Red Brick
Recreation Center, fitness classes held at the Red Brick Recreation Center, aquatic fitness classes
at the Aspen Recreation Center, tennis court rental and usage at the Aspen Tennis Center. Usage,
participation and access to the above activities may be limited to certain times and dates as
indicated on the pass.
Online Fee In-Person Fee
Daily Admission
Youth - Resident N/A $8.00
Youth - Guest N/A $16.25
Adult - Resident N/A $10.00
Adult - Guest N/A $18.25
Senior N/A $8.00
Twilight N/A $6.00
Guest 10 Visit Card $136.25 $157.00
P139
IX.b
3
Online Fee In-Person Fee
Monthly Pass
Youth - Resident $52.00 $60.00
Adult - Resident $93.00 $108.00
Family - Resident $182.00 $211.00
Each Additional $19.00 $22.00
20 Visit Card
Youth Resident $121.00 $139.00
Adult Resident $180.00 $207.00
6 Month Pass
Youth Resident $243.00 $279.00
Adult Resident $301.00 $347.00
Family Resident $656.00 $755.00
Each Additional $61.00 $70.00
Annual Pass
Youth Resident $437.00 $502.00
Adult Resident $541.00 $621.00
Family Resident $1,178.00 $1,355.00
Each Additional $119.00 $138.00
(Ord. No. 27-2003, §2; Ord. No. 38-2004, §14; Ord. No. 49-2005, §3; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §2;
Ord. No. 52-2007; Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-2009§1; Ord. No. 29-2010§1; Ord. No. 29-
2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.015 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Aspen Recreation Center, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.015. Aspen Recreation Center
Online Fee In-Person Fee
ARC Meeting Room Rental
Non-Profit $61.00 $64.00
Corporate $85.00 $90.00
(Ord. No. 27-2003, §1; Ord. No. 63-2003, §9; Ord. No. 38-2004, §13; Ord. No. 49-2005, §4;
Ord. No. 48, 2006, §3; Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-2009§2; Ord. 29-2010§2; Ord. No. 29-
2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
P140
IX.b
4
That Section 2.12.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for Aspen Ice Garden and Lewis Ice Arena, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.020. Aspen Ice Garden and Lewis Ice Arena
Online Fee In-Person Fee
Rent Entire Facility - Dry Floor
Aspen Ice Garden $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Lewis Ice Arena $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Rent Entire Facility - Dry Floor (Peak Season)
Aspen Ice Garden $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Lewis Ice Arena $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Rent Entire Facility - Ice
Aspen Ice Garden N/A $273.00
Lewis Ice Arena N/A $273.00
Adult Non-Profit Prime
Aspen Ice Garden N/A $231.00
Lewis Ice Arena N/A $231.00
Youth Non-Profit Prime
Aspen Ice Garden N/A $231.00
Lewis Ice Arena N/A $231.00
Other Fees
Skate Sharpening N/A $10.00
Skate Sharpening - Same Day N/A $13.00
Pick-up Hockey, One Time N/A $15.00
Pick-up Hockey, 10 Punch Pass $121.00 $129.00
Freestyle 20 Punch Pass $190.00 $202.00
Skating Classes N/A $14.00
Locker Rental
Six Months $155.00 $163.00
(Code 1971, §2-34; Ord. No. 44-1991, §12; Ord. No. 77-1992, §16; Ord. No. 67-1993, §6; Ord.
No. 68-1994, §6; Ord. No. 53-1995, §3; Ord. No. 43-1996, §2; Ord. No. 49-1998, §2; Ord. No.
45-1999, §2; Ord. No. 57-2000 §2; Ord. No. 47-2002 §16; Ord. No. 27-2003; Ord. No. 63-2003,
§10; Ord. No. 2-2004, §2; Ord. No. 38-2004, §2; Ord. No. 49-2005, §7; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §4;
Ord. No. 52-2007; Ord. No. 27-2009§3; Ord. No. 29-2010§3; Ord. No. 33-2011§2; Ord. No. 29-
2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
P141
IX.b
5
That Section 2.12.030 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the James R. Moore Pool, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.030. James E. Moore Pool
Online Fee In-Person Fee
Youth Swim Lessons
Passholder $65.00 $68.00
Non Passholder $85.00 $90.00
Private Lessons - Passholder $34.00 $35.00
Private Lessons - Non Passholder $44.00 $46.00
Lifeguard Training $235.00 $246.00
Kayak Roll Sessions $7.00 $7.00
Water Polo Drop In N/A $4.00
Rentals
Entire Aquatic Facility - For Profit N/A $237.00
Entire Aquatic Facility - Non Profit Adult N/A $192.00
Entire Aquatic Facility - Non Profit Youth N/A $167.00
Single Pool Rate - For Profit N/A $90.00
Single Pool Rate - Non Profit N/A $79.00
Single Lane Rental in Lap Pool - Non Profit N/A $16.00
Single Lane Rental in Lap Pool - For Profit N/A $19.00
(Code 1971, §2-35; Ord. No. 44-1991, §12; Ord. No. 77-1992, §16; Ord. No. 53-1995, §4 [part];
Ord. No. 43-1996, §3; Ord. No. 49-1998, §3; Ord. No. 45-1999, §3; Ord. No. 47-2002 §17; Ord.
No. 63-2003, §11; Ord. No. 38-2004, §15; Ord. No. 49-2005 §5; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §5; Ord. No.
40-2008; Ord No. 27-2009§4; Ord. No. 29-2010§4; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord.
No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for miscellaneous leisure and recreation fees, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.12.040. Miscellaneous Leisure and Recreation Fees
Online Fee In-Person Fee
Adult Programs
Adult Basketball – Drop In N/A $5.00
Adult Volleyball – Drop In N/A $6.00
Men’s Recreation Basketball $767.00 $807.00
Adult Soccer $845.00 $887.00
Adult Softball – Men’s League $980.00 $1,000.00
Adult Softball – Coed League $835.00 $876.00
Adult Flag Football $437.00 $458.00
Tennis Clinics – Adult N/A $21.00
Tennis Clinics – Punch Pass, Adult $175.00 $185.00
P142
IX.b
6
Online Fee In-Person Fee
Tennis Lessons - Private (Max Rate) $82.00 $82.00
Tennis Court Rental Fees (Per Court) $27.00 $29.00
Tennis Ball Machine Rental $27.00 $29.00
Tennis One Month Membership - Individual $61.00 $71.00
Tennis One Month Membership - Couple $87.00 $97.00
Tennis One Month Membership - Family $112.00 $128.00
Youth Programs
Youth Baseball $132.00 $138.00
T-Ball $69.00 $73.00
Girls Softball $132.00 $138.00
Batting Cage N/A $1.00
Day Camp $40.00 $42.00
One Time Activity Fee $40.00 $42.00
Guest Fee $66.00 $68.00
Sailing $616.00 $648.00
Tennis Clinics - Youth N/A $19.00
Tennis Clinics - Punch Pass, Youth $175.00 $185.00
Playdayz $40.00 $42.00
RC Crawlers $50.00 $54.00
Youth Intramurals
Soccer $97.00 $102.00
Soccer – Kindergarten $54.00 $57.00
Basketball $96.00 $101.00
Basketball – Kindergarten $51.00 $54.00
Flag Football $89.00 $94.00
Climbing Wall
Beginner Rock Rats $81.00 $85.00
Boulder Rats $81.00 $85.00
Intermediate / Advanced Climbing $92.00 $97.00
Junior Rats $54.00 $57.00
Gymnasium Rental - 1 Hour $67.00 $71.00
Junior AROCK $54.00 $57.00
AROCK $101.00 $107.00
(Code 1971, §2-36; Ord. No. 44-1991, §12; Ord. No. 77-1992, §16; Ord. No. 68-1994, §7; Ord.
No. 53-1995, §4 [part]; Ord. No. 43-1996, §4; Ord. No. 49-1998, §4; Ord. No. 45-1999, §4; Ord.
No. 57-2000, §3; Ord. No. 47-2002, §15; Ord. No. 63-2003, §12; Ord. No. 38-2004, §12; Ord.
No. 49-2005, §6; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §6); Ord. 52-2007; Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-2009§2;
Ord. No. 29-2010§5; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
P143
IX.b
7
That Section 2.12.045 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Wheeler Opera House, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.045. Wheeler Opera House
For-Profit Non-Profit
All Rates Below Include Rehearsals & Performances
Ticketed Performance Day Rate $650.00 $375.00
Ticketed 2nd Performance Same Day Rate $325.00 $187.50
Ticketed 2nd Performance Consecutive Day Rate $455.00 $262.50
Ticketed Performance Weekly Rate (<= 5 Days) $2,500.00 $1,500.00
Non-Ticketed Community Events N/A $100.00
Private Events
Non-Profit / Day N/A $800.00
Corporate / Day $1,500.00 N/A
Lobby Rental (per hour, 2 hour min) $85.00 $50.00
Photo Shoot (per hour) $150.00 N/A
Box Office Royalty
Inside Sales (as percent of sales) 5.00% 5.00%
Outside Sales (as percent of sales) 6.00% 6.00%
Per-Order Processing Fee $5.00 $5.00
Credit Card Billback
Visa & Mastercard 3.00% 3.00%
American Express 4.00% 4.00%
Box Office Ticket Sellers
Inside Events (per hour) $22.50 $22.50
Outside Events (per hour) $35.00 $35.00
Box Office Set-Up
5+ days notice $25.00 $25.00
3-4 days notice $35.00 $35.00
2 or less days notice $50.00 $50.00
Support Services
Ticket Printing / Ticket $0.09 $0.06
Ticket Template Change / Occurrence $10.00 $10.00
Promotional Code Scripting $10.00 - $15.00 $10.00 - $15.00
Pricing Configuration / Template $25.00 $25.00
Client Database Entry $95.00 $95.00
Non-Standard Box Office Reports / Report $20.00 $20.00
Pixel Implementation $100.00 - $200.00 $100.00 - $200.00
Print At Home Tix Custom Design $65.00 $65.00
Theatre Technician Rates / Hour $27.50 $26.00
Production Co-Manager Rates / Hour $34.50 $32.50
Custodial Charge / Day $85.00 $65.00
Food Custodial Charge / Day $150.00 $85.00
Front of House Manager Rate / Hr (2 hr min) $34.50 $32.50
Front of House Staff Rate / Hr (2 hr min) $27.50 $26.00
P144
IX.b
8
For-Profit Non-Profit
Bartender Rate / Hr (2 hr min) $20.00 $18.00
Beverage Hospitality Service $15.00 $10.00
Catering Coordination $34.50 $32.50
Merchandise Seller $150.00 5% of gross sales
Merchandise – Recorded Material & Other 10% / 20% of gross N/A
Supplies and Piano Tuning At Cost At Cost
Equipment / Instrument Rental
1999 Steinway Rental / Performance $350.00 $250.00
Keyboard Rental / Performance $150.00 $100.00
Drum Rental / Performance $250.00 $200.00
Fender Rental / Performance $75.00 $50.00
Pro Bass Rental / Performance $75.00 $50.00
Fogger or Hazer / Performance $30.00 $20.00
Video Media Rental
(Christie, DCP, Sony HD Deck)
$250.00 $100.00
Video Media Rental / Week
(Panasonic HD Video Projector)
$900.00 $400.00
Marketing Support
Support Package 1 $150.00 $150.00
Support Package 2 $350.00 $350.00
Support Package 3 $600.00 $600.00
(Ord. No. 68-1994, §8; Ord. No. 53-1995 §5; Ord. No. 45-1999, §5; Ord. No. 49-1998, §5; Ord.
No. 57-2000, §4; Ord. No. 12-2003, §1; Ord. No. 63-2003, §13; Ord. No. 38-2004, §11; Ord.
No. 48, 2006, §7; Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-2009§6; Ord. No. 29-2010 §6; Ord. No. 29-
2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.050 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Aspen Police Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.050. Aspen Police Department fees
Law Enforcement Records
Accident Reports – In Person $5.00
Case Reports $5.00
Per Copied Page $0.25
Arrest History / Background Checks $10.00
Per Copied Page $0.25
Communications Logging / Hour $15.00
Per Audio CD $25.00
Case Report/Accident Photos / CD $15.00
Records Research / Hour $25.00
P145
IX.b
9
Aspen Police Department
Alarm User Permit $114.00
First False Alarm / Year $118.00
Second False Alarm / Year $237.00
Third and Fourth False Alarm / Year $358.00
All Bank Alarms $380.00
Late Fees $12.00
Central Alarm License Fee $314.00
Vehicle Inspection $20.00
Certified VIN Inspection $20.00
Off-Duty Security/Officer/Hour $95.00
Notary Fees $5.00
Dog Vaccination and License Fees
Annual Dog Tag Fees $17.00
Transfer Fee $17.00
Replacement Tag $4.00
(Code 1971, §2-38; Ord. No. 77-1992, §17; Ord. No. 68-1994, §§9—11; Ord. No. 53-1995,
§§6—10; Ord. No. 43-1996, §§5—7; Ord. No. 49-1998, §§6—8; Ord. No. 45-1999, §§6—9, 20;
Ord. No. 57-2000, §§5, 12; Ord. No. 47-2002, §2; Ord No. 63-2003, §2; Ord. 2-2004, §3; Ord.
38-2004, §1; Ord. No. 49-2005, §1; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §8; Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-
2009§7; Ord. No. 29-2010§7; Ord. No. 33-2011; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No.
36-2014)
That Section 2.12.051 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Engineering Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.051. Engineering Department fees
Permit and Application Fees
Encroachment License and Application $401.70
Vacation Application ($325 / hr for estimated 18 hours) $5,850.00
Right-of-way Permit (waived for sidewalk replacement work) $401.70
Encroachment Fees
Permanent Encroachment Fee (per permit) $1,000.00
Permanent Encroachment for Earth Retention (per cuft/mo) $1.40
Temporary Occupation of Right-of-Way Under Encroachments
By commercial operations not associated with construction,
including contractors and vendors (per sqft/mo) $2.50
Base cost within the core by commercial operations associated with
construction, including contractors and vendors (per sqft/mo). Fees
increase by 20% for first exception granted, 30% increase for second
exception granted, 40% increase for every exception granted
thereafter. $6.93
P146
IX.b
10
Outside of the core by commercial operations associated with
construction including contractors and vendors (per sqft/mo) $4.33
Map and Plan Printing
Per copy cost $5.00
(Ord. No. 47-2002, §3; Ord. No. 49-2005, §13; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §9; Ord. No. 52-2007; Ord.
No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-2009§8; Ord. No. 29-2010§8; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013;
Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.052 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Environmental Health Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.052. Environmental Health Department fees
Environmental Health Fees
Event Plan Review $30.00
Event Inspection Fee $70.00
Swimming Pool Plan Review $79.00
Restaurant Site Inspection $82.00
Food Safety Training $82.00
Large Childcare $100.00
Small Childcare $50.00
Plan Review Application $100.00
Plan Review & Pre-Open Inspection (not to exceed) $580.00
Equipment Review Application $100.00
Equipment Review Fee (not to exceed) $500.00
HACCP Plan: Written (not to exceed) $100.00
HACCP Plan: On-Site Evaluation (not to exceed) $400.00
Real Estate Review of Property (not to exceed) $75.00
Food Service License
Free (School, Charitable, Church, Other) $0.00
Mobile Unit $225.00
Mobile Unit (pre-packaged) $115.00
Temporary/Special Event Establishment $255.00
Temporary/Special Events (pre-packaged) $115.00
Restaurant 0-100 Seats $255.00
Restaurant 101-200 Seats $285.00
Restaurant Over 200 Seats $310.00
Grocery Store 0-3,500 Sq Ft $115.00
Grocery Store 3,501- 15,000 Sq Ft $180.00
Grocery Store 15,001-25,000 Sq Ft $200.00
Grocery Store 25,001-45,000 Sq Ft $235.00
Grocery Store 45,001-65,000 Sq Ft $290.00
Grocery Store 65,001-85,000 Sq Ft $415.00
Grocery Store Over 85,000 Sq Ft $500.00
P147
IX.b
11
Grocery w/Deli 0-3,500 Sq Ft $207.00
Grocery w/Deli 3,501-15,000 Sq Ft $338.00
Grocery w/Deli 15,001-25,000 Sq Ft $360.00
Grocery w/Deli 25,001-45,000 Sq Ft $395.00
Grocery w/Deli 45,001- 65,000 Sq Ft $450.00
Grocery w/Deli 65,001- 85,000 Sq Ft $575.00
Grocery w/Deli Over 85,000 Sq Ft $690.00
Oil & Gas Temp. 0-50 (Initial License) $750.00
Oil & Gas Temp. 0-50 (Renewal License) $275.00
Oil & Gas Temp. Over 50 (Initial License) $1,250.00
Oil & Gas Temp. Over 50 (Renewal License) $500.00
(Ord. No. 47-2002, §4; Ord. No. 63-2003, §2 Ord. No. 38-2004, §3; Ord. No. 49-2005, §2; Ord.
No. 48, 2006, §10; Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 15-2009; Ord. No. 27-2009§9; Ord. No. 29-
2010§9; Ord. 33-2011; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.053 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Geographic Information System Department, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.12.053. Geographic Information System (GIS) Department fees
Preprinted Map Small (11” x 17” or smaller) $14.00
Preprinted Map Large on Photo Paper (greater than 11” x 17”) $100.00
Large Format Plotting (greater than 11” x 17”) $30.00
Custom Mapping and Analysis or Misc. Services (per hour, min. 1 hr) $275.00
Data Subscription $1,391.00
(Ord. No. 47-2002, §5; Ord. No. 63-2003, §3; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §11; Ord. No. 52-2007; Ord.
No. 27-2009§10; Ord. No. 29-2010§10; Ord. No. 33-2011; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013;
Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.060 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Parking Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.060. Parking fees
Rio Grande Plaza Parking
Hourly Rate $1.50
Maximum Daily Fee $15.00
Validation Stickers / Visit $5.00
Unlimited Use Monthly Pass $200.00
Lost Ticket Fee $15.00
5-Day Unlimited Access Hotel Pass $50.00
P148
IX.b
12
Special Events Pass / Day $5.00
Access Replacement Card $20.00
Commercial Core Pay Parking (between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM)
First Hour $2.00
Second Hour $3.00
Third Hour $4.00
Fourth Hour $5.00
Single Space Meters (per 15 minutes) $0.50
Residential Permit Parking
Residential Day Pass $8.00
Space Rental Fee / Day $10.00
First and Second Permit for Residence and Guest Free
Third Permit for Resident and Guest $25.00
Fourth Permit for Resident and Guest $50.00
Fifth Permit for Resident and Guest (max. number of permits) $100.00
Lodge Guest Permit $3.00
Business Vehicle Permit / Six Months $600.00
Host Guest Replacement Permit $25.00
High Occupancy Vehicle Permit Free
Miscellaneous Parking
Delivery Vehicle Permit $100.00
Service Vehicle First Hour $1.00
Service Vehicle Each Additional Hour $0.50
Service Vehicle Daily Maximum $4.50
Construction – Commercial / Day $50.00
Handicapped Parking Free
Permit Replacement $25.00
Tow Truck Cancellation Fee $25.00
Boot Fee $75.00
Towing Fee (Tickets / Snow / Farmer's) $160.00
Towing Fee (72 Hour / Abandoned) $200.00
Ticket Late Fee $10.00
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles Free
1- The residential permit parking program restrictions shall be in effect from 8:00 a.m. until
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (official holidays exempted), unless otherwise specified.
2- Two six-month periods are established for the business vehicle permit: winter season,
November 1 through April 30; and summer season, May 1 through October 31.
3- Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV’s) are defined as follows: A low-speed electric vehicle
which does not exceed speeds of 20-25 mph. The vehicle must have seat belts, headlights,
windshield wipers, safety glass, tail lamps, front and rear turn signals and stop lamps. These
P149
IX.b
13
vehicles must have a vehicle identification number (VIN) and be state-licensed. NEV’s are
only permitted within the City limits and on roads that have speed limits less than 40 mph.
(Code 1971, §2-39; Ord. No. 36-1994, §1; Ord. No. 68-1994, §12; Ord. No. 53-1995, §20; Ord.
No. 43-1996, §17; Ord. No. 49-1998, §9; Ord. No. 45-1999, §9; Ord. No. 57-2000, §5; Ord. No.
4-2002, §1; Ord. No. 47-2002, §19; Ord. No. 63-2003, §15; Ord. No. 49-2005, §14; Ord. No. 39-
2007; Ord. No. 33-2011; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.070 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the City Clerk’s Office, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.070. Liquor and marijuana license application fees
Liquor Licenses
Beer Permit (3.2% by Volume) $10.00
Special Event Permit $25.00
New License $1,000.00
Transfer of Location or License $750.00
Hotel & Restaurant or Tavern including Modest- Renewal Fee $178.75
Beer & Wine including Modest- BeRenewal Fee $152.50
Retail Liquor Store or Drug Store-Renewal Fee $122.50
Arts or Club-Renewal Fee $115.00
3.2 Beer-Renewal Fee $103.75
Optional Premises License $50.00
Temporary Permit $100.00
Late Renewal Application Fee $500.00
Tastings Permit $100.00
Marijuana Licenses
Medical or Retail Marijuana Center New License Fee $2,000.00
Medical or Retail Marijuana Optional Premise Cultivation License $2,000.00
Medical or Retail Marijuana Infused Products Manufacturers' License $2,000.00
Medical Marijuana Center Applying for Retail Marijuana Store License $2,000.00
Medical or Retail Marijuana Transfer of Ownership $750.00
Medical or Retail Marijuana Change of Location $500.00
Medical or Retail Marijuana Change of Corporation or LLC Structure $100.00
Medical or Retail Marijuana Modification of Premises $100.00
Renewal of Retail or Medical Marijuana License $1,000.00
(Code 1971, §2-40; Ord. No. 8-1994, §4; Ord. No. 45-1999, §10; Ord. No. 24-2004, §2; Ord. No.
29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
P150
IX.b
14
That Section 2.12.080 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Parks Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.080. Parks Department fees
Event Fees
Application Fee
For Profit $125.00
Non Profit $50.00
Business License
One Day $15.00
Two Days $25.00
Event Fees – Non Profit
Under 50 People $50.00
50-100 People $200.00
101-200 People $300.00
Event Fees
201-500 People $500.00
Over 500 People $1,500.00
Event Fees – For Profit
Under 50 People $175.00
50-100 People $400.00
101-200 People $600.00
201-500 People $3,500.00
Over 500 People $5,000.00
Exclusive Use of Park $7,500.00
Athletic Camps
Local (per hour) $25.00
Non-Local (per hour) $40.00
Athletic Tournaments/Event $750.00
Sports Classes / Day Care
Local (per hour) $25.00
Non-Local (per hour) $40.00
Flags on Main Street/Flag $15.00
Banners on Main Street/Banner $15.00
Mall Space Leasing
Price per Square Foot $4.02
Filming
3-10 People $50.00
11-30 People: Still $150.00
11-30 People: Video $250.00
31-49 People: Still $250.00
31-49 People: Video $500.00
50 and Over People $750.00
P151
IX.b
15
Tree Fees
Removal Permit $77.00
Removal Permit - Development $206.00
Mitigation Fee $42.00
Development Fees
Encroachments - Minor Review $72.00
Encroachments - Major Review $143.00
Right of Ways - Minor Review $72.00
Right of Ways - Major Review $143.00
Landscaping and Grading Permit $72.00
(Ord. No. 45-1999, §11; Ord. No. 47-2002, §6; Ord. No. 63-2003, §14; Ord. No. 38-2004, §5;
Ord. 52-2007; Ord. No. 33-2011; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Building and Planning Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2.12.100. Building and Planning
This Section of the Code sets forth building permit fees for the City Community Development
Department, and shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Total Valuation: $1.00 to $5,000.00 $25.00
Total Valuation: $5,001.00 to $50,000.00 50% of sum of $25 + 5.0% of permit
valuation over $5,000
Total Valuation: $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 75% of sum of $2,275 + 3.5% of
permit valuation over $50,000
Total Valuation: $100,001.00 to $250,000.00 $4,025 + 2.5% of permit valuation
over $100,000
Total Valuation: $250,001.00 to $500,000.00 $7,775 + 2.0% of permit valuation
over $250,000
Total Valuation: $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $12,775 + 1.75% of permit valuation
over $500,000
Total Valuation: $1,000,001.00 to $2,500,000.00 $21,525 + 1.5% of permit valuation
over $1,000,000
Total Valuation: $2,500,001.00 to $5,000,000.00 $44,025 + 1.25% of permit valuation
over $2,500,000
P152
IX.b
16
Total Valuation: Above $5,000,000
$75,275 + 0.75% of permit valuation
over $5,000,000 plus 0.5% of permit
valuation over $10,000,000
Building Permit Review Fee (per hour) $325.00
Fees Due Upon Permit Submittal
Plan Check Fees
(as percent of total building permit outlined above) 65%
Energy Code Fee
(as percent of total building permit outlined above) 15%
Fees Due Upon Permit Issuance
Building Permit Fee
(as percent of total building permit outlined above) 100%
GIS Fee (applicable only if changing building
footprint) $500.00
Renewable Energy Mitigation Payment (see details below)
Use Tax Deposit – City of Aspen 2.1% of value of materials for
projects over $100,000
Use Tax Deposit – Pitkin County 0.5% of value of materials
For 2016, the building plan check fee shall be reduced by 10% for major residential projects
submitted in the format specified in the Minimum Building Submission. Applicants should
contact the Permit Coordinators for more information.
RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PAYMENT
Residential Exterior Energy Use
Snowmelt – includes roof and gutter de-icing systems $34 per square foot divided by
boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Outdoor Pool $136 per square foot divided by
boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Spa – pkg. or portable spas < 64 sqft are exempt $176 per square foot divided by
boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Residential Onsite Renewable Credits (certain restrictions may apply)
Photovoltaic Systems $6,250 per KWH
Solar Hot Water Systems $125 per square foot
Ground Source Heat Pumps $1,400 per 10,000 BTU per hr
Commercial Exterior Energy Use
Snowmelt – includes roof and gutter de-icing systems $60 per square foot divided by
boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Outdoor Pool $170 per square foot divided by
boiler efficiency (AFUE)
Spa – pkg. or portable spas < 64 sqft are exempt $176 per square foot divided by
boiler efficiency (AFUE)
P153
IX.b
17
Commercial Onsite Renewable Credits (certain restrictions may apply)
Photovoltaic Systems $6,250 per KWH
Solar Hot Water Systems $224.65 per square foot
Ground Source Heat Pumps $1,400 per 10,000 BTU per hr
CHANGE ORDER FEES
Applications for change orders shall cause a revision to the overall project valuation. The
change order fees shall be based on this revised valuation. Fees for the previously submitted
permit application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Not all change
orders will require additional fees in each fee category. A change order fee applies each time a
change order is submitted. A change order may propose multiple changes and applicants are
encouraged to "bundle" their change order requests to minimize fees.
Change Order Review Fees may be assessed on an hourly basis if, in the opinion of the Chief
Building Official, the fees stated below represent a significant inequity compared with the scope
of the change order and the expected staff time to administer the review. The hourly rate shall
be that stated herein. Hourly billing may be applied to plan check and energy code reviews.
Hourly billing for change orders may result in higher or lower fees due than stated below.
Fees Due Upon Change Order Issuance
Change Order Plan Check Fee
(as a percent of revised permit valuation fee) 5.0%
Change Order Energy Code Review Fee – if applicable
(as a percent of revised permit valuation fee) 2.0%
Change Order Building Permit Fee
(as a percent of revised permit valuation fee) 5.0%
PHASED PERMITTING FEES
Applications for Building Permits may be issued in "phases" prior to the entire permit being
ready for issuance. In order for a permit to be issued in phases, all elements of that phase must
be reviewed and approved by the Building Department and applicable referral agencies. A
Phased Building Permit still requires complete submission of all required documents and
information for all phases at initial permit application submission. Issuance of a permit in
phases is at the discretion of the Chief Building Official. Fees for phased permit issuance are in
addition to fees due for issuance of a complete building permit.
Fees Due at Issuance of Phase 1 Permit:
Building Permit Review Phasing Fee
Zoning Review Phasing Fee
Construction Mitigation Phasing Fee
Engineering Development Review Phasing Fee
Parks Phasing Fee
35% of Building Permit Fee
10% of Zoning Review Fee
50% of Construction Mitigation Fee
10% of Engineering Fee
10% of Parks Review Fee
P154
IX.b
18
SPECIAL SERVICES FEES
Inspection Fee Outside of Normal Business Hrs.
(per hour, min. 2 hrs.) $325.00
Re-inspection Fee (per inspection) $325.00
Special Inspections Fee for Unspecified Inspection
Type (per hour, min. 1 hr) $325.00
Building Permit Extension Fee
(projects with valuations $500,000 or less) $162.50
Building Permit Extension Fee
(projects with valuations over $500,000) $325.00
RE-ROOFING AND ROOFING FEE
Permit Fee: $25.00
Plan Review Fee: $25.00/100 sqft of
roofing
INTERIOR FINISH & FIXTURE REMOVAL FEE
Permit Fee: $25.00 (minimum)
Plan Review Fee: $325.00/hr. (1 hr.
minimum)
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Included in Building Permit Fee
TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 7.5% of Building Permit Fee
(max $5,000)
ENFORCEMENT FEES AND PENALTIES
For violations of the adopted building codes other than a stop work order or correction notice,
the Chief Building Official may issue a Municipal Court citation. Fees, fines, and penalties by
citation for violations of the Building Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge
according to the scope and duration of the offense. Penalties may include: revocation of
Contractor License(s); prohibition of any work on the property for a period of time; recovery of
costs to the public for any required remediation of the site; additional Building Permit Review
Fees; fees to recover administrative costs required by City staff to address the violation; and,
other fees, fines, and penalties or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge.
No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Violations of
this policy are subject to fines.
Stop Work Order or Correction Notice – 1st Infraction 2 Times Permit Valuation Fee
Stop Work Order or Correction Notice – 2nd Infraction 4 Times Permit Valuation Fee
Stop Work Order or Correction Notice – 3rd Infraction
(license subject to suspension or revocation) 8 Times Permit Valuation Fee
COMMUNITY PURPOSE DISCOUNT PROGRAMS
The Chief Building Official may from time to time implement lower fees to encourage certain
types of building improvements as directed by the City Council or City Manager. Example
programs may include energy efficiency improvements, accessibility improvements and the like.
Special fees shall not exceed those otherwise required.
P155
IX.b
19
Notwithstanding the building permit fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or
waiver of building permit fees, engineering review fees, or construction mitigation fees as
deemed appropriate. The Community Development Director shall waive building permit fees for
General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy.
The Community Development Director may reduce building permit review fees by no more than
50% for projects with a fee significantly disproportionate to the service requirements. The City
may not waive or reduce fees collected on behalf of a separate government agency. The City
may not reduce or waive a tax.
SMALL LODGE PROGRAM
Applications for Building Permits for Small Lodges, as defined in Ordinance 15, Series 2015,
are eligible for reduced building permit review fees based on the following schedule. To be
eligible for the discount, all lodges must enter into an agreement with the City stating that the
property will remain a lodge for a minimum number of years, and that if the use changes during
that time period, the property shall owe the City 100% of the building permit fees. The
reductions shall apply to Plan Check, Energy Code, Zoning Review, Engineering Review, CMP,
and Building Permit fees.
Category of Work % of Building
Permit Fee Charged
Length of City
Agreement
Minor interior upgrade
(e.g., paint, carpet, light fixtures) 25% 5 years
Minor exterior upgrade
(e.g., new windows, new paint/exterior materials) 25% 5 years
Major interior upgrade A
(e.g., remodel units, including bathrooms) 50% 10 years
Major interior upgrade B
(e.g., remodel common areas and any kitchen/food
service facilities)
50% 10 years
Redevelopment or Major Expansion 75% 20 years
EXPIRED or CANCELLED PERMITS and REFUNDS
Plan Check fees are not refundable for expired or cancelled permits. Impact mitigation fees for un -
built projects (construction not started) shall be refunded 100%. Building permit and impact fee s
for partially constructed projects are not refundable. Expired or cancelled permits are not
renewable. Projects with expired or cancelled permits must reapply for building permits and pay all
applicable fees. Projects with expired or cancelled permits that have previously paid impact fees
need only pay (or be refunded) the difference in impact fees when applying for a new permit.
P156
IX.b
20
This Section of the Code sets forth engineering review fees for the City Engineering Department,
and shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
Engineering Development Fees 200 – 500 Square Feet (basic review) $567.74
501 – 1000 Square Feet (minor review) $1,419.34
1,001 – 15,000 Square Feet (major review) $1,703.21 + $2.14 per sq. ft.
over 2,000
Above 15,000 Square Feet $1,703.21 + $2.14 per sq. ft.
over 2,000 + $0.103 over 15,000
Additional Planning Review Fee (per hr, min. ½ hr) $325.00
For 2016, the Engineering Development Fee shall be reduced by 10% for major residential
and commercial projects submitted in the format specified in the Engineering Design
Standards. Applicants should contact Engineering staff for more information.
Construction Mitigation Fees 400 – 15,000 Square Feet $1.07 per sq. ft.
Above 15,000 Square Feet $1.07 per sq. ft. to 15,000 +
$0.05 per sq. ft. over 15,000
Fifty percent of the construction mitigation fee will be collected at permit submission; the
remaining fifty percent upon permit issuance. For sites that are clean for the duration of
construction, a 10% refund of the Construction Mitigation Fee will be credited to the site
when the certificate of occupancy is issued.
Additional Planning Review Fee Hourly fee to review changes, additions, or revisions to
plans or land use review cases $325.00
This section of the Code sets forth utility review fees for the City Utilities Department, and shall
be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
UTILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEES
Basic Project
Projects with up to 100 square feet of affected area
Flat Rate $50.00
Minor Review
Projects with 100 - 10,000 square feet of affected area
Permit/Inspection Fee $1.50/sqft
Major Review
Projects with 10,001 square feet of affected area and above
Permit/Inspection Fee $0.75/sqft
This Section of the Code sets forth electrical permit fees for the City Community Development
Department, and shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
P157
IX.b
21
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICAL FEES
Electrical fees are set by the State and are subject to change.
Fee is based on the enclosed living area only, includes construction of, or remodeling or
addition to a single family home, duplex, condominium, or townhouse. If not wiring any
portion of the above listed structures, and are only changing or providing a service, see
“Other Electrical Installation Fees” below.
Living area not more than 1,000 square feet $57.50
Living area 1,001 to 1,500 square feet $86.25
Living area 1,501 to 2,000 square feet $115.00
Living area over 2,000 square feet $115.000 + $5.75 per
100 sqft over 2,000
Mobile homes and travel parks (per space) $115.00
Other Electrical Installation Fees
Including some residential installations that are not based on square footage (not in a living
area, i.e., garage, shop, and photovoltaic, etc.). Fees in this section are calculated from the
total cost to customer, including electrical materials, items and labor - whether provided by
the contractor or the property owner. Use this chart for a service connection, a temporary
meter, and all commercial installations.
Installation Permit On Projects Valuing Less than $2,000 $57.50
Installation Permit on Projects Valuing $2,000 or More
$57.50 + $5.75 per
thousand dollars
(rounded up)
Re-Inspections $57.50
Extra Inspections $57.50
Temporary Heat Release $57.50
Photovoltaic Generation System
(Valuation based on cost to customer of labor, materials, & items)
Residential:
Valuation not more than $2,000
Valuation $2,001 and above
$50.00
$50 plus $5 per
thousand or fraction
thereof (max $500)
Commercial:
Valuation not more than $2,000
Valuation $2,001 and above
$50.00
$50 plus $5 per
thousand or fraction
thereof (max $1,000)
P158
IX.b
22
This Section of the Code sets forth mechanical permit fees for the City Community Development
Department, and shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Mechanical Permit (per unit) $66.31
Supplemental Permit for which the original has not expired, been
canceled or finalized (per unit) $26.53
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Furnaces (installation or relocation)
Forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including attached
ducts and vents; floor furnace, including vent; suspended heater;
recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater (per unit)
$66.31
Appliance Vents (installation, relocation or replacement)
Each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance
permit $33.16
Repairs, Alterations or Additions
Each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit,
absorption unit or each heating, cooling, absorption or
evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls
regulated by the Mechanical Code
$33.16
Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems (installation or relocation)
Each boiler or compressor to and including 3 horsepower (10.6
kW) or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h
(29.3 kW)
$66.31
Each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower (10.6 kW) to and
including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW) or each absorption system
over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu/h
(293.1 kW)
$132.63
Each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7 kW) to and
including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW) or each absorption system
over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h
(293.1 kW)
$176.83
Each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5 kW) to and
including 50 horsepower (176 kW) or each absorption system
over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000
Btu/h (512.9 kW)
$265.25
Each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176 kW) or each
absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) $331.56
Air Handlers
Fee does not apply to units included with a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative
cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code.
Each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per
minute (cfm) (4,719 L/s), including ducts attached thereto $33.16
Each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4,719 L/s) $66.31
P159
IX.b
23
Evaporative Coolers
Each evaporative cooler other than portable type $33.16
Ventilation and Exhaust
Each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $26.53
Each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or
air-conditioning system authorized by a permit $33.16
Each hood which is served by the mechanical exhaust, including
the ducts for such hood $33.16
Miscellaneous
Each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the
Mechanical Code but not classed in other appliance categories or
for which no other fee is listed in the table
$33.16
Other Mechanical Inspections Fees
Hourly inspection fee outside of normal business hrs
(min. 2 hrs) $325.00
Re-inspection fees assessed under Section 305.8
(per inspection) $325.00
Hourly inspections fee for unspecified inspection type
(min. 1 hr) $325.00
Hourly fee for additional plan review required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans or plans for which an initial review
has been completed
$325.00
This Section of the Code sets forth plumbing permit fees for the City Community Development
Department, and shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Plumbing Permit (per issuance) $66.31
Each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired,
been canceled or finalized $26.53
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Fixtures and Vents
Each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap
(including water, drainage piping and backflow protection) $26.53
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $13.26
Sewers, Disposal Systems and Interceptors Each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $265.25
Each cesspool $530.50
Each private sewage disposal system $1,061.00
Each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap
and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning
as traps
$66.31
Rainwater systems, per drain (inside buildings) $33.16
P160
IX.b
24
Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation, alteration or repair of water piping or water-
treating equipment or both, each $26.53
For each water heater, including vent $33.16
Gas Piping Systems Each gas piping system of one to five outlets $13.26
Each additional outlet over five, each $6.63
Lawn Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices
Each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow
protection devices thereof $26.53
For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers or backflow protection
devices not included in Fixtures and Vents:
1 to 5 devices $26.53
Over 5 devices, each $6.63
Each backflow-protection device other than atmospheric-type
vacuum breakers:
2 inches (50.88 mm) and smaller $33.16
Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) $53.05
Swimming Pools Each public pool $1,591.50
Each public spa $795.75
Each private pool $530.50
Each private spa $265.25
Miscellaneous
Each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Plumbing
Code but not classed in other appliance categories or for which no
other fee is listed in this code
$33.16
Other Plumbing Inspection Fees Hourly inspection fee outside of normal business hrs. (min. 2 hrs) $325.00
Re-inspection fees – inspections required after a failed inspection
(per inspection) $325.00
Hourly inspections fee for unspecified inspection type (min. 1 hr) $325.00
Hourly fee for additional plan review required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans or plans for which an initial review
has been completed
$325.00
P161
IX.b
25
This Section of the Code sets forth licensing fees for the City Community Development
Department, and shall be applied to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
CONTRACTOR LICENSES
General Contractor Licenses (3 year term)
Unlimited $450.00
Commercial $450.00
Light Commercial $450.00
Homebuilder $450.00
Specialty Contractor Licenses (3 year terms)
Alteration / Maintenance $142.00
Solar $142.00
Mechanical $142.00
Roofing $142.00
Historic Preservation $142.00
Fire Alarm Installer $142.00
Fire Suppression Installer $142.00
Approved Fabricators $250.00
Approved Special Inspectors $25.00
(Ord. No. 63-2003, §7; Ord. No. 38-2004, §6; Ord. No. 49-2005, §8; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §12;
Ord. No. 3-2011, §1; Ord. No. 29-2012)
That Section 2.12.130 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Car-to-Go Carshare Program, is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.12.130. Car-To-Go Carshare Program fees
FEES
Application $25.00
Monthly Membership $10.00
Hourly Usage $4.00 - $6.00
Per Mile Usage $0.25 - $0.60
Fixed daily Rate $70.00 - $90.00
No Reservation Fee $50.00
Emergency Cleaning (per hour, plus cleaning costs) $50.00
Missing/Incorrect Trip Ticket/Reservation $25.00
NSF Check $30.00
Lost Key Fee $50.00
Late Return Fee (per hour, plus applicable taxi fees) $25.00 - $50.00
Low Fuel Fee $25.00
P162
IX.b
26
CREDITS
Inconvenience Credit (per hour, plus applicable taxi fees) $25.00
Referral $25.00
Refuel / Wash $2.00 / $4.00
(Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth user fees for the Stormwater Department, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2.12.140. Stormwater fees
Fee-in-Lieu of Detention Fee (per cubic foot of detention req.) $78.78
(a) The fee is based on 100 percent of the estimated cost of constructing a detention facility
on-site. The City Engineer at his/her sole discretion may require a certified cost estimate for
construction of detention meeting the standards contained in the Urban Runoff Management
Plan (Manual) established in Sec 28.02.010 and may accept at his/her sole discretion this
amount to be paid in-lieu-of detention.
(b) Required detention storage shall be calculated at the rate of 6.20 cubic feet per 100
square feet of impervious area. The City Engineer at his/her sole discretion may require a
certified storage volume estimate for construction of detention meeting the standards
contained in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) established in Sec 28.02.010 and
may accept at his/her sole discretion this amount to be used for detention volume storage
requirements.
(Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-2009§11; Ord. No. 29-2010§11; Ord. No. 15-2011§2; Ord. No.
29-2012; Ord. No. 48-2013; Ord. No. 36-2014)
That Section 26.104.070 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets forth land use application fees, is hereby amended to read as follows:
P163
IX.b
27
Sec. 26.104.070. Land Use Application Fees
This Section of the code sets forth certain fees related to planning and historic preservation as
follows, applicable to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
Planning Review: Deposit and Billing Administration
The Community Development Department staff shall keep an accurate record of the actual
time required for the processing of each land use application and additional billings shall be
made commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an
application by the Community Development Department takes more time than is covered by
the deposit. In the event the processing of an application by the Community Development
Department takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the Department shall refund the
unused portion of the deposited fee.
The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the regular
issuance of invoices and collection of amounts due.
The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection
of past due invoices, as required, which may include any of the following: 1) assessment of
additional late fees for accounts at least 90 days past due in an amount not to exceed 1.75%
per month, 2) stopping application processing, 3) reviewing past-due accounts with City
Council, 4) withholding the issuance of a Development Order, 5) withholding the recordation
of development documents, 6) prohibiting the acceptance of building permits for the subject
property, 7) ceasing building permit processing, 8) revoking an issued building permit, 9)
implementing other penalties, assessments, fines, or actions as may be assigned by the
Municipal Court Judge.
Flat fees for the processing of applications shall be cumulative. Applications for more than
one land use review requiring an hourly deposit on planning time shall require submission of
the larger deposit amount.
The Community Development Director shall bill applicants for any incidental costs of
reviewing an application at direct costs, with no administrative or processing charge.
Land use review fee deposits may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development
Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit
indicates. A determination shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case
planner. Hourly billing shall still apply.
P164
IX.b
28
Review fees for projects requiring conceptual review, final review, and recordation of
approval documents. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all
applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as
individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be
reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an
application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at
the time of final application submission. Upon final approval, all billing shall again be
reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of recordation documents.
Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall
waive planning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with
City policy.
Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or
waiver of planning review fees as deemed appropriate.
Free Services
Pre-Application / Pre-Permit Meetings Free
Call-in / Walk-in Development Questions Free
GMQS – SF or Dx on Historic Landmark Free
Historic Designation Free
Historic Preservation – Exempt Development Free
Historic Preservation – Minor Amendment, HPO Review Free
Historic Preservation – Minor Amendment, Monitor Review Free
Development Order Publication Fee Free
Applicant meetings with a Planner to discuss prospective planning applications or prospective
building permit applications are a free service and staff time is not charged to the applicant.
However, this service is limited to the time reasonably necessary for understanding a project's
requirements, review procedures, City regulations, etc. An applicant shall be billed for any
pre-application or pre-permit staff time significantly in excess of that which is reasonably
necessary. Billing will be at the Planning hourly billing rate. The applicant will be notified
prior to any billing for pre-application or pre-permit service.
Planning Review – Administrative, Flat Fees
GMQS – Temporary Food Vending $81.00
Code Interpretation – Formal Issuance $81.00
Historic Preservation – Certification of No Negative Effect $81.00
Temporary Use – Admin. $163.00
GMQS – SF or Dx Replacement, Cash-in-Lieu $325.00
GMQS – SF or Dx Replacement, Admin. $325.00
P165
IX.b
29
GMQS – Change-in-Use for Historic Landmark $325.00
GMQS – Minor Enlargement for Historic Landmark $325.00
GMQS – Alley Store $325.00
GMQS – Exemption from MF Housing Replacement $325.00
Residential Design Compliance Review $163.00
Residential Design Variance, Admin. $325.00
GMQS – Minor Enlargement, Non-Historic $650.00
Planning Review – Administrative, Hourly Fees
If review process takes less time than the number of hours listed below, refunds will be made to
applicants for unused hours purchased within initial deposits.
Review of Administrative Subdivisions, Condominium Plats, or
Amendments (Includes City Attorney and other referral
departments’ time at same hourly rate; City Engineer review time
billed at rate specified below)
$650.00
(2 hour deposit)
Recordation Documents Review - Subdivision plats,
Subdivision exemption plats (except condominiums), PD plans,
development agreements, subdivision agreements, PD or SPA
agreements, or amendments to recorded documents
(Includes City Attorney and other referral departments’ time at
same hourly rate; City Engineer review time billed at rate
specified below)
$975.00
(3 hour deposit)
Admin. Condominium or Special Review
Admin. ESA or ESA Exemption
Admin. Subdivision – Lot Line Adjustment
Admin. PD Amendments
Admin. Commercial Design Review Amendment
$1,300.00
(4 hour deposit)
Additional Hours – If necessary (per hour) $325.00
Referral Agency Fees: Administrative, If Applicable
Hourly Engineering Review Fee (billed with Planning Case) $325.00
Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, Flat Fee $650.00
City Parks Department, Flat Fee $650.00
City Environmental Health Department, Flat Fee $650.00
Planning Review: One-Step Hourly Fee
Historic Preservation – Minor Development
Historic Preservation – Major Development up to 1,000 sq. ft.
Temporary Use, City Council
Vested Rights Extension, City Council
Appeals of Administrative or Board Decisions
$1,300.00
(4 hour deposit)
P166
IX.b
30
Historic Preservation – Major Development over 1,000 sq. ft.
Historic Preservation – Demolitions and Off-Site Relocations
Historic Preservation – Substantial Amendment
Board of Adjustment Variance
Timeshare – P&Z Review
$1,950.00
(6 hour deposit)
Growth Management
Conditional Use
Special Review
Environmentally Sensitive Area Review
Residential Design Variance – P&Z
Minor Subdivision – Lot Split, Historical Lot Split
$3,250.00
(10 hour deposit)
PD Amendment – P&Z Only
Commercial Design Review, Conceptual or Final
$4,550.00
(14 hour deposit)
Additional Hours – If necessary (per hour) $325.00
Referral Agency Fees: One-Step Review, If Applicable
Hourly Engineering Review Fee (billed with Planning Case) $325.00
Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, Flat Fee $975.00
City Parks Department, Flat Fee $975.00
City Environmental Health Department, Flat Fee $975.00
Planning Review: Two-Step Hourly Fee
Major Subdivision Review
Land Use Code Amendment
Rezoning or Initial Zoning (Annexations)
$7,800.00
(24 hour deposit)
Additional Hours – If necessary (per hour) $325.00
Referral Agency Fees: Two-Step Review, If Applicable
Hourly Engineering Review Fee $325.00
Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, Flat Fee $1,300.00
City Parks Department, Flat Fee $1,300.00
City Environmental Health Department, Flat Fee $1,300.00
Planning Review: PD Hourly Fee
Planned Development or PD Substantial Amendment $10,400.00
(32 hour deposit)
Additional Hours – If necessary (per hour) $325.00
Referral Agency Fees: PD Reviews, If Applicable
Hourly Engineering Review Fee (billed with Planning Case) $325.00
Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, Flat Fee $1,625.00
City Parks Department, Flat Fee $1,625.00
City Environmental Health Department, Flat Fee $1,625.00
P167
IX.b
31
Planning Review: Public Project Review or Joint Applicant
Applications for the City's Public Project process shall be assessed land use review fees and/or
a portion of joint planning costs as determined appropriate by City Council. If no such
determination is made, the application shall be billed as a PD.
Planning Review: Other
Hourly fee for any additional plan review for which no other
specific fee has been established $325.00
(Ord. No. 57-2000, §9; Ord. No. 47-2002, §8; Ord. No. 63-2003, §4; Ord. No. 38-2004, §7; Ord. No.
49-2005, §9; Ord. No. 48, 2006, §13; Ord. 52-2007; Ord. No.4 - 2011, §2; Ord. No. 29-2012; Ord. No.
36-2014)
That Section 26.104.072 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section
sets forth zoning review fees, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26.104.072. Zoning Review fees
This Section of the code sets forth certain fees related to zoning as follows, applicable to
applications submitted on or after January 1, 2016:
Zoning review fees shall apply to all development requiring a building permit and all
development not requiring a building permit but which requires review by the Community
Development Department. The fee covers the Zoning Officer's review of a permit, including
any correspondence with the case planner, Historic Preservation Officer, the Department’s
Deputy Director or Director, or other City staff.
A permit or a change order to a permit that requires a floor area, height, net leasable, or net
livable measurement by the Zoning Officer shall be considered a Major permit. Official
confirmation of existing conditions of a property that requires measurement of floor area,
height, net leasable area, or net livable area of a structure, prior to demolition or for other
purposes also shall be considered a Major permit. All other permits are considered minor
permits.
For the purposes of zoning fees, the square footage used to calculate the fee shall be the
greater of the gross square footage affected by the permit or the gross square footage that
must be measured to review the permit. All change orders to a permit require additional fees.
For projects with multiple uses, the zoning review fee for each individual use shall be
calculated based on the gross square footage of the use and added to determine the total
project fee.
P168
IX.b
32
Zoning review fees for major permits for properties within a Planned Development shall be
125% of the fee schedule.
Zoning referral fees - for official zoning comments on a planning application - shall be
according to the fees policy for planning review.
Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall
waive zoning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with
City policy.
Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or
waiver of zoning review fees as deemed appropriate.
Fees Due at Permit Submittal
Zoning Permit Fee of $500 or More 50% of Zoning Permit Fee
Special Services – Zoning Review
Hourly Zoning Review Fee $325.00
Zone District Confirmation Letter
(does not confirm legality of existing improvements or uses) $325.00
Expedited Zoning Review Fee – services subject to
authorization by Community Development Director and subject
to department workload, staffing and effects on other projects
Double applicable
zoning review fee
Change Order Fees:
For changes not requiring a new measurement of floor area,
height, net leasable, or net livable space
Minor Zoning Fee
Change Order Fees:
For changes requiring a new measurement of floor area, height,
net leasable, or net livable space
Major Zoning Fee
Change orders for projects within a PD shall be assessed 125% of the fee schedule.
Applicant meetings with the Zoning Officer to discuss prospective planning applications or
prospective building permit applications are a free service and staff time is not charged to the
applicant. However, this service is limited to the time reasonably necessary for understanding
a project's requirements, review procedures, City regulations, etc. An applicant shall be billed
for any pre-application or pre-permit staff time significantly in excess of that which is
reasonably necessary. Billing will be at the Zoning hourly billing rate. The applicant will be
notified prior to any billing for pre-application or pre-permit service.
Business License Approval – Zoning
(other fees may be required by City Finance) Free
Vacation Rental Permit – Zoning
(other fees may be required by City Finance) Free
P169
IX.b
33
Special Review or Inspection Hourly Fee – Zoning
(when no fee is otherwise established, 1 hour minimum) $325.00
Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee – Zoning Included in Zoning
Review Fee
Demolition Zoning Review Fees
Minor Zoning Fee – does not require measurement or
confirmation of existing conditions
Up to 500 square feet $65.00
501 to 2,500 square feet $163.00
2,501 to 5,000 square feet $244.00
Over 5,000 square feet $325.00
Major Zoning Fee – requires measurement or confirmation of
existing conditions
Major fee according to
specified land use
Exterior Repair Zoning Review Fees
Applies to residential, commercial, lodging, arts/cultural/civic,
or institutional exterior repair work requiring a building permit
or review by the Historic Preservation Officer. Based on wall
area or roof area being repaired. (Excludes signs and awnings.)
Up to 500 square feet $33.00
501 to 2,500 square feet $65.00
2,501 to 5,000 square feet $163.00
Over 5,000 square feet $325.00
Residential Zoning Review Fees
Applies to single-family, duplex, accessory dwelling units, carriage houses, multi-family, and
residential units in a mixed-use building.
Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel, or
Minor Change Order
- Projects up to $5,000 in total valuation $33.00
- Projects Over $5,000 in total valuation:
Up to 500 square feet $325.00
501 to 2,500 square feet $650.00
2,501 to 5,000 square feet $975.00
Over 5,000 square feet $1,300.00
Major Zoning Fee – New Development, Major Remodel,
Demolition with Confirmation, Major Change Order
Up to 500 square feet (minimum $325.00) $1.30 / sq. ft.
501 to 2,500 square feet $1.40 / sq. ft.
2,501 to 5,000 square feet $1.55 / sq. ft.
Over 5,000 square feet $1.70 / sq. ft.
Major residential permits within a PD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule.
P170
IX.b
34
For 2016, the zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major residential projects
submitted in the format specified in the Model Zoning Submission. Applicants should contact
Community Development staff for more information.
Commercial Zoning Review Fees
Applies to commercial projects and commercial portions of a mixed-use project
Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel, or
Minor Change Order
- Projects up to $5,000 in total valuation $33.00
- Projects Over $5,000 in total valuation:
Up to 500 square feet $325.00
501 to 2,500 square feet $650.00
2,501 to 5,000 square feet $975.00
Over 5,000 square feet $1,300.00
Major Zoning Fee – New Development, Major Remodel,
Demolition with Confirmation, Major Change Order
Up to 500 square feet (minimum $325.00) $1.30 / sq. ft.
501 to 2,500 square feet $1.40 / sq. ft.
2,501 to 5,000 square feet $1.55 / sq. ft.
Over 5,000 square feet $1.70 / sq. ft.
Major commercial permits within a PD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule.
For 2016, the zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major commercial projects
submitted in the format specified in the Model Zoning Submission. Applicants should contact
Community Development staff for more information.
Lodging Zoning Review Fees
Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel, or
Minor Change Order
- Projects up to $5,000 in total valuation $33.00
- Projects Over $5,000 in total valuation:
Up to 500 square feet $325.00
501 to 2,500 square feet $650.00
2,501 to 5,000 square feet $975.00
Over 5,000 square feet $1,300.00
Major Zoning Fee – New Development, Major Remodel,
Demolition with Confirmation, Major Change Order
Up to 5,000 square feet (minimum $325.00) $0.51 / sq. ft.
Over 5,000 square feet $0.62 / sq. ft.
Major lodging permits within a PD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule.
For 2016, the zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major lodging projects submitted
in the format specified in the Model Zoning Submission. Applicants should contact Community
Development staff for more information.
P171
IX.b
35
Arts/Cultural/Civic/Institutional Zoning Review Fees
Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel, or
Minor Change Order
- Projects up to $5,000 in total valuation $33.00
- Projects Over $5,000 in total valuation:
Up to 1,000 square feet $325.00
1,001 to 5,000 square feet $650.00
5,001 to 10,000 square feet $975.00
Over 10,000 square feet $1,300.00
Major Zoning Fee – New Development, Major Remodel,
Demolition with Confirmation, Major Change Order
Up to 5,000 square feet (minimum $325.00) $0.51 / sq. ft.
Over 5,000 square feet $0.62 / sq. ft.
Major Arts/Cultural/Civic/Institutional permits within a PD shall be 125% of the above fee
schedule.
For 2016, the zoning review fee shall be reduced by 10% for major
Arts/Cultural/Civic/Institutional projects submitted in the format specified in the Model Zoning
Submission. Applicants should see Community Development staff for more information.
Signs/Awnings/Outdoor Merchandising – Zoning Review Fees
Individual Sign Permit Fee (per sign) $65.00
Multiple Sign Permit Fee (per business, unlimited signs) $163.00
Sandwich Board Sign License (must be renewed annually) Free
Sandwich board locations must be approved by Zoning Officer.
Outdoor Merchandising on Public Property
0 to 4 sq. ft. Free
4 to 50 sq. ft. $65.00
More than 50 sq. ft. $163.00
Outdoor merchandise location must be approved by the Zoning Officer.
Awnings require a Building Permit Refer to Building Permit
Fee Schedule
Individual Banner Installation Fee $65.00
Double Banner Installation Fee $163.00
Light Pole Banner Installation Fee (per pole) $17.00
Fence– Zoning Review Fee
Single Family and Duplex Residential $65.00
All Other Uses $163.00
P172
IX.b
36
Wildlife Resistant Trash and Recycling Enclosures –
Combined Zoning and Building Review Fee
Single Family and Duplex Residential $65.00
All Other Uses $163.00
Enforcement Fees, Fines, and Penalties
No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued until all fees
have been paid in full. Failure to pay applicable fees is subject to fines, penalties, or
assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge.
Non-Permitted Work Fee
Work done without a zoning approval (when one is required), without a building permit (when
one is required), or work done counter to an issued zoning approval is subject to this
enforcement fee. Non-permitted work fee is per infraction and per project. Additional hourly
fees may be applicable to account for staff time. No other action on the project may occur
until non-permitted work issue has been rectified to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. Any correction requiring a building permit or zoning application shall
also be subject to the Correction Order Fees described below.
First Infraction (minimum of $325) Hourly fee for staff time
in excess of one hour
Second Infraction (minimum of $650) Hourly fee for staff time
in excess of one hour
Third Infraction (minimum of $975) Hourly fee for staff time
in excess of one hour
Correction Order Fee
This fee shall apply to any work required to correct a zoning violation or to permit work that
has been accomplished without a permit or not covered by an issued permit. Infractions are
per project. For any correction requiring a planning review, the planning review fees shall be
increased according to the below schedule.
First Infraction (minimum of $500) Two Times Zoning
Review Fee
Second Infraction (minimum of $500) Four Times Zoning
Review Fee
Third Infraction (minimum of $500; subject to additional
penalties by citation as assigned by the Municipal Judge)
Eight Times Zoning
Review Fee
Municipal Court Enforcement - Zoning
Fees, fines, and penalties by citation for violations of the Land Use Code shall be established
by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of the offense. Zoning
Enforcement Fee may include an assessment for administrative time required by the Zoning
Officer to address the violation.
P173
IX.b
37
That Section 8.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets
forth insurance requirements for contractors working within the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 8.12.100. Insurance
Every contractor granted a license under the terms of this Chapter shall be required to
maintain workers’ compensation insurance, if required by law, and general liability insurance
with minimum limits of not less than five-hundred-thousand dollars ($500,000) for one (1)
person and one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one (1) accident, and property damage
insurance with a minimum limit of not less than three-hundred-thousand dollars ($300,000) for
any one (1) accident during the time construction activities are performed in the City of Aspen or
Pitkin County.
P174
IX.b
38
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 23rd day of November, 2015, in the City
Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of November, 2015
___________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 23rd day of November, 2015.
____________________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P175
IX.b
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance and Administrative Services Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 16, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: Ordinance No. 44, Series of 2015 -- Electric Rate Adjustments
Ordinance No. 45, Series of 2015 -- Water Rate Adjustments
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval of the attached Electric Rate Adjustment Ordinance No.
44, (Exhibit A), and the Water Rate Adjustment Ordinance No. 45, (Exhibit B).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On November 9, 2015 First Reading of Electric Rate
Adjustments and Water Rate Adjustments ordinance amendments were presented to City
Council. As stated during First Reading, overall impact on average residential and commercial
accounts in both water and electric utility is between a 3.5 and 6.3 percent monthly bill increase.
Additional information on current status of cost-of-service transition in both electric and water
utilities was requested by Council during First Reading, which is attached at Exhibit C.
BACKGROUND:
Electric Utility:
In September 2011, Council approved a phase-in approach to reach full cost of service for the
electric residential and commercial rate classes, as well as within the base fee/availability charge.
These rates went into effect November of 2011, with a goal of full cost of service transition and
implementation by year 2021. For year 2016, overall proposed monthly rate increase for average
residential and commercial electric accounts is 5 percent.
Water Utility:
In November 2012, Council approved a phase-in period to reach full cost-of-service within the
various cost components of the water rate structure. The City’s water utility will continue to
implement the cost-of-service transition with a goal of full implementation by 2022. For year
2016, the overall proposed monthly rate increase for average residential and commercial water
accounts is 5.5 percent.
DISCUSSION: During 2015 discussion with Council regarding the effectiveness of the current
rate structures, it was agreed that the electric and water rate structures continue to migrate to a
full cost-of-service rate basis.
P176
IX.c
Page 2 of 2
In both the electric and water utility industries, the trend for rate structure design is shifting
towards a more stable revenue stream reliant on base fees, vs. a current model with a higher
emphasis on variable consumption. This is one of several areas that will be studied and reported
on during year 2016. Staff will update and revise the previous year 2011/2012 rate studies in
both water and electric utilities to reflect: current cost of maintaining infrastructure including
reliability and service levels (Asset Management Plans); transition of cost of service; changes in
wholesale purchased power rate structures; rate tier tightening in both utilities; changing
landscape and uptake of customer participation in conservation, efficiency, and renewable
energy; and other utility changes that have occurred in the last 5 years as well as industry
trending.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial implications of the proposed electric and
water rate adjustments are outlined in Council’s 2016 Budget book within the Long-Range Plan
(LRP).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The electric and water rate structures continue to place a
value on, and an incentive for, conservation and efficiency programs, policies, and
improvements.
Further, in year 2015 the City of Aspen Electric Utility achieved the goal a 100 percent
renewable energy power supply, which was one goal established in the Climate Action Plan of
the City of Aspen’s Canary Initiative adopted in 2007.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of proposed Electric and Water rate
adjustments as detailed in Ordinance 44 and 45, which are attached as Exhibit A and B,
respectively.
ALTERNATIVES: Council may request additional rate information and/or alternatives to
satisfy Electric and Water Fund revenue requirements currently forecasted in the LRP for each
enterprise fund as outlined in their 2016 Budget book.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance 44 and 45, Series of 2015.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Ordinance 44, Series 2015, Electric Rate Adjustments
Exhibit B – Ordinance 45, Series 2015, Water Rate Adjustments
Exhibit C – Cost-of-Service – Transition Estimate – November 2015
P177
IX.c
ORDINANCE NO. 44
Series of 2015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE
25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 25.04, ELECTRICITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring all users of the electric system operated
by the City of Aspen to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues
sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 25.04.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth
electric service rates, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 25.04.040. Electric service rates.
(a) Effective January 1, 2016, all residential customers of the Aspen Electric Department shall pay
a monthly customer availability charge as follows: 100 amp electric customers shall pay seven
and 12/100 dollars ($7.12) per bill; 200 amp electric customers shall pay fourteen and 23/100
dollars ($14.23) per bill; 300 amp electric customers shall pay twenty-six and 70/100 ($26.70)
per bill; 400 amp electric customers shall pay thirty-five and 59/100 dollars ($35.59) per bill;
600 amp electric customers shall pay fifty-three and 38/100 dollars ($53.38) per bill; 800 amp
electric customers shall pay seventy-one and 17/100 dollars ($71.17) per bill; 1000 amp
electric customers shall pay eighty-eight and 97/100 dollars ($88.97) per bill; 1200 amp electric
customers shall pay one hundred six and 76/100 dollars ($106.76) per bill; 1600 amp electric
customers shall pay one hundred forty-three and 00/100 dollars ($143.00) per bill; 1800 amp
electric customers shall pay one hundred sixty and 60/100 dollars ($160.60) per bill; and, 2000
amp customers shall pay one hundred seventy-eight and 20/100 dollars ($178.20) per bill.
(b) Effective January 1, 2016, all commercial and city facilities customers of the Aspen Electric
Department shall pay a monthly customer availability charge as follows: 100 amp electric
customers shall pay seven and 47/100 dollars ($7.47) per bill; 200 amp electric customers shall
pay fourteen and 95/100 dollars ($14.95) per bill; 300 amp electric customers shall pay twenty-
eight and 03/100 ($28.03) per bill; 400 amp electric customers shall pay thirty-seven and
37/100 dollars ($37.37) per bill; 600 amp electric customers shall pay fifty-six and 06/100
dollars ($56.06) per bill; 800 amp electric customers shall pay seventy-four and 94/100 dollars
($67.94) per bill; 1000 amp electric customers shall pay eighty-four and 73/100 dollars
($74.73) per bill; 1200 amp electric customers shall pay one hundred twelve and 09/100 dollars
($112.09) per bill; 1600 amp electric customers shall pay one hundred fifty and 15/100 dollars
($150.15) per bill; 1800 amp electric customers shall pay one hundred sixty-eight and 63/100
dollars ($168.63) per bill; and, 2000 amp customers shall pay one hundred eighty-seven and
11/100 dollars ($187.11) per bill.
(c) In addition to the monthly customer availability charge, the customer shall pay the sum of the
metered use of electric energy measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) during the department’s
monthly meter reading cycle multiplied by the appropriate service rate as follows.
(i) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 100 AMP residential customers shall be
$0.0740 per kWh for first four hundred (400) kWh of metered usage; $0.1111 per kWh for metered
usage from four hundred one (401) to one thousand eighty (1,080) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for
P178
IX.c
metered usage from one thousand eighty-one (1,081) to one thousand nine hundred twenty (1,920);
and, $0.2916 per kWh for metered usage in excess of one thousand nine hundred twenty (1,920)
kWh.
(ii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 200 AMP residential customers shall be
$0.0740 per kWh for first five hundred twenty (520) kWh of metered usage; $0.1111 per kWh for
metered usage from five hundred twenty-one (521) to one thousand three hundred sixty (1,360)
kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand three hundred sixty-one (1,361) to
two thousand eight hundred (2,800); and, $0.2916 per kWh for metered usage in excess of two
thousand eight hundred (2,800) kWh.
(iii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 300 AMP residential customers shall be
$0.0740 per kWh for first one thousand six hundred (1,600) kWh of metered usage; $0.1111 per
kWh for metered usage from one thousand six hundred one (1,601) to three thousand six hundred
(3,600) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand six hundred one (3,601) to
six thousand one hundred sixty (6,160); and, $0.2916 per kWh for metered usage in excess of six
thousand one hundred sixty (6,160) kWh.
(iv) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 400 AMP residential customers shall be
$0.0740 per kWh for first one thousand six hundred (1,600) kWh of metered usage; $0.1111 per
kWh for metered usage from one thousand six hundred one (1,601) to three thousand six hundred
(3,600) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand six hundred one (3,601)
to six thousand one hundred sixty (6,160); and, $0.2916 per kWh for metered usage in excess of
six thousand one hundred sixty (6,160) kWh.
(v) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 600 AMP residential customers shall be
$0.0740 per kWh for first two thousand eight hundred (2,800) kWh of metered usage; $0.1111
per kWh for metered usage from two thousand eight hundred one (2,801) to five thousand four
hundred forty (5,440) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from five thousand four hundred
forty-one (5,441) to eight thousand eight hundred (8,800); and, $0.2916 per kWh for metered
usage in excess of eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) kWh.
(vi) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 800 AMP residential customers
shall be $0.0740 per kWh for first two thousand eight hundred (2,800) kWh of metered usage;
$0.1111 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand eight hundred one (2,801) to five
thousand four hundred forty (5,440) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from five
thousand four hundred forty-one (5,441) to eight thousand eight hundred (8,800); and, $0.2804
per kWh for metered usage in excess of eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) kWh.
(vii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 1200 AMP residential customers
shall be $0.0740 per kWh for first two thousand eight hundred (2,800) kWh of metered usage;
$0.1111 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand eight hundred one (2,801) to five
thousand four hundred forty (5,440) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from five
thousand four hundred forty-one (5,441) to eight thousand eight hundred (8,800); and, $0.2916
per kWh for metered usage in excess of eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) kWh.
(viii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 1600 AMP residential customers
shall be $0.0740 per kWh for first two thousand eight hundred (2,800) kWh of metered usage;
$0.1111 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand eight hundred one (2,801) to five
thousand four hundred forty (5,440) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from five
thousand four hundred forty-one (5,441) to eight thousand eight hundred (8,800); and, $0.2916
per kWh for metered usage in excess of eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) kWh.
(ix) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 1800 AMP residential customers
shall be $0.0740 per kWh for first two thousand eight hundred (2,800) kWh of metered usage;
$0.1111 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand eight hundred one (2,801) to five
thousand four hundred forty (5,440) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage from five
thousand four hundred forty-one (5,441) to eight thousand eight hundred (8,800); and, $0.2916
per kWh for metered usage in excess of eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) kWh.
P179
IX.c
(x) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 2000 AMP and above residential
customers shall be $0.0740 per kWh for first two thousand eight hundred (2,800) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1111 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand eight hundred one
(2,801) to five thousand four hundred forty (5,440) kWh; $0.1666 per kWh for metered usage
from five thousand four hundred forty-one (5,441) to eight thousand eight hundred (8,800); and,
$0.2916 per kWh for metered usage in excess of eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) kWh.
(xi) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 100 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first eight hundred eight (880) kWh of metered usage;
$0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from eight hundred eight one (881) to two thousand three
hundred twenty (2,320) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage from two thousand three
hundred twenty-one (2,321) to four thousand eight hundred (4,800); and, $0.2629 per kWh for
metered usage in excess of four thousand eight hundred (4,800) kWh.
(xii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 200 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first one thousand two hundred eighty (1,280) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from one thousand two hundred eighty-one
(1,281) to three thousand one hundred twenty (3,120) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage
from three thousand one hundred twenty-one (3,121) to five thousand seven hundred sixty
(5,760); and, $0.2629 per kWh for metered usage in excess of five thousand seven hundred sixty
(5,760) kWh.
(xiii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 300 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first three thousand three hundred sixty (3,360) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand three hundred sixty-one
(3,361) to seven thousand one hundred twenty (7,120) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage
from seven thousand one hundred twenty one (7,121) to twelve thousand two hundred forty
(12,240); and, $0.2629 per kWh for metered usage in excess twelve thousand two hundred forty
(12,240) kWh.
(xiv) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 400 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first three thousand three hundred sixty (3,360) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from three thousand three hundred sixty one
(3,361) to seven thousand one hundred twenty (7,120) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage
from seven thousand one hundred twenty one (7,121) to twelve thousand two hundred forty
(12,240); and, $0.2629 per kWh for metered usage in excess twelve thousand two hundred forty
(12,240) kWh.
(xv) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 600 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first six thousand five hundred sixty (6,560) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from six thousand five hundred sixty-one
(6,561) to thirteen thousand three hundred (13,300) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage
from thirteen thousand three hundred one (13,301) to eighteen thousand (18,400); and, $0.2629
per kWh for metered usage in excess of eighteen thousand four hundred (18,400) kWh.
(xvi) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 800 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first thirteen thousand six hundred (13,600) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from thirteen thousand six hundred one
(13,601) to twenty-eight thousand (28,000) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage from
twenty- eight thousand one (28,001) to forty- four thousand eight hundred (44,800); and, $0.2629
per kWh for metered usage in excess of forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800) kWh.
(xvii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 1,000 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first thirteen thousand six hundred (13,600) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from thirteen thousand six hundred one
(13,601) to twenty-eight thousand (28,000) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage from
twenty-eight thousand one (28,001) to forty- four thousand eight hundred (44,800); and, $0.2629
per kWh for metered usage in excess of forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800) kWh.
(xviii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 1,200 AMP small commercial
P180
IX.c
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first thirteen thousand six hundred (13,600) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from thirteen thousand six hundred one
(13,601) to twenty-eight thousand (28,000) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage from
twenty-eight thousand one (28,001) to forty- four thousand eight hundred (44,800); and, $0.2629
per kWh for metered usage in excess of forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800) kWh.
(xix) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 1,600 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first thirteen thousand six hundred (13,600) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from thirteen thousand six hundred one
(13,601) to twenty-eight thousand (28,000) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage from
twenty-eight thousand one (28,001) to forty- four thousand eight hundred (44,800); and, $0.2629
per kWh for metered usage in excess of forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800) kWh.
(xx) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 1,800 AMP small commercial
customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first thirteen thousand six hundred (13,600) kWh of
metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from thirteen thousand six hundred one
(13,601) to twenty-eight thousand (28,000) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage from
twenty-eight thousand one (28,001) to forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800); and, $0.2629
per kWh for metered usage in excess of forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800) kWh.
(xxi) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail rate for 2,000 AMP and above small
commercial customers shall be $0.0876 per kWh for first thirteen thousand six hundred (13,600)
kWh of metered usage; $0.1095 per kWh for metered usage from thirteen thousand six hundred
one (13,601) to twenty-eight thousand (28,000) kWh; $0.1643 per kWh for metered usage from
twenty-eight thousand one (28,001) to forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800); and, $0.2629
per kWh for metered usage in excess of forty-four thousand eight hundred (44,800) kWh.
(xxii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 100 AMP large commercial
customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of forty (40) kW
and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak usage for that
meter reading cycle.
(xxiii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 200 AMP large commercial
customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of forty (40) kW
and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak usage for that
meter reading cycle.
(xxiv) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 300 AMP large commercial
customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of forty (40) kW
and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak usage for that
meter reading cycle.
(xxv) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 400 AMP large commercial
customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of forty (40) kW
and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak usage for that
meter reading cycle.
(xxvi) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 600 AMP large commercial
customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of forty (40) kW
and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak usage for that
P181
IX.c
meter reading cycle.
(xxvii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 800 AMP large commercial
customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of forty (40) kW
and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three thousand two
hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak usage for that
meter reading cycle.
(xxviii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 1000 AMP large
commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of
forty (40) kW and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak
usage for that meter reading cycle.
(xxix) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 1200 AMP large
commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of
forty (40) kW and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak
usage for that meter reading cycle.
(xxx) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 1600 AMP large
commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of
forty (40) kW and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak
usage for that meter reading cycle.
(xxxi) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 1800 AMP large
commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of
forty (40) kW and greater, shall be $0.0733 per kWh for metered usage for first twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of twenty-three
thousand two hundred (23,200) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak
usage for that meter reading cycle.
(xxxii) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for 2000 AMP and above large
commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of
forty (40) kW and greater, shall be $0.733 per kWh for metered usage for first fifty thousand four
hundred (50,400) kWh; and, $0.0917 for metered usage in excess of fifty thousand four hundred
(50,400) kWh plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of metered peak usage for that meter
reading cycle.
(xxxiii) Effective January 1, 2016, retail service rate for all small city facilities
customers shall be$0.10 per kWh for metered usage.
(xxxiv) Effective January 1, 2016, the retail service rate for large city facilities
customers, with operable demand metering system in place and measured usage of forty (40) kW
and greater, shall be $0.07 per kWh for metered usage plus a demand charge of $10.40 per kW of
metered peak usage for that meter reading cycle.
(Code 1971, § 23-18.1; Ord. No. 42-1984, § 1; Ord. No. 76-1992, § 1; Ord. No. 36-1996, § 1; Ord.
No. 41-2004,§1;Ord. No. 7-2006, § 1; Ord. No. 37-2008; Ord. No 29-2011; Ord. No. 36-2011;
Ord. No. 37-2014§1)
Section 2.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
P182
IX.c
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinance repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ, ORDERED AND
PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of November,
2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 23th day of November, 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
James R. True, City Attorney
P183
IX.c
ORDINANCE NO. 45
Series of 2015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 25.16, WATER RATES AND CHARGES.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring all users of the water system operated by the City of
Aspen to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay
for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Section 25.16.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly rates for
metered water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 25.16.010. Monthly rates for metered water service.
All metered customers except temporary construction, grandfathered-in, and pre-tap customer accounts shall pay on a monthly basis
the sum of charges one (1) through seven (7) that follow:
(1) Effective January 1, 2016a demand charge of four dollars and ninety-five cents ($4.95) per ECU per
month for Billing Area 1; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month for Billing
Area 2; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month for Billing Area 3; six dollars
and seventeen cents ($6.17) per ECU per month for Billing Area 4; eight dollars and eighty-four cents
($8.84) per ECU per month for Billing Area 5; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per
month for Billing Area 6; and, seven dollars and forty-two cents ($7.42) per ECU per month for Billing
Area 7.
(2) Effective January 1, 2016 a variable charge of two dollars and eleven cents ($2.11) per thousand (1,000)
gallons of the first four thousand (4,000) gallons of metered usage per ECU per month per month.
(3) Effective January 1, 2016 a variable charge of two dollars and seventy-two cents ($2.72) per thousand
(1,000) gallons of metered usage from four thousand one (4,001) to twelve thousand (12,000) gallons per
ECU per month.
(4) Effective January 1, 2016 a variable charge of three dollars and eighty-nine cents ($3.89) per thousand
(1,000) gallons for metered usage from twelve thousand one (12,001) gallons to sixteen thousand
(16,000) gallons per ECU per month.
(5) Effective January 1, 2016 a variable charge of five dollars and eighty-three cents ($5.83) per thousand
(1,000) gallons for metered usage in excess of sixteen thousand (16,000) gallons per ECU per month.
(6) Effective January 1, 2016 a monthly pumping charge of one dollar and fifty-three cents ($1.53) per
thousand (1,000) gallons pumped with service through one (1) pump station, three dollars and six cents
($3.06) per thousand (1,000) gallons pumped with service through two (2) pump stations; and four dollars
and fifty-nine cents ($4.59) per thousand (1,000) gallons pumped with service through three (3) pump
stations.
(7) Effective January 1, 2016 a fire protection charge of one dollar and seventy-two cents ($1.72) per ECU per
month for Billing Area 1; three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area
2; three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 3; two dollars and
P184
IX.c
fifteen cents ($2.15) per ECU per month for Billing Area 4; three dollars and one cent ($3.01) per
ECU per month for Billing Area 5; three dollars and forty three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for
Billing Area 6; two dollars and fifty-eight cents ($2.58) per ECU per month for Billing Area 7.
(Code 1971, § 23-101; Ord. No. 27-1985, § 1; Ord. No.48-1986, § 1[A]; Ord. No. 51-1987, § 1; Ord. No. 18-
1988, § 1; Ord. No. 34-1988, § 1; Ord. No. 19-1990, § 2; Ord. No. 39-1993, § 6; Ord. No.45-1999, § 16; Ord.
No. 41-2004, §2 [part]; Ord. No. 7-2006, §2; Ord. No. 35-2011§2; Ord. No. 30-2012 §20; Ord. No 38-2014§1)
Section 2.
That Section 25.16.011 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth bulk rates
for metered water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 25.16.011. Bulk rates for metered water service.
(a) Effective January 1, 2016, the bulk water sales rate and two-tier structure for Buttermilk Metro District will
be:
Monthly Block Rates Charge (Per thousand
gallons)
First 2,400 thousand gallons $3.28
Over 2,400 thousand gallons $7.69
Section 3.
That Section 25.16.012 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth raw water
rates for general raw water accounts, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 25.16.012. Raw water rates for general raw water accounts.
(a) Effective January 1, 2016, the demand charge for the filler hydrant bulk water sales pursuant to Subsection
25.08.020(e) shall be twenty dollars ($20.00) per use.
(b) Effective January 1, 2013, the variable charge for filler hydrant raw water bulk water sales pursuant to
Subsection 25.08.020(e) shall be equivalent to fourth tier of monthly rate for metered water service set
forth in Sec. 25.16.010 (5). (Ord. No. 41-2004, §4; Ord. No. 35-2011§3).
(c) The raw water rates for non-pressurized raw water irrigation accounts for unmetered service on a per
thousand (1,000) irrigated square foot basis to be billed prospectively on an annual basis at the start of each
irrigation season are as follows:
(d) Effective January 1, 2013 and through December 2013, the non-pressurized raw water rate is nine dollars
and sixty-five cents ($9.65) per 1,000 sq. ft. per year. Effective January 1, 2014 and through December
2014, the non - pressurized raw water rate is ten dollars and forty-five cents ($10.45) per 1,000 sq. ft. per year.
Effective January 1, 2015 and through December 2015, the non-pressurized raw water rate is eleven dollars
and thirty cents ($11.30) per 1,000 sq. ft. per year. Effective January 1, 2016 and through December 2016, the
non-pressurized raw water rate is twelve dollars and twenty cents ($12.20) per 1,000 sq. ft. per year. Effective
January 1, 2017 the non -pressurized raw water rate is thirteen dollars and twenty cents ($13.20) per 1,000 sq. ft.
per year.
(e) Carriage rates for raw water (refer to “Definitions” section), shall be the same as set forward in Paragraph (d)
above except where a valid contract for conveyance of the customer’s own water rights provides for a different
rate.
(f) It shall be unlawful for any person to pump or convey water from the raw water ditches without a
valid raw water license agreement. Any persons doing so will be subject to a penalty of $500 for the
P185
IX.c
first offense, $1,000 for the second offense and $1,500 for each additional offense. (Ord. No. 41-2004,
§5; Ord. No. 30-2012 §23).
Section 4.
That Section 25.16.013 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth raw
water rates for Thomas Raw Water and other pressurized non-potable line accounts, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.16.013. Raw water rates for Thomas Raw Water and other pressurized non-potable line accounts.
(a) Raw water rates for accounts using the Thomas Raw Water line or any other pressurized, non- potable
water line accounts, (including reclaimed water), shall be set in accordance with methods established for cost
recover recommendations by the American Water Works Association.
(b) Where specific rates are established by a valid contract for raw water service and such rates result in a
lower cost of service than that provided in Subsection 25.16.012(a), the contractual rate will prevail.
(c) All water use from the system requires the installation of an operable water meter. Such uses in place
prior to 2009 shall install an operable water meter not later than January 20, 2009. (Ord. No. 41-2004, §5)
(d) Provisions for billing are as follows:
All pressurized raw water accounts shall have a working meter at the beginning of each irrigation
season, no later than April 15th. Metered rates for pressurized raw water accounts are as follows:
(i) Effective January 1, 2013 and through December 2013, the pressurized raw water rate is one
dollar and eleven cents ($1.11) per 1,000 gallons to be billed on an annual basis. Effective
January 1, 2014 and through December 2014, the pressurized raw water rate is one dollar
and twenty cents ($1.20) per 1,000 gallons to be billed on an annual basis. Effective January 1,
2015 and through December 2015, the pressurized raw water rate is one dollar and thirty cents
($1.30) per 1,000 gallons to be billed on an annual basis. Effective January 1, 2016 and
through December 2016, the pressurized raw water rate is one dollar and forty-one cents
($1.41) per 1,000 gallons to be billed on an annual basis. Effective January 1, 2017 the
pressurized raw water rate is one dollar and fifty-three cents ($1.53) per 1,000 gallons to be
billed on an annual basis.
(ii) If the raw water meter required in paragraph (i) above ceases to function properly during the
irrigation season, a seasonal bulk water delivery rate may be established as the basis for
billing the non-potable pressurized water delivery. Such rate may only be applied in exigent
circumstances. The unmetered, pressurized raw water schedule for seasonal delivery of non-
potable pressurized water shall be in accordance with the applicable year as follows: Effective
January 1, 2013 through December 2013, the unmetered pressurized raw water rate is forty-
six dollars and seven cents ($46.07) per 1,000 sq. ft. per annual irrigation season. Effective
January 1, 2014 through December 2014, the unmetered pressurized raw water rate is forty-
seven dollars and ninety-one cents ($47.91) per 1,000 sq. ft. per annual irrigation season.
Effective January 1, 2015 through December 2015, the unmetered pressurized raw water
rate is forty-nine dollars and eighty-three cents ($53.82) per 1,000 sq. ft. per annual
irrigation season. Effective January 1, 2016 through December 2016, the unmetered
pressurized raw water rate is fifty-one dollars and eighty-one cents ($58.13) per 1,000 sq.
ft. per annual irrigation season. Effective January 1, 2017 the unmetered pressurized raw
water rate is fifty-three dollars and ninety cents ($62.78) per 1,000 sq. ft. per annual irrigation
season.
(e) Carriage rates for raw water, (see “Definitions” section), shall be the same as those in Paragraph (d) (i)
except where a valid contract provides for alternate method and procedures for billing.
(f) It shall be unlawful for any person to pump or convey water from the raw water ditches without a valid raw
P186
IX.c
water license agreement. Any persons doing so will be subject to a penalty of $500 for the first offense, $1,000 for the
second offense and $1,500 for each additional offense. (Ord. No. 41-2004, §5; Ord. No. 30-2012 §23; Ord. No. 38-
2014§3).
Section 5.
That Section 25.16.014 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly rates for
temporary construction water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 25.16.014. Monthly rates for temporary construction water service.
All temporary construction accounts shall pay monthly the sum of charges one (1) and two (2).
(1) Effective January 1, 2016 a demand charge of four dollars and ninety-five cents ($4.95) per ECU per month
for Billing Area 1; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month for Billing Area 2; nine
dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month for Billing Area 3; six dollars and seventeen
cents ($6.17) per ECU per month for Billing Area 4; eight dollars and eighty-four cents ($8.84) per ECU
per month for Billing Area 5; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month for Billing Area
6; and, seven dollars and forty-two cents ($7.42) per ECU per month for Billing Area 7.
(2) Effective January 1, 2016 a fire protection charge of one dollar and seventy-two cents ($1.72) per ECU per
month for Billing Area 1; three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 2;
three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 3; two dollars and fifteen
cents ($2.15) per ECU per month for Billing Area 4; three dollars and one cent ($3.01) per ECU per
month for Billing Area 5; three dollars and twenty-four cents ($3.24) per ECU per month for Billing Area
6; two dollars and forty-three cents ($2.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 7. (Ord. No. 35-2011§4;
Ord. No. 30-2012 §24; Ord. No. 38-2014§4)
Section 6.
That Section 25.16.015 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly rates for
grandfathered-in water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 25.16.015. Monthly rates for grandfathered-in water service
All grandfathered-in accounts shall pay monthly the sum of charges one (1) and two (2).
(1) Effective January 1, 2016 all grandfathered-in water accounts shall pay a demand charge of four dollars and
ninety-five cents ($4.95) per ECU per month for Billing Area 1; nine dollars and eight-nine cents ($9.89) per
ECU per month for Billing Area 2; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month for Billing
Area 3; six dollars and seventeen cents ($6.17) per ECU per month for Billing Area 4; eight dollars and sixty-
five cents ($8.65) per ECU per month for Billing Area 5; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU
per month for Billing Area 6; and, seven dollars and forty-two cents ($7.42) per ECU per month for Billing
Area 7.
(2) Effective January 1, 2016 all grandfathered-in water accounts shall pay a fire protection charge of one
dollar and seventy-two cents ($1.72) per ECU per month for Billing Area 1; three dollars and forty-three
cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 2; three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per
month for Billing Area 3; two dollars and fifteen cents ($2.15) per ECU per month for Billing Area 4; three
dollars and one cent ($3.01) per ECU per month for Billing Area 5; three dollars and forty-three cents
($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 6; two dollars and fifty-eight cents ($2.58) per ECU per month
for Billing Area 7. (Ord. No. 35-2011 §5; Ord. No. 30-2012 §26; Ord. No. 38-2014§5)
Section 7.
That Section 25.16.016 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly rates for
pre-tap water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
P187
IX.c
Sec. 25.16.016. Monthly rates for pre-tap water service.
All pre-tap accounts shall pay the sum of charges one (1) and two (2).
(1) Effective January 1, 2016 all pre-tap water customers shall pay a demand charge of four dollars and
ninety-five cents ($4.95) per ECU per month for Billing Area 1; nine dollars and eight-nine cents ($9.89)
per ECU per month for Billing Area 2; nine dollars and eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month
for Billing Area 3; six dollars and seventeen cents ($6.17) per ECU per month for Billing Area 4;
eight dollars and eighty-four cents ($8.84) per ECU per month for Billing Area 5; nine dollars and
eighty-nine cents ($9.89) per ECU per month for Billing Area 6; and, seven dollars and forty-two cents
($7.42) per ECU per month for Billing Area 7.
(2) Effective January 1, 2016 all pre-tap water customers shall pay a fire protection charge of one dollar
and seventy-two cents ($1.72) per ECU per month for Billing Area 1; three dollars and forty-three cents
($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 2; three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per
month for Billing Area 3; two dollars and fifteen cents ($2.15) per ECU per month for Billing Area
4; three dollars and one cent ($3.01) per ECU per month for Billing Area 5; three dollars and forty-
three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 6; two dollars and fifty-eight cents ($2.58) per
ECU per month for Billing Area 7. (Ord. No. 35-2011§6; Ord. No. 30-2012 §26; Ord. No. 38-2014§6)
Section 8.
That Section 25.16.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly rates for
unmetered water service, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 25.16.020. Monthly rates for unmetered water service.
(a) Effective January 1, 2016 all unmetered customers shall pay a flat rate demand charge of eighty-seven dollars and
seventy-four cents ($87.74) per ECU per month for Billing Area 1; one hundred seventy-five dollars and forty-eight
cents ($175.48) per ECU per month for Billing Area 2; one hundred seventy-five dollars and forty-eight cents
($175.48) per ECU per month for Billing Area 3; one hundred nine dollars and sixty-seven cents ($109.67) per ECU
per month for Billing Area 4; one hundred fifty-three dollars and fifty-four cents ($153.54) per ECU per month for
Billing Area 5; one hundred seventy-five dollars and forty-eight cents ($175.48) per ECU per month for Billing Area
6; one hundred thirty-one dollars and sixty-one cents ($131.61) per ECU per month for Billing Area 7.
(b) Effective January 1, 2016 a fire protection charge of one dollar and seventy-two cents ($1.72) per ECU per month
for Billing Area 1; three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 2; three dollars
and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 3; two dollars and fifteen cents ($2.15) per
ECU per month for Billing Area 4; three dollars and one cent ($3.01) per ECU per month for Billing Area 5;
three dollars and forty-three cents ($3.43) per ECU per month for Billing Area 6; two dollars and fifty-eight cents
($2.58) per ECU per month for Billing Area 7. (Ord. No.35-2011§6; Ord. No. 30-2012 §26).
(c) With respect to the water rates and charges contained in Sections 25.16.010 and 25.16.020, in case of verifiable hardship
and upon approval of both the Finance Director and the Utilities Director, special billing arrangements may be made.
(Ord. No. 35-2011§6; Ord. No. 30-2012 §27; Ord. No. 38-2014§7)
Section 9.
That Section 25.16.021 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth senior water rates,
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec.25.16.021 Senior Water Rates.
(a) Any qualified senior citizen who so applies shall be entitled to a rebate and adjustment in the individual water rates set forth
in Sections 25.16.010 and 25.16.020.
(b) Qualified senior citizen shall be defined by the Pitkin County Social Services Department in consultation with the Pitkin
County Senior Services Council.
(c) Application for the rebate and adjustment shall be as established by the City Manager in consultation with the Finance and
P188
IX.c
Water Departments. The City Manager shall first coordinate with Pitkin County Social Services Department and the
Pitkin County Senior Services Council as necessary to ensure that qualified senior citizens are made aware of their
eligibility for this program and application procedure is conducive to their participation.
(d) Metered residences owned or leased by qualified senior citizens will be charged only ninety percent (90%) of the demand
and fire protection charges set forth in Subsections 25.16.010 Paragraph one (1) and 25.16.010 Paragraph seven (7) and one
hundred percent (100%) of the variable and pumping charges set forth in Subsections 25.16.010 Paragraph two (2) through
Paragraph six (6) and as determined by the billing area factor and the ECU rating of the residence. An unmetered or flat
rate residence owned or leased by qualified senior citizens will be charged thirty percent (30%) of the total charge set forth
in Subsection 25.16.020(a) as determined by the billing area factor and the ECU rating of the residence. (Code 1971, §
23- 102; Ord. No. 27-1985, § 1; Ord. No. 48-1986, § 1(A) (B); Ord. No. 51-1987, §2; Ord. No. 1- 1988, §Ord. No. 8-
1990, § 2; Ord. 39-1993, §7; Ord. No. 35-2011§8; Ord. No. 30-2012§28; Ord. No. 38-2014§8).
Editor's note—Ord. No. 1-1988, § 1, adopted Jan. 25, 1988 amended former § 23-102 by amending previously uncodified Subsection (d) and at the
discretion of the editor these provisions have been included herein and revised slightly in order to delete references to "out-of-the-City service charge" and
"location of resident," inasmuch as former § 23-101 does not discern between in-City and out-of-City residence location.
Section 10.
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 ordinance repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED, READ, ORDERED AND PUBLISHED as provided by
law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9h day of November, 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 23th day of November, 2015.
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
James R. True, City Attorney
P189
IX.c
CO
S
T
O
F
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
-
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
-
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
2
0
1
5
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
20
1
2
20
1
5
20
1
7
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
f
o
r
1
0
0
%
C
O
S
WA
T
E
R
Fi
r
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
41
.
0
0
%
58
.
0
0
%
70
.
0
0
%
20
2
2
Pu
m
p
i
n
g
C
h
a
r
g
e
59
.
0
0
%
79
.
0
0
%
92
.
0
0
%
20
2
2
Ra
w
W
a
t
e
r
39
.
0
0
%
70
.
0
0
%
90
.
0
0
%
20
2
2
De
m
a
n
d
12
0
.
0
0
%
11
0
.
0
0
%
10
0
.
0
0
%
20
1
7
Va
r
i
a
b
l
e
C
h
a
r
g
e
70
.
0
0
%
82
.
0
0
%
90
.
0
0
%
20
2
2
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
20
1
1
20
1
5
20
1
7
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
f
o
r
1
0
0
%
C
O
S
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
83
.
0
0
%
92
.
0
0
%
98
.
0
0
%
20
1
8
Sm
a
l
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
12
0
.
0
0
%
10
6
.
0
0
%
10
6
.
0
0
%
20
1
8
La
r
g
e
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
90
.
0
0
%
95
.
0
0
%
10
0
.
0
0
%
20
1
7
Ci
t
y
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
90
.
0
0
%
95
.
0
0
%
10
0
.
0
0
%
20
1
7
Av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
C
h
a
r
g
e
50
.
0
0
%
67
.
0
0
%
78
.
0
0
%
20
2
1
P190
IX.c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Officer
THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 16, 2015
DATE OF MEETING: November 23, 2015
RE: 2015 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 41 (Series 2015)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Staff is requesting an amendment to the City’s 2015 budget that increases total expenditure
appropriations, net of interfund transfers from $113.6 to $122.0 million. Of this $8.7 million increase,
$7.4 million is related to requests already approved by Council or are technical accounting adjustments
and require this ordinance to formally approve the funding. The remaining $1.3M are new requests.
The City’s 2015 total budget expenditure appropriations increase from $148.3 to $156.9 million
(Exhibit A). This total includes $34.9M in interfund transfers. Interfund transfers are required
appropriations between City Funds, but do not reflect the true cost of operations.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental requests impact on the City’s overall appropriation
authority.
1st Reading 2nd Reading
Description Amount Amount Change Location
2015 Adopted Budget:$148,247,200 $148,247,200 See Exhibit A
Total New Requests:$887,380 $1,337,380 $450,000 See Exhibit B
Previously Approved:$1,674,220 $5,508,900 $3,834,680 See Exhibit C
Technical and Transfers:$1,832,700 $1,832,700 $0 See Exhibit D
Total Budget Requests:$4,394,300 $8,678,980 $4,284,680 See Exhibit A
TOTAL ORDINANCE:$152,641,500 $156,926,180 $4,284,680 See Exhibit A
Less Interfund Transfers $34,909,710 $34,909,710 $0
NET APPROPRIATIONS:$117,731,790 $122,016,470 $4,284,680 See Exhibit A
2015 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ORDINANCE
• Exhibit B: “New Requests” of $1,337,380. These are new requests for Council approval.
Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum, as well as
in the memorandums at the end of this packet provided by departmental staff.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 1
P191
IX.d
• Exhibit C: “Previously Approved Requests” of $5,508,900. These are requests for formal
appropriation that have been previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year.
• Exhibit D: This Exhibit details all of the technical adjustments in 2015, totaling 1,832,700.
Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made
by City Council or City policy, transfers between funds and oversights in budget entry.
New Requests – Second Reading
Asset Management Fund - The Asset Management Fund request totals $250,000 - Earnest
Money for Unit 101 and Unit 201 North Mill Street: City council will discuss this potential contract or
a possible lease of the same property to meet our office space needs at its November 16 work session.
This appropriation for the earnest money is being included for council consideration in case they
choose to approve the contract and acquire the property. The new authority will be funded from the
Asset Management Fund cash reserve.
Employee Health Insurance Fund - The Employee Health Insurance Fund request totals
$200,000 - Claims Paid for COA Health Insurance Plan: There are 4-5 claims that have pierced the
excess insurance level of $85,000 per employee. While the City of Aspen is reimbursed from the
excess insurance, it is still necessary to appropriate the funds that are used to pay claims. This request
is to ensure that there is enough authority to pay claims, it may work out that it is not necessary, in
which case it will flow back to the fund balance.
New Requests – First Reading
General Fund; Community Development Department – The Community Development
Department request totals $34,880.
$30,000 - Additional Contract Plans Review Services: Based on conversations with
members of the development community, the Building Department is expecting to
receive permit applications for at least three large projects before the end of the year.
With more than 70 permits already in the review process, and additional applications
anticipated prior to year’s end, Plans Review staff does not anticipate being able to
handle these three large permit applications in a timely manner under current staffing
levels. Therefore, the Building Department is requesting $30,000 to hire an outside
contractor to perform significant portions of the plans review function for these three
large projects. The new authority will be funded from the General Fund cash reserve.
One-time funding is requested.
$4,880 - Lift 1A - Park Restoration: The proposed 2016 budget for Parks and Open
Space currently includes a $50,000 placeholder (project #95800) to preserve historic Lift
1A park. Requested funding in 2015 would allow for initial design work to be performed
this year, in preparation for next year's renovation efforts. Funding would come from
the dedicated Community Development Preservation Tax Credit Fund. One-time
funding requested.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 2
P192
IX.d
Wheeler Opera House Fund - The Wheeler Opera House Fund request totals $237,500 - Elevator
Modernization: After the Lobby/Box Office project construction began, Wheeler and Asset staff came
to the realization that the current state of the passenger elevator is a liability to the operation of the
theater and should be addressed as part of the ongoing renovation project. The full modernization
was accelerated from 2016 and coordinated with the current renovation closure avoiding a future
closure, estimated 5 - 7 weeks and limiting the impact to the community and other user of the
building. It also ensures at the completion of the Lobby/Box office project, a safe and reliable elevator
is operational. The new authority will be funded from the Wheeler Opera House Fund cash reserve.
Housing Development Fund - The Housing Development Fund request totals $365,000 - Aspen
Country Inn - Improvement Project: As noted during the October 6, 2015 work session with City
Council on the 2016 Proposed Budget, APCHA will soon be transferring its ownership of ACI to the City.
In order for the City to enter into a new deal and receive tax credit financing to do needed
improvements (estimated at $2.6 million) to the property, the City must first expend roughly $900,000
to bring some areas up to the level required to qualify for such tax credits. Of the total $900K from the
City, $365,000 is requested in 2015 do performed the necessary engineering and design studies, with
the balance being requested in the 2016 budget. The new authority will be funded from the Housing
Development Fund cash reserve.
Truscott Housing Fund - The Truscott Housing Fund request totals $250,000 - Truscott Phase I -
Site & Drainage Improvements: Truscott Phase I site and drainage Improvements at the 500-700
buildings was approved by Council in 2015 and is in progress. All work must be completed before the
winter season starts as renters have been temporarily relocated to BHI while that property was
between summer and winter seasons and was not occupied. As work progresses, additional
opportunities to handle issues previously outside the scope are being identified and can be addressed
while tenants are absent. Therefore, this request is for an additional $250,000 to complete these
improvements. A loan from the Housing Development Fund will fund these additional improvements.
Previously Approved
These are requests for formal appropriation that have been previously reviewed by Council
during this fiscal year. The previously approved requests total $5,508,900. The details related to these
adjustments can be found on Exhibit C of this packet.
Second Reading Addition:
Debt Service Fund - The Debt Service Fund request totals $3,834,680 - Sales Tax Refunding and
Issuance Costs: approved by Council on November 12, 2015. After paying the issuance costs, the City
saved $275K on a present value basis. The city received $3.83M in proceeds from the issuance of the
refunding bonds. The cost to pay off the outstanding 2005 bonds was $3.76M. The issuance costs to
complete the transaction were $73K. These two amounts need to be appropriated to the Debt Service
fund and the bond proceeds will offset this cost.
Technical Adjustment
Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made by
City Council or City policy, transfers between funds and oversights in budget entry. The technical
adjustments total $1,832,700. The details related to these adjustments can be found on Exhibit D of
this packet.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 3
P193
IX.d
Exhibit ATOTAL CITY OF ASPEN 2015 APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND
Fund Name
Opening
Balance
Total 2015
Revenue
Budget
Revenue
Supplemental #1
Revenue
Supplemental #2
2015 Amended
Revenue Budget
Total 2015
Expenditure
Budget
Expense
Supplemental #1
Expense
Supplemental #2
2015 Amended
Exp Budget
2015 Ending
Balance
General Governmental Fund
General Fund $22,983,231 $27,404,720 $71,280 $37,880 $27,513,880 $37,895,250 $3,091,430 $80,880 $41,067,560 $9,429,551
Subtotal General Gov't Funds $22,983,231 $27,404,720 $71,280 $37,880 $27,513,880 $37,895,250 $3,091,430 $80,880 $41,067,560 $9,429,551
Special Revenue Governmental Funds
Parks and Open Space Fund $7,386,046 $10,532,940 $262,700 $85,000 $10,880,640 $11,999,840 $2,724,300 $85,000 $14,809,140 $3,457,546
Wheeler Opera House Fund *$29,289,969 $4,326,698 $0 $0 $4,326,698 $6,412,920 $541,560 $1,398,500 $8,352,980 $25,263,687
City Tourism Promotion Fund $337,746 $2,899,800 $0 $0 $2,899,800 $3,110,880 $126,550 $0 $3,237,430 $116
Public Education Fund $0 $2,222,000 $0 $0 $2,222,000 $2,222,000 $0 $0 $2,222,000 $0
Transportation Fund $4,438,577 $3,191,420 $421,640 $0 $3,613,060 $3,352,320 $575,500 $0 $3,927,820 $4,123,817
Housing Development Fund $6,823,709 $15,575,090 $0 $0 $15,575,090 $6,134,990 $3,982,490 $634,070 $10,751,550 $11,647,249
Kids First Fund $4,547,749 $1,853,300 $30,000 $0 $1,883,300 $1,925,740 $212,690 $0 $2,138,430 $4,292,619
Stormwater Fund $3,182,720 $1,060,650 $0 $0 $1,060,650 $1,646,540 $758,430 $0 $2,404,970 $1,838,400
Subtotal Special Revenue Funds $56,006,515 $41,661,898 $714,340 $85,000 $42,461,238 $36,805,230 $8,921,520 $2,117,570 $47,844,320 $50,623,433
Debt Service Governmental Fund
Debt Service Fund $189,396 $3,777,830 $0 $3,834,680 $7,612,510 $3,781,400 $0 $3,834,680 $7,616,080 $185,826
Subtotal Debt Service Fund $189,396 $3,777,830 $0 $3,834,680 $7,612,510 $3,781,400 $0 $3,834,680 $7,616,080 $185,826
Capital Projects Governmental Funds
Asset Management Plan Fund $7,333,776 $16,785,800 $0 $0 $16,785,800 $11,675,550 $3,357,320 $250,000 $15,282,870 $8,836,706
Subtotal Capital Fund $7,333,776 $16,785,800 $0 $0 $16,785,800 $11,675,550 $3,357,320 $250,000 $15,282,870 $8,836,706
Enterprise Proprietary Funds
Water Utility Fund $3,008,968 $7,451,400 $66,010 ($66,010)$7,451,400 $6,975,120 $1,574,400 ($40,220)$8,509,300 $1,951,068
Electric Utility Fund $5,521,136 $8,074,100 $0 $66,010 $8,140,110 $8,580,850 $699,250 $343,370 $9,623,470 $4,037,776
Parking Fund $4,951,025 $3,798,960 $2,846,140 $0 $6,645,100 $4,008,210 $5,099,640 $0 $9,107,850 $2,488,275
Golf Course Fund $338,372 $2,022,410 $0 $0 $2,022,410 $1,972,480 $98,940 $0 $2,071,420 $289,362
Truscott Housing Fund $1,329,718 $2,225,900 $0 $250,000 $2,475,900 $2,771,800 $377,420 $250,000 $3,399,220 $406,398
Marolt Housing Fund $146,248 $936,230 $0 $0 $936,230 $988,040 $50,270 $0 $1,038,310 $44,168
Subtotal Enterprise Funds $15,295,466 $24,509,000 $2,912,150 $250,000 $27,671,150 $25,296,500 $7,899,920 $553,150 $33,749,570 $9,217,046
Internal Proprietary Funds
Employee Health Insurance Fund $2,836,442 $4,682,100 $0 $0 $4,682,100 $4,936,600 $0 $200,000 $5,136,600 $2,381,942
Employee Housing Fund $3,192,771 $1,233,100 $0 $701,300 $1,934,400 $447,110 $0 $1,582,700 $2,029,810 $3,097,361
Information Technology Fund $696,764 $1,469,800 $276,310 $0 $1,746,110 $1,469,770 $749,650 $0 $2,219,420 $223,454
Subtotal Internal Service Funds $6,725,977 $7,385,000 $276,310 $701,300 $8,362,610 $6,853,480 $749,650 $1,782,700 $9,385,830 $5,702,757
Trust Fiduciary Funds
Housing Administration Fund $1,797,908 $1,872,780 $0 $0 $1,872,780 $1,779,710 $20,940 $60,000 $1,860,650 $1,810,039
Smuggler Housing Fund $291,959 $68,120 $0 $0 $68,120 $119,300 $0 $0 $119,300 $240,779
Subtotal Trust and Agency Funds $2,089,868 $1,940,900 $0 $0 $1,940,900 $1,899,010 $20,940 $60,000 $1,979,950 $2,050,818
ALL FUNDS $110,624,229 $123,465,148 $3,974,080 $4,908,860 $132,348,088 $124,206,420 $24,040,780 $8,678,980 $156,926,180 $86,046,137
Less Interfund Transfers $31,241,680 $3,418,030 $250,000 $34,909,710 $31,241,680 $3,418,030 $250,000 $34,909,710
NET APPROPRIATIONS $110,624,229 $92,223,468 $556,050 $4,658,860 $97,438,378 $92,964,740 $20,622,750 $8,428,980 $122,016,470 $86,046,137
* Wheeler balances are shown on an adjusted GAAP basis
2
0
1
5
B
u
d
g
e
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
o
.
4
1
-
P
a
g
e
4
P
1
9
4
I
X
.
d
2015 Fall Supplemental New Requests Exhibit B
1 of 2
Account Number Request Title Request Justification
Second Reading
000.91.xxxxx.86001 Earnest Money for Unit
101 and Unit 201 North
Mill Street
$250,000 City council will discuss this potential contract or a possible lease of the
same property to meet our office space needs at its November 16 work
session. This appropriation for the earnest money is being included for
council consideration in case they choose to approve the contract and
acquire the property.
$250,000
501.51.50151.82460 Claims Paid for COA
Health Insurance Plan
$200,000 There are 4-5 claims that have pierced the excess insurance level of
$85,000 per employee. While the City of Aspen is reimbursed from the
excess insurance, it is still necessary to appropriate the funds that are
used to pay claims. This request is to ensure that there is enough
authority to pay claims, it may work out that it is not necessary in which
case it will flow back to the fund balance.
$200,000
TOTAL NEW REQUESTS - SECOND READING $450,000
001 - General Fund; Community Development
001.21.21000.82600 Additional Contract Plans
Review Services
$30,000 Based on conversations with members of the development community,
the Building Department is expecting to receive permit applications for
at least three large projects before the end of the year. With more than
70 permits already in the review process, and additional applications
anticipated prior to year’s end, Plans Review staff does not anticipate
being able to handle these three large permit applications in a timely
manner under current staffing levels. Therefore, the Building
Department is requesting $30,000 to hire an outside contractor to
perform significant portions of the plans review function for these three
large projects. One-time funding is requested.
001.13.47501.82900 Lift 1A - Park Restoration $4,880 The proposed 2016 budget for Parks and Open Space currently includes a
$50,000 placeholder (project #95800) to preserve historic Lift 1A park.
Requested funding in 2015 would allow for initial design work to be
performed this year, in preparation for next year's renovation efforts.
Funding would come from the dedicated Community Development
Preservation Tax Credit Fund. One-time funding requested.
$34,880
120 - Wheeler Opera House Fund
120.94.95121.86001 Elevator Modernization $237,500 After the Lobby/Box Office project construction began, Wheeler and
Asset staff came to the realization that the current state of the passenger
elevator is a liability to the operation of the theater and should be
addressed as part of the ongoing renovation project. The full
modernization was accelerated from 2016 and coordinated with the
current renovation closure avoiding a future closure, estimated 5 - 7
weeks and limiting the impact to the community and other user of the
building. It also ensures at the completion of the Lobby/Box office
project, a safe and reliable elevator is operational.
$237,500
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 5
P195
IX.d
2015 Fall Supplemental New Requests Exhibit B
2 of 2
Account Number Request Title Request Justification
150 - Housing Development Fund
150.94.xxxxx.86001 Aspen Country Inn -
Improvement Project
$365,000 As noted during the October 6, 2015 work session with City Council on
the 2016 Proposed Budget, APCHA will soon be transferring its
ownership of ACI to the City. In order for the City to enter into a new
deal and receive tax credit financing to do needed improvements
(estimated at $2.6 million) to the property, the City must first expend
roughly $900,000 to bring some areas up to the level required to qualify
for such tax credits. Of the total $900K from the City, $365,000 is
requested in 2015 do performed the necessary engineering and design
studies, with the balance being requested in the 2016 budget. This
funding would be from the 150 Fund.
$365,000
491 - Truscott Housing Fund
491.94.94395.86001 Truscott Phase I - Site &
Drainage Improvements
$250,000 Truscott Phase I site and drainage Improvements at the 500-700
buildings was approved by Council in 2015 and is in progress. All work
must be completed before the winter season starts as renters have been
temporarily relocated to BHI while that property was between summer
and winter seasons and was not occupied. As work progresses,
additional opportunities to handle issues previously outside the scope
are being identified and can be addressed while tenants are absent.
Therefore, this request is for an additional $250,000 to complete these
improvements.
$250,000
TOTAL NEW REQUESTS $1,337,380
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 6
P196
IX.d
2015 Fall Supplemental Previously Approved Requests Exhibit C
1 of 2
Account Number Department / Description Amount
Second Reading
250 - Debt Service Fund
250.98.31079.89620|91
050
Sales Tax Refunding and Issuance Costs - approved by Council on November 12,
2015. After paying the issuance costs, the City saved $275K on a present value basis.
The city received $3.83M in proceeds from the issuance of the refunding bonds. The
cost to pay off the outstanding 2005 bonds was $3.76M. The issuance costs to
complete the transaction were $73K. These two amounts need to be appropriated
to the Debt Service fund and the bond proceeds will offset this cost.
$3,834,680
$3,834,680
First Reading
001 - General Fund
001.03.03000.83999 Re-Think the Streets - The Top Ten Goal #1 project, Rethink the Streets, performed
an assessment of the city streets against best practices that prioritizes pedestrian
access and safety. At one of the Quarterly Report check-ins, staff requested Council
authorize a budget of $15,000 for work contemplated on this Council goal. The costs
incurred include advertising, temporary street modifications, planters, signage,
comment board, and staged seating areas. This action formally appropriates those
funds.
$15,000
001.13.13200.82999 Starting work on City Council’s Top Ten Goal #2 to “Reconcile the land use code to
the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) so the land use code delivers what the AACP
promises.” The funds will be used to hire an outside facilitator to work with City
Council in identifying AACP implementation priorities and jumpstart this Top Ten
Goal. One-time funding request.
$6,000
001.13.13200.82999 Small Lodge Planning Assistance - funding of $5,000 was approved by Council in
Ordinance #15 - section 11, on April 27, 2015. This action formally appropriates
those funds.
$5,000
001.13.13200.82500 Small Lodge Energy Efficiency Program - funding of $20,000 was approved by
Council in Ordinance #15 - section 11, on April 27, 2015. This action formally
appropriates those funds.
$20,000
$46,000
100 - Parks and Open Space Fund
100.56.82004.82999 Castle Creek Overcrossing Bridge Repair, approved August 24, 2015 by Council. On
June 18, 2015 the wooden pedestrian bridge over Castle Creek Road was damaged by
an oversized construction vehicle. This work will repair the bridge and the expense
will be reimbursed from CIRSA.
$85,000
$85,000
120 - Wheeler Opera House Fund
120.94.95121.86001 Increase in scope and owner's contingency to the Wheeler Opera House Lobby/Box
Office Improvement project, approved on August 10, 2015 by Council. The increase
in scope includes removal of the wall between box office lobby and grand staircase,
enhanced remodel of box office and entire grand staircase corridor along with
enhanced level of finish to all public areas of the building, a more robust A/V
package, life safety improvements and a new control package that integrates all
aspects of the building's HVAC system and boiler plant totaling $644K of this request.
As well as a change in contingency from 10% to 25% which makes up $517K of this
request. This action formally appropriates those funds.
$1,161,000
$1,161,000
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 7
P197
IX.d
2015 Fall Supplemental Previously Approved Requests Exhibit C
2 of 2
Account Number Department / Description Amount
150 - Housing Development Fund
150.23.23000.82900 Council approved Ordinance No. 42 - 72 Cloud Nine Lane, Aspen Highlands Village -
Planned Development Amendment, on October 26, 2015. Approving an addition to
the ground floor of the deed restricted house and a second story addition of
approximately 660 square feet to make the unit ADA accessible. As well as waving
100% of any city fees associated with the land use approval and issuance of a
building permit for this addition to the applicant. Staff determined compensation of
50% of the fees will be paid from the Housing Development Fund. Approval of this
appropriation allows 50% of the fees to be paid.
$19,070
$19,070
421 - Water Fund
421.94.94820.86001 Design of the Roaring Fork Road water line replacement was approved by Council
on July 27, 2015. Construction is programmed in 2016. This action formally
appropriates those funds.
$50,000
$50,000
431 - Electric Fund
431.94.94182.86001 Express Feeder Project, 94182 - the change order to complete this project was
approved by Council on September 28, 2015. This project completes the City owned
and dedicated feed for the City of Aspen’s Municipal Grid System and increases the
reliability and redundancy of our municipal grid. This action formally appropriates
those funds.
$253,150
$253,150
Housing Administration Fund
620.23.45002.82900 APCHA Affordable Housing Guidelines policy study approved by Council on April 27,
2015 through resolution # 45. This action formally appropriates those funds.
$60,000
$60,000
Total Previously Approved Requests $5,508,900
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 8
P198
IX.d
2015 Fall Supplemental Technical Adjustments Exhibit D
1 of 1
Account Number Department / Description Amount
150 - Housing Development Fund
150.95.94395.95491 Loan/Transfer from the Housing Development Fund to fund the increased in scope of
work for the Truscott Phase I - Site and Drainage Improvements, 500-700 project. As
work progresses, additional opportunities to handle issues previously outside the
scope are being identified and can be addressed while tenants are absent. This
action funds the additional $250,000 to complete these improvements.
$250,000
$250,000
421 - Water Fund
421.94.95497.86001 In the spring budget ordinance No. 12 the approved City of Aspen Standby
Generators project was appropriated in the Water Fund instead of the Electric Fund
where it belongs, as this is an Electric Fund project. The grant funding for this project
is being moved as well. This action corrects this oversight.
($90,220)
($90,220)
431 - Electric Fund
431.94.95497.86001 In the spring budget ordinance No. 12 the approved City of Aspen Standby
Generators project was appropriated in the Water Fund instead of the Electric Fund
where it belongs, as this is an Electric Fund project. The grant funding for this project
is being moved as well. This action corrects this oversight.
$90,220
$90,220
505 - Employee Housing Fund
505.81.46501.82908 Accounting for the Employee Housing Fund inventory. This appropriation funds the
sale of 9 employee housing units which were placed into inventory and were sold in
2015. The revenue offset is $1.37M. The variance between the revenue and expense
is due to change in category of the unit from purchase to resale.
$1,582,700
$1,582,700
Total Technical Adjustment $1,832,700
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 9
P199
IX.d
City of Aspen
Departmental Memos
Second Reading
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 10
P200
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 11, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: Supplemental Appropriation for Earnest Money for Unit 101
and Unit 201 located at 201 North Mill St.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to request that a supplemental appropriation be made to the
Asset Management Fund for the purpose of paying earnest money for the contract to purchase
Units 101 and 201 at the Mill for office space needs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City council will consider approval of the contract at its
council meeting of November 23, 2015.
BACKGROUND: City council will discuss this potential contract or a possible lease of the
same property to meet our office space needs at its November 16 work session. This
appropriation for the earnest money is being included for council consideration in case they
choose to approve the contract and acquire the property. The amount of the earnest money
deposit is $250,000. The closing date for the property would be early January and the full
contract price is $5,050,000.
DISCUSSION: The contract provides for earnest money to be paid at the time the contract is
executed. The contract provides for a due diligence period of 30 days after which the earnest
money deposit goes hard. This means that after that point if the City for some reason does not
close on the purchase of the property it will forfeit the earnest money, absent some other default
of the seller. If the Council approves the purchase the balance of the acquisition price would be
appropriated in 2016.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impact to the Asset Management Fund
would be $250,000 which will be credited to the purchase price of the acquisition. . There is
sufficient unappropriated fund balance to cover this amount. If the balance of the acquisition
price is needed in 2016 it may require a loan from the Wheeler Opera House Fund.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 11
P201
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the supplemental appropriation if
the Council chooses to acquire the property.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could choose to lease the property or choose some other
way to meet the office space needs of the City.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move approval of the supplemental appropriation.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 12
P202
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 11, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: Supplemental Appropriation for Claims Paid for Health
Insurance Plan.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to request that a supplemental appropriation be made to the
health insurance fund claims paid budget in the amount of $200,000. The funding would come
from the unappropriated fund balance of the health insurance. Fund.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City council approved a budget of $3,983,600 for claims
paid for the 2015 budget. The total budget for health insurance is $4,936,600 and there is an
unappropriated fund balance in the amount of $2,826,442.
BACKGROUND: The city self-insures its employee health insurance costs paying all claims
through a third party administrator. The city also reinsures against excessive claims experience
both on an individual basis and for the group. Under this method the city has to estimate each
year its expected claims cost and appropriate that amount.
DISCUSSION: The city has been running a tad hot on claims experience this year. There have
been 4-5 claims that have pierced the excess insurance level of $85,000 per employee. While we
get reimbursed from the excess insurance it is still necessary to appropriate the funds that are
used to pay claims. Our current projection for total claims paid is very close to the total amount
appropriated. In order to insure that there is enough appropriated to pay claims we are asking for
an increase in the total appropriation is the amount of $200,000. It may work out that it is not
necessary to utilize this in 2015 in which case it will flow back to the fund balance.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impact to the health insurance fund would
be a maximum of $200,000. The fund has an accumulated fund balance of $2,826,442 that has
already been cost allocated to the funds. The remaining fund balance is a more than adequate
reserve for health insurance fund operations.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 13
P203
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the supplemental appropriation.
ALTERNATIVES: The City could make some last minute plan changes to cut costs. This
would be extremely disruptive to plan participants to deal with a prospective minor overrun if at
all.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move approval of the supplemental appropriation.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 14
P204
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 11, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: Supplemental Appropriation for Sales Tax Refunding and
Issuance Costs
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to request that a supplemental appropriation be made to the
Debt service fund to account for the Refunding of the 2005 Parks sales tax bonds and the
issuance costs required to do the transaction.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the bond sale on October 26th and
the closing was held on November 12, 2015.
BACKGROUND: City council authorized the refunding or outstanding 2005 Parks and
recreation Sales Tax bonds. This requires the issuance of new bonds, at lower interest cost in
order to pay off the currently outstanding bonds. The issuance of new bonds also carries
transaction costs which also need to be appropriated.
DISCUSSION: The city received $3,834,673 in proceeds from the issuance of the refunding
bonds. The cost to pay off the outstanding 2005 bonds was $3,761,326. The issuance costs to
complete the transaction were $73,347. These two amounts need to be appropriated to the Debt
Service fund and the bond proceeds will offset this cost.
After paying these issuance costs the City saved $275,484 on a present value basis.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends
approval of the supplemental appropriation if the Council chooses to acquire the property.
ALTERNATIVES: None
PROPOSED MOTION: Move approval of the supplemental appropriation.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 15
P205
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 16
P206
IX.d
City of Aspen
Departmental Memos
First Reading
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 17
P207
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: October 8, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2015
RE: Fall Supplemental Request—Contract Plans Review Services
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department is requesting $30,000
to provide contract plans review services for at least three large permit applications that will be
submitted by the end of this year.
DISCUSSION: Based on conversations with members of the development community, the
Building Department is expecting to receive permit applications for at least 3 large projects before
the end of the year. Currently, more than 70 permits are in the review process. Given the current
workload and other new permit applications the Building Department expects to receive prior to
year’s end, the Plans Review staff will not be able to perform the work associated with reviewing
the large permit applications in a timely fashion without significantly affecting turnaround times
for the rest of the workload. These new resources will enable the Building Department to hire
contractors to perform significant portions of the plans review function for these large projects.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The amount of $30,000 will allow the Building
Department to contract out significant portions of the plans review functions for these projects.
The dollar amount was derived by obtaining cost estimates for the work from a contractor that the
Department has used in the past for similar services. These costs were not included in the 2015
budget request and a budget amendment is required. This is a one-time cost that will not impact
future years’ budgets.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the $30,000 budget request to
provide contract plans review services for these large permit applications that will be submitted
by the end of the year.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve the staff recommendation, the Building
Department will have to perform the work with in-house staff resources, which will impact the
turnaround times for all other work in the plans review queue.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 18
P208
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the staff’s request to authorize $30,000 for contract
plans review services.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 19
P209
IX.d
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Evan Pletcher, Capital Asset Department
THRU: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: October 14, 2015
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2015
RE: 2015 Lift 1 Structural Repairs Fall Supplemental Request
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council approval of one fall supplemental
request pertaining to lift 1 structural repairs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2014 council approved the execution of a report
detailing the conditions and recommendations for treatment relating to the Historic Lift 1
Structure.
BACKGROUND: From Amy Simon: In 1946, the Aspen Skiing Company began to build what
was then the world’s longest chairlift. Built in two phases, the first section known as Lift 1
opened on December 14, 1946. It was officially dedicated on January 11, 1947. Lift 1 held the
honor as the “longest in the world” for at least 10 years. In the 1971, Lift 1 was abandoned, with
all but the lowest segment of the line removed. A new chair was installed slightly uphill and
continues to access to the west side of Aspen Mountain ski terrain today.
The remaining base terminal, three towers, cables and chairs from Lift 1 extend several hundred
feet through land that became City of Aspen Parks; Willoughby Park and Lift 1 Park. The lift
has likely not received any maintenance since it was decommissioned and given to the City 40
years ago.
For many years, the Aspen Historical Society has contemplated leasing some of the park from the
City in order to create a ski museum. It was thought that their project might highlight the history
of the lift, but their effort did not proceed. More recently, in 2010, the lift was part of a
discussion of an adjacent redevelopment, Lift One Lodge. Lift One Lodge, a project that has
been approved but not initiated, includes creation of the ski museum and stabilization and repair
of the historic lift.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 20
P210
IX.d
Page 2 of 3
In early 2014, a citizen raised concerns about the condition of Lift 1. Because it is unknown
when or if the Lift One Lodge project will happen, the City commissioned a professional analysis
of the structure, contracting with an architectural conservator and a structural engineer. The two
completed a joint report in October 2014. The report found the structure to be in generally good
condition. The report recommends that, as a long term preservation action, the metal be stripped
and refinished, abating existing issues with rust and lead paint. The consultants provided
preliminary estimates for this project and suggested that it would cost approximately $500,000, at
least in part due to their recommendation to remove the lift to a facility where the lead paint
could be removed off site. City staff has not investigated this restoration plan any further since
the recommendation was received.
Staff has proceeded with assessment of some short term repairs that were recommended. These
recommendations were to provide improved support for the counterweight which stabilizes the
lower end of the lift structure, construct a new anchor to secure the upper end of the lift structure,
remove soil that has built up around one of the tower bases, and remove and store the lift chairs
temporarily. The chairs have been removed and an interpretive sign was installed on the site to
explain that a restoration study is underway.
In November 2014, Staff requested that the structural engineer involved in the assessment
prepare design drawings that could be used to complete the repairs. The drawings were delivered
in August 2015. Since then, Asset Management has pursued estimates and additional
preparations that would be needed to apply for a building permit. The additional work, including
civil engineering, is the basis for this supplemental request.
DISCUSSION: This supplemental request is to provide funding for civil engineering services
from Roaring Fork Engineering associated with Lift 1 structural repairs. These services are a
preliminary step necessary to fulfill the recommendations outlined in the Conditions Survey and
Recommendations for Treatment report on Lift 1. These services will provide The City of Aspen
with engineering services, site visits, coordination and correspondence, an erosion control plan, a
staging plan, a construction management plan (CMP), and additional locates (if necessary).
Completing these services in 2015 will streamline the permitting process, give accurate info for
estimating, and allow the stabilization efforts to begin. Staff will be back in front of Council on
November 30, 2015 in a work session to discuss the project to develop a project plan and
understand Council goals specific to this project.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Total cost for these services is not to exceed $4,880.
Funding is available from the Historic Preservation Tax Credit Account, 600.13.13001.21310.
This account has a current balance of $81,882. In the 2016 budget there is a $50,000 place holder
in the Parks Fund in 100.94.95800.86001, Lift 1 Park Restoration Project. Staff will go back in
front of Council for direction on scope of work and additional funding (if needed). Currently,
known permitting costs of about $5,000, will not be incurred until 2016. There are no other
known costs in 2015. If additional costs are incurred, staff will fund from current operations.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 21
P211
IX.d
Page 3 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Services provided by this request will mitigate and reduce to
the greatest extent possible any potential environmental impacts at the Lift 1 site during
stabilization efforts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of the Lift 1 structural
repairs fall supplemental request.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve this fall supplemental request for Lift 1 structural
repair services”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Conditions Survey and Recommendations for Treatment Ski Lift #1 Report
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 22
P212
IX.d
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Gena Buhler
THRU: Randy Ready, Jack Wheeler
DATE OF MEMO: Monday, October 19, 2015
MEETING DATE: Monday, October 26, 2015
RE: Supplemental Budget Request: Wheeler Passenger Elevator
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval a supplemental budget increase for the Wheeler
Lobby/Box office Renovation Project for the full modernization of the public elevator in the
amount of $237,500.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the Lobby/Box Office renovation
project which is currently under construction.
BACKGROUND: After the Lobby/Box Office project construction began, Wheeler and Asset
staff came to the realization that the current state of the passenger elevator is a liability to the
operation of the theater and should be addressed as part of the ongoing renovation project. It was
determined for several reasons the full modernization should happen during the current
renovation closure. Mainly to ensure that at the completion of the Lobby/Box office project, safe
and reliable operation of the elevator would be guaranteed, and theater performances and use of
the facility would not be disrupted by a faulty elevator. A modernization was planned for 2016
or 2017 but the current condition of the elevator warranted accelerated improvements.
DISCUSSION: This work has been contemplated by staff to take place in 2016 or 2017. In
order to accommodate this needed modernization, the Wheeler would have to be entirely shut
down for an estimated 5 – 7 weeks. With our current programming/scheduling, we do not have
such a timeframe available. Modernization in the future would mean an additional shut down
that would impact our community as well as the other users of the building. A modernization at
any other point in the year would mean another substantial shutdown due to ADA access. After
further evaluation of the timeframe and the project, the best decision seems to be to move this
project to fall 2015 to have the best use of the current renovation closure.
Information about the current state of the elevator, and why we feel that this is a project that
needs to be tackled as soon as possible:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 23
P213
IX.d
Page 2 of 3
1) Although the existing passenger elevator setup is not consistently problematic, it does
have unforeseen and inappropriately timed hiccups. For lack of a better assessment, it is
not 100% dependable. From random fuses blowing due to power surges, bad connections
causing inconsistent operation to out dated integration to other building assemblies, it
can’t be relied upon.
2) A non-working elevator cripples operations as it is our only ADA access point for the
venue/auditorium seating. The freight elevator does not provide access to the auditorium
seating area. In operating a 500+ seat theater, we frequently have the need for accessible
accommodations and without a dependable lift, we are risking the inability to facilitate
any need for loading out wheelchair or people not having the ability to use stairs
3) The existing function is slow, glitchy and unpredictable.
4) The existing cab mounted control panel isn’t labelled nor setup in a very user friendly
manner. It creates confusion with patrons and staff often have to intervene.
5) The lighting and aesthetic assembly within the cab are dark, uninviting and somewhat
unsafe. Patrons avoid the elevator when at all possible.
6) The modernization package in and of itself does not include other sub-contractors
(electrical, flooring or plumbing) that are not included in the package but needed for
completion of that scope. Coordinating the elevator modernization package with the
current renovation makes such trades available and onsite for best facilitation of progress
and completion.
Staff has authorized the work as a change order to the Lobby/Box office project to meet schedule.
This work will take place – fully funding the additional scope is the issue.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The current budget for this add to the project is estimated
at $237,500.00. Staff had originally hoped to fund the work out of contingency – however as
other additional scope has arisen during construction the necessary funding is not available in the
current contingency funding and the additional budget authority is needed to complete the
project.
Design
Elevator
moderization
package
Electrical Fire
Suppression
additional
work by other
trades
Contingency totals
Proposed
budget $10,000 $120,000 $35,000 $15,000 $10,000 $47,500 $237,500
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Wheeler and Asset team is recommending that Council
approve the additional funds for the elevator project so that we can complete the modernization
during the current Fall 2015 closure along with the larger Lobby/Box office project without
interruption.
ALTERNATIVES: Funding would have to come from other Wheeler sources not yet fully
vetted.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 24
P214
IX.d
Page 3 of 3
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 25
P215
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: October 19, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2015
RE: Supplemental Appropriation for Architectural services for
Reconstruction/Refurbish of Aspen Country Inn
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to request a supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$365,000 for the purpose of purchasing architectural services to reconstruct/refurbish Aspen
Country Inn.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council agreed to make a loan in the amount of
$1,691,130 in 2000 in order to provide a layer of the financing required for this project. Interest
has not been paid on the note so the balance is now $3.28 million.
BACKGROUND: The city and APCHA worked together to create the Aspen Country Inn
(ACI) as an affordable housing project in 2000. APCHA created an LLC and partnered with
private equity investors that infused cash into the partnership in exchange for rights to
depreciation, tax credits and profits or losses. The city put the land into the project and took a
promissory note and deed of trust for the value of the land. At the end of the tax credit
compliance period (15 years) APCHA bought out the interest of the private equity investors. The
City and APCHA have been working together to try and refinance the property and re-syndicate
tax credits in order to lower interest costs and finance major repairs that need to happen at ACI.
Some of the repairs were discovered as part of the capital needs assessment that was performed
as part of the financing requirements.
The cost of these repairs are estimated to be three million dollars. The largest component of this
cost is replacing the roof which is seriously damaged. There is also radon mitigation, storm
water management, HVAC, some siding replacement and appliance replacement components to
this project. Most of this is required by either HUD or tax credit investors as a condition of their
investment.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 26
P216
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION: The purpose of this appropriation is to allow for a contract for architectural
services so that the costs can be better assessed and so that we can solicit bids for this project. It
also allows us to create drawings for a proposed pitched roof addition to the project in order to
deal with the roof issues. This was recommended by the contractor that gave us preliminary cost
estimates. In order to add a pitched roof the city will need approval from the Maroon Creek
HOA that is adjacent to the ACI. Drawings showing elevations will be required for this
submittal.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Most of the project will be financed from the project
revenue stream. However it will not cover all of the costs and a net investment of approximately
$775,000 additional investment will be required. Since APCHA cannot afford this scale of an
investment staff proposes that it be deeded to the city and that the City make the investment. It
has been contemplated by management that this would eventually happen anyway as the project
has never been able to pay the interest on the loan the city originally made on the project and that
loan balance is now about $3,280,000. This will be coming to the City Council as a separate
action item in the very near future. The cost of this specific proposal at this time is estimated to
be $365,000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this supplemental appropriation.
ALTERNATIVES: The City could choose not to do this work at this time and not refinance the
property.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move approval of the supplemental appropriation in the amount of
$365,000 for architectural services for Aspen Country Inn.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 27
P217
IX.d
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tim Thompson, Project Manager
THRU: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: October 19th, 2015
MEETING DATE: October 26th, 2015
RE: Truscott Site Improvement Project Vertical Scope Change Order
and Budget Increase
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council acceptance of the following items:
• Execute a change order in the amount of $249,832.14 between the City of Aspen and
Heyl Construction Inc. for the Truscott Site Improvement Vertical Scope.
• Increase the Truscott Site Improvement budget by $249,832.14 from a fall supplemental
via the 150 fund.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The last Council action on Truscott Site Improvement was
approval for contract execution via the 2015-89 resolution for $1,428,340 on August 24th, 2015.
DISCUSSION: During the initial project discussions it was determined that residents would re-
located during the course of the project. This opened further discussion to resolve ongoing
maintenance and repair issues with building 600 that needed immediate attention. Asset then
engaged an architectural firm and an engineer to address the issues. The engineer identified
structural fixes that needed to be addressed immediately. The resulting design included building
600 repairs and a roof design over the stairs. We then engaged Heyl to price all items except the
roof repairs to be potentially completed in the future. The stairs will be monitored this winter
and if desired the roofs will then be constructed at a future date.
The resulting change order completes the necessary repairs for building 600. These repairs are
necessary to address much needed maintenance issues from ice removal from the last 20 years.
This is being presented at this time because the work can be done with least impact to the
residents as they are currently moved out. The stairs will be completely replaced with metal in
lieu of failing spalling concrete, balconies will be brought to a correct cross slope, drainage on
3rd floor in front of the elevator will be added, structural columns that have rusted beyond repair
replaced, and all failing and rusting metal areas repaired.
ENVIRONMENTAL / COMMUNITY IMPACTS: The Truscott Site Improvement Project is
on schedule and on budget. This change order will only impact the building 600 residents. As of
today the residents are scheduled to move back into their units on November 28th, 2015. The
schedule as presented in this change order follows the upcoming move in dates.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 28
P218
IX.d
Page 2 of 3
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Asset department had originally contracted to complete
the site improvement work. Since that time for building 600 the balcony walks have been added
to scope to bring to code, stairs on both sides of building repair and replace, drainage added on
the 3rd floor, and structural repairs to the columns per engineer recommendation. Due to these
additions this change order requests that the budget for the Truscott Site Improvement Project be
increased by $249,832.14. This budget request is proposed to be funded from a fall
supplemental via the 150 fund.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the following:
• A change order is executed between the City of Aspen and Heyl Construction Inc. per the
attached change order for $249,832.14 for the Truscott Site Improvement Vertical Scope.
• Staff recommend the budget be increased by $249,832.14 from a fall supplemental via
the 150 fund.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit I – Heyl Construction Change Order for Vertical Scope
Exhibit II – Resolution for Approval
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 29
P219
IX.d
City of Aspen
Departmental Memos
Previously Approved
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 30
P220
IX.d
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Miller,
DATE OF MEMO: October 15, 2015
MEETING DATE:
RE: Supplemental Request for Rethink the Street Expenditures
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council to approve a one-time supplemental to cover
expenditures for Councils’ Top Ten Goal #1.
DISCUSSION: The Top Ten Goal #1 project, Rethink the Streets, performed an assessment of the city
streets against best practices that prioritizes pedestrian access and safety. At one of the Quarterly Report
check-ins, staff requested Council authorize a budget of $15,000 for work contemplated on this Council
goal. The costs incurred include advertising, temporary street modifications, planters, signage, comment
board, and staged seating areas. This action would formally appropriate those funds.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Appropriating from General Fund fund balance $15,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: NA
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve the supplemental
appropriation for this project.
ALTERNATIVES: None
PROPOSED MOTION: This should be a brief statement for a Council member to read such as
“I move to approve Ordinance # ____ .”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS: NA
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 31
P221
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: October 8, 2015
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2015
RE: Fall Supplemental Request – AACP Top Ten Goal
Implementation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests $6,000 to start work on City Council’s Top Ten
Goal to “Reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) so the land
use code delivers what the AACP promises.” The funds will be used to hire an outside facilitator
to work with City Council in identifying AACP implementation priorities.
DISCUSSION: The need for requested resources resulted from Council’s adoption of the Top
Ten Goal to better incorporate the AACP into the Land Use Code. This is a new work program
item that has not been budgeted for previously. The scope of work includes individual meetings
with City Council members to identify individual AACP implementation priorities, facilitation of
the City Council work session to identify a set of Council agreed implementation priorities, and
development of a set of “next steps” to fully realize the goal.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The $6,000 request will enable an outside consultant to
work with City Council to jumpstart this Top Ten Goal. ComDev’s current budget cannot cover
this expense. These costs were not included in the 2015 budget request and a budget amendment
is required. This is a one-time cost that will not impact future years’ budgets.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the $6,000 budget request.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not wish to use an outside consultant, staff can conduct the
facilitation. Staff does not recommend this option as it will take time away from other existing
work program items.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 32
P222
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the staff’s request to authorize $6,000 to start work
on City Council’s Top Ten Goal to “Reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) so the land use code delivers what the AACP promises.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 33
P223
IX.d
ORDINANCE No. 15
Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A PROGRAM TO
ASSIST SMALL LODGES TO CONTINUE OPERATING AS SMALL LODGES.
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 small lodge preservation program to bolster the bed base in both traditional hotel
units, particularly in small lodges; 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 lodging; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing
on December 1, 2014 and December 8, 2014, the City Council directed staff to draft a code
amendment to assist small lodges to continue operating as small lodges; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the
proposed amendments to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to implement a small lodge
assistance program; 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 City Council finds that this Ordinance implements the City's goals related
replenishing and diversifying the lodging inventory, as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan; and
WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Code Amendment Obiectives
The goals and objectives of the code amendment, as outlined in the Policy Resolution, are to:
Small Lodges Preservation Program
Ordinance 15, Series 2015
Pagel of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 34
P224
IX.d
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 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 properties.
Section 2: Applicability and Timeframe
The Small Lodge Preservation Program (hereinafter "Program") is established for a period of
five (5) years from the date of passage of this Ordinance. During that time, the Program is
available to the existing small lodges listed below, only for such time as they remain small
lodges:
Hotel Address
Annabelle Inn 232 W Main St
Aspen Mountain Lodge 311 W Main St
Boomerang Lodge 500 W Hopkins Ave
Chalet Lisl 100 E Hyman Ave
Hearthstone House 134 E Hyman Ave
Hotel Durant 122 E Durant Ave
Molly Gibson 101 W Main St
Hotel Aspen 110 W Main St
Mountain Chalet 333 E Durant Ave
Snow Queen Lodge 124 E Cooper Ave
St. Moritz Lodge 334 W Hyman Ave
Tyrolean Lodge 200_W Main St
A new small lodge is eligible to participate in the program if it meets all of the following criteria:
1. Contains fifty (50) or fewer rooms, and
2. Is located in the Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP),
or Lodge Overlay (LO) zone districts.
City Council, at its sole discretion, may amend the lodges eligible for or extend the timeframe of
the Small Lodge Preservation Program by Resolution.
Section 3: Small Lodge Planning Assistance
Planning assistance is available to assist the small lodges through the City of Aspen land use and
building permit processes, as well as identifying non-city programs, such as CORE grants, that may
be of assistance to the small lodge.
Small Lodges Preservation Program
Ordinance 15, Series 2015
Page 2 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 35
P225
IX.d
The planning assistance described above is dependent on the funding available to provide the
assistance.
Section 4: Express Lane for Land Use Reviews
Small lodges are eligible for expedited review of all land use cases. A small lodge requesting
expedited review shall include the request in their land use application, and shall be scheduled for
the initial public hearing as quickly as possible. This expedited review shall in no way waive any
application requirements, including that the project application be complete prior to scheduling of
any public hearings.
Section 5: Express Lane for BuildinjZ Permit Reviews
Small lodges are eligible for expedited review of all building permits. Complete submittals for
small lodge projects will be reviewed ahead of standard building permit submittals. Standard
projects do not include affordable housing projects, phased permits, and other projects the Building
Department defines as "non-standard." Resubmittals for small lodge projects will be queued with
all other permits.
The queuing described above is dependent on the funding available to review small lodge
projects ahead of standard projects.
Section 6: Building Code Assessment
Small lodges are eligible for a free building code assessment to identify areas of the lodge that
could or should be upgraded to current building codes. The assessment will be completed by a
third party, and reimbursed by the city up to $0.50 per square foot.
The building code assessments described above are dependent on the funding available to
provide the additional subsidies.
Section 7: Small Lodge Energy Efficiency Program
Small lodges are eligible for free energy audits and additional subsidies for energy efficiency
improvements through a new Small Lodges Energy Program. This program would provide
subsidies for,energy audits and improvements after the existing CORE and City of Aspen Energy
Efficiency subsidies are applied. Energy improvements up to $20,000 are eligible for a combined
CORE, City of Aspen Energy Efficiency Program, and Small Lodges Energy Efficiency Program
subsidy, up to 100% of the project cost. Energy Improvements above $20,000 are eligible for a
combined 50% subsidy.
The energy benefits described above are dependent on the funding available to provide the
additional subsidies.
Section 8: Small Lodges Building Permit Fee Discounts
Small lodges are eligible for a discount on building permit fees. Chapter 2.12.100 of the Municipal
Code is hereby amended to add the following language:
Small Lodges Preservation Program
Ordinance 15, Series 2015
Page 3 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 36
P226
IX.d
Community Purpose Discount Programs
Applications for Building Permits for Small Lodges, as defined in Ordinance 15, Series 2015,
are eligible for reduced building permit review fees based on the following schedule. To be
eligible for the discount, all lodges must enter into an agreement with the City stating that the
property will remain a lodge for a minimum number of years, and that if the use changes
during that time period the property shall owe the City 100% of the building permit fees. The
reductions shall apply to Plan Check, Energy Code, Zoning Review, Engineering Review,
Utility Review, CMP, and Building Permit, Fees.
of Building Length of
Category of Work Permit fee City
charged Agreement
Minor interior upgrade (i.e. paint, carpet, light fixtures) 25%5 Years
Minor exterior upgrade (i.e. new windows, new o
paint/exterior materials)
25/0 5 years
Major interior upgrade A (i.e. remodel units, including 50%10 years
bathrooms)
Major interior upgrade B (i.e. remodel common areas and
50%10 years
any kitchen/food service facilities)
Redevelopment or Major Expansion 75%20 years
Section 9: Improvements.in the Right-of-Way
The cost, as approved by the City, of any required public improvements located in the public
right-of-way, such as curb & gutter, sidewalks, and street trees that are related to the Small
Lodge Preservation Program shall be reimbursed by the City. The Small Lodge shall be
responsible for the design and completion of the improvements, and the City shall reimburse the
Small Lodge for the cost of the improvements following final Certificate of Occupancy. The
allowable reimbursement is provided for in the Small Lodge Right-of-Way Improvement
estimate schedule on file with the City of Aspen Engineering Department. This schedule will be
updated on an annual basis to account for construction inflation costs.
Section 10: Costs associated with the program
All costs to the City for all program elements outlined herein are subject to available funds.
Section 11: Budget authority
City Council hereby grants budget authority of $5,000 for the Small Lodge Planning Assistance
Section 3), and $20,000 for Small Lodge Energy Efficiency Program (Section 7). Money will be
formally allocated during the Fall 2015 Supplemental Budget.
All other programs shall have no available funding for 2015.
Section 12: 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.
Small Lodges Preservation Program
Ordinance 15, Series 2015
Page 4 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 37
P227
IX.d
Section 13: Effect Upon Existiniz Litization.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 14: 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 15: 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 16:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of May, 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 shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 27th day of April, 2015.
At st:
inda Manning, City Cl rk Steven Skadr n,MAyor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of May,2015.
Att t:
y si,
Linda Manning, City Cler Steven Skad on,Mayor
Approved as to form:
mes.R. True, City Attorney
Small Lodges Preservation Program
Ordinance 15, Series 2015
Page 5 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 38
P228
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Austin Weiss, Open Space and Natural Resource Manager
Matt Kuhn, Trails Manager
THRU: Tom Rubel, Parks and Open Space Director
DATE OF MEMO: August 17, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 24, 2015
RE: Castle Creek Overcrossing Bridge Repair Contract
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Parks Department is requesting approval of a contract with
Gould Construction for $80,000. Staff is also seeking approval for the additional spending
authority for this unplanned expense (projected at $85,000).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None.
DISCUSSION: On June 18th, 2015, the wooden pedestrian bridge over Castle Creek Road (just
south of the roundabout) was damaged by an oversized construction vehicle. The construction
vehicle removed approximately 4 inches of the wood laminate girder. The bridge was
investigated by CIRSA (the city’s insurance provider), and a more detailed analysis by Loris and
Associates was approved by the CIRSA representative. It was found that the live load capacity
of the damaged girder was reduced by 1/3.
The bridge has remained open for pedestrians, but with the approaching cross country ski season,
staff have been working quickly to establish a repair plan and contract so that trail may be
traversed with a snowcat for Nordic ski trail grooming.
Loris and Associates, after conversations with the bridge manufacturer and engineers, developed
three options for repair: post tension cables, replace girder, and replace entire bridge. Due to
timing, traffic impacts, and cost, staff conclude that the preferred repair be that the bridge is
removed, and the damaged girder replaced. The bridge will be removed with a crane and hauled
to a nearby site. The bridge will be reconstructed with the new girder and then replaced. It is
estimated that the bridge and a small segment of the Marolt Trail will be closed for
approximately one week for this repair. Parks staff will provide a detour for the duration of the
bridge closure. Staff are also working with the Police department on the minor closure of Castle
Creek Road for the bridge removal and replacement.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 39
P229
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
Since the bridge manufacturer is in Oregon, they provided the construction plans and details to
Gould Construction, to act as a local liaison for the repair. The City has prepared a contract with
Gould Construction for completion of the repair prior to December 1, 2015. The City has already
received the insurance claim funds.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: An account was established for the receipt of funds from
CIRSA, and there is no financial impact to the City budget for this contract. Staff plan to pay for
the repair from the Pedestrian Trail Development capital maintenance line, and staff are
requesting authorization from Council for the additional spending authority for this unplanned
expense (projected at $80,000 for repair contract and additional $5000 for the Loris and
Associates inspection and repair design). Funds will then be transferred from the CIRSA
reimbursement revenue line to the Pedestrian Trail Development line in the fall supplemental.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: No environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Parks Staff recommend approval of the contract for the repair of
the Castle Creek Overpass with Gould Construction Inc.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could decide not to approve the contract in which case the bridge
would likely not be repaired prior to the winter season, limiting the snow removal and grooming
options for the trail. Staff could seek alternative designs, however these would likely not match
the adjacent bridge over Maroon Creek.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #90”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Contract with Gould Construction Inc.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 40
P230
IX.d
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Project Manager
THRU: Gena Buhler, Wheeler Executive Director
Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
DATE OF MEMO: August 3, 2015
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2015
RE: Wheeler Opera House Lobby/Box Office improvements.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of the attached contract with R.A. Nelson
(RAN) for a total Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price (IGMP) contract sum of $2,713,102 along
with approval of $1,161,000 in additional budget authority to cover additions to the scope and an
increase in owner’s contingency to perform the work outlined in the Detailed Design drawings
dated June 1, 2015.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the contract with Charles Cunniffe
Architects to complete design work and construction drawings on the project. Staff and the
architect team presented schematic design at an April work session and Council directed staff to
move forward with detailed design and construction drawings. The already-approved budget in
2015 for the project is $3,154,000.
BACKGROUND: This project is the third and final phase of major renovation of the interior of
the building. The previous projects renovated the restaurant space that now houses Justice Snow’s,
retail space for Valley Fine Art, and the basement area offices in 2011 then complete renovation
of the balcony in the auditorium, along with technology upgrades in 2013. This project will tie
everything together and these improvements will enhance the theater users’ experience from the
moment they enter the building.
Also, replacement of the last remaining piece of HVAC equipment from the 1980’s remodel and
a new HVAC control system for the entire building is planned. Finally a complete reroof of the
building is proposed in this scope.
Through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) – R.A. Nelson (RAN) was selected in July by
staff to be the General Contractor for this phase of the remodel. We received four proposals from
qualified contractors and the proposal amounts ranged from $4.2 million to $2.5 million. RAN
was selected based on their approach to the project, knowledge and relative work experience in
Aspen. Their starting number for the proposed scope of work is $2,713,102. Staff is working
daily with CCA and RAN to finalize the design and scope. We are using this IGMP as a defined
starting point to add the general contractor to the team as we finalize design and cost estimating
with the benefit of having contractor, subcontractor pricing and value engineering input prior to
converting to FGMP. We will convert the final cost to a Final Guaranteed Maximum Price
(FGMP) within recommended budget authority once design and scope is finalized.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 41
P231
IX.d
Page 2 of 5
DISCUSSION: This project started under the supervision and direction of the previous executive
director of the Wheeler. His initial vision of the project was the genesis for the original design and
the current budget authority for the project. Upon his departure, design and scope development
became a collaborative effort including the City Manager’s office, the Capital Asset department,
Community Development department and Wheeler Board and staff. During the collaboration on
the design, and the intended outcome of this being the final phase that will carry the Wheeler far
into the future, additions to scope became realized that were never in the initial concept. These
addition can be broken down into four areas:
1. Removal of the demising wall between the box office lobby and grand staircase to open
the space to better serve the public. Proposed additional costs: $102,000.
2. Enhanced remodel of the box office and entire grand staircase corridor along with an
enhanced level of finish to all of the public areas of the building. Proposed additional costs:
$288,000.
3. A more robust A/V package than originally planned. This will allow for greater flexibility
in the lobby to host events that require a higher level of theatrical and performance
production. Proposed additional costs: $120,000.
4. Life safety improvements required by the Fire Marshall and requested by contractors and
a new control system that integrates all aspects of the building’s HVAC system and boiler
plant. Proposed additional costs: $134,000.
Staff recommend an increase from the estimated 10% contingency for this project to a more
responsible 25% contingency for a remodel of this magnitude. The amount of unforeseen
conditions that could arise from the structural demolition and associated work in a 126 year old
building is daunting. The project has to be completed in a very compressed off-season time frame
and we cannot sacrifice quality. The proposed increase in the owner’s contingency makes up
$517,000 of the additional budget authority requested.
The team has been working intensely over the past several months to finalize the interior details
of the project and make all the necessary selections of the finishes. The team is working diligently
with all the stakeholders to finalize design and estimating, having the General Contractor onboard
will help this effort be more accurate for a smooth transition into construction. The final dollar
amount of the contract, Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), will be agreed upon and executed as
a change order to the (IGMP) within the next 30 days. Staff recommends proceeding with the
project and begin demolition as the final details are worked out. Upon Council approval, the plan
going forward is to issue a Notice to Proceed to RAN in order to expedite time-sensitive material
purchases of long lead-time items.
The building permit application was submitted to the Building Department in June so that the
project can begin on schedule with demolition and structural work commencing as soon as
possible. The project is scheduled to begin on Monday, August 31st and to be completed in early
December 2015. Performances and events are scheduled to return to the Wheeler by December
18.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 42
P232
IX.d
Page 3 of 5
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The council-approved budget for 2015 for the project is
$3,154,000. After project development, schematic design, detailed design and preconstruction
collaboration, the proposed budget for the project is now $4,315,000. The additional requested
funding is $1,161,000 with the 25% owners’ contingency making up $757,000 of the revised
budget total. The comparison of the preliminary budget and current proposed budget is illustrated
below.
Staff requests council approval of the additional $1,161,000 to come from the Wheeler Opera
House Fund Balance. Council approval will direct staff to add that amount to the next
supplemental appropriation ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends an increase of the total project budget authority
by $1,161,000 and approval of the attached contract with R. A. Nelson for an IGMP/FGMP
contract sum of $2,713,102 to perform the remodel and improvements in the Wheeler Opera House
Lobby and Box Office.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Not to approve the additions to the project and proceed with the
original preliminary scope, leave the wall in box office intact and lower the finish level to meet
budget constraints and reduce contingency back to the original percentage.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The City Manager’s Office recommends proceeding with the
revised budget for this project. This will complete renovations of the entire building and set the
building up for continued service to the community for many years to come.
ATTACHMENTS: Renderings of the interior public spaces to be renovated through the project.
Design Contractor add
alternatives
Owner
Contingency
@10%
Permit/ Fees
/Misc
Owner's Rep/
Commissioning TOTALS
Preliminary
budget $375,000 $2,400,000 $0 $240,000 $65,000 $74,000 $3,154,000
Design Contractor add
alternatives
Owner
Contingency
@25%
Permit/ Fees
/Misc
Owner's Rep/
Commissioning TOTALS
Proposed
budget $375,000 $2,400,000 $644,000 $757,000 $65,000 $74,000 $4,315,000
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 43
P233
IX.d
Page 4 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 44
P234
IX.d
Page 5 of 5
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 45
P235
IX.d
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 72 Cloud Nine Lane, Aspen Highlands Village - Planned Development
Amendment, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 42 (Series of 2015)
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2015
____________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT:
Bob Langley
REPRESENTATIVE:
Marcia Goshorn
LOCATION:
72 Cloud Nine Lane, part of
Aspen Highlands Village
Planned Development
CURRENT ZONING & USE
The subject lot is located in
the Residential Multi-Family
(RMF) zone district with a
Planned Development (PD)
overlay. The lot contains a
single-family residence that
is an affordable housing unit.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Continued use as a single-
family residence
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests an amendment to the Planned
Development to allow an addition to the ground floor of the house
and a second story addition of approximately 660 square feet to
make the unit ADA accessible. Additionally the applicant
requests the waiver of any city fees associated with the land use
approval and issuance of a building permit for this addition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendment.
72 Cloud
Nine Lane
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 46
P236
IX.d
Page 2 of 5
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village Planned
Development (PD) allowing for an expansion to the existing residence.
• Amendments. Minor Amendment to a Project Review approval (Subsection 26.445.110.D) is
an amendment which represents an insubstantial change but which does not meet the
established thresholds for an Insubstantial Amendment and may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the City Council. As the request proposes an increase to the
allowable Floor Area1, the request exceeds the allowances of an administrative review.
CHANGES SINCE FIRST READING:
The Applicant has requested a waiver of all fees associated with the project. The waiver request
includes land use fees including Land Use and Engineering Review fees, Parks Dedication,
TDM/Air Quality or Affordable Housing fees. The property is deed restricted; therefore, the
project would not trigger Affordable Housing mitigation fees. School Lands Fees are assessed by
the City; however, they are collected by the Aspen School District and cannot be waived by the
City. Building Permit Fees are based on the valuation of work for improvements to the property,
which is estimated to be $340,012. Staff has provided a table of an estimate of all the fees
associated with the project in Table 1 below. Staff’s recommendation assumes that not all
improvements are for ADA compliance.
Table 1. Land Use and Building Permit Fees Waiver Estimate
Fee Type Fee Estimate Recommended
Waiver Amount
Fees Due -
Estimate
Land Use Review Fees $4,550.00 100% $0
Engineering Review Fees $551.20 50% $275.60
School Lands Fee $149.331 0% $149.331
Parks Dedication $3,597.00 0% $3,597.00
TDM/Air Quality $402.60 0% $402.60
Affordable Housing n/a n/a n/a
Building Fee $29,026 50% $14,513
Total Fee Waiver Est. $37,574.67 - $18,661.93
1 School Lands Fees cannot be waived by the City.
Staff has provided draft language for Council’s consideration in Ordinance 42 as follows:
Section 2: Conditions of Approval – Fee Waiver
100% of land use review fees and 50% engineering and building permit fees
assessed for the improvements shown in Exhibit 1 to the Ordinance shall be
waived.
1 The ordinance annexing Aspen Highlands into the city allows for an administrative increase in Floor Area of 2%.
A total of 109,901 sq. ft. of AH development is permitted. The 2% increase or 2,198 sq. ft. has effectively been used
by two amendments in 2001.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 47
P237
IX.d
Page 3 of 5
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
Aspen Highlands Village contains a mix of free-market and affordable housing development as
well as commercial uses at the base of Highlands. The Applicant has requested an amendment of
the Planned Development for the entire subdivision to allow for an addition to the existing
residence. The complete plan set is included as Exhibit B.
The ground floor currently contains a bedroom, powder room, kitchen and living room and the
applicant proposes to reconfigure the floor plan so that the bedroom is removed on the ground
floor to accommodate a reconfiguration of the common living areas to provide appropriate
clearances to allow the ground floor to be accessible as well as add an elevator with access to
from the ground to second story via the garage and a new rear addition. An ADA-compliant
ramp and approximately 129 sq. sf. of patio/deck would be also be added to provide egress into
the home.
Figure 1: Existing and proposed ground floor
The second floor currently contains three bedrooms and two bathrooms. A second story
addition is being proposed over the existing garage and part of the first story addition. The
reconfigured second story will provide four bedrooms, with one accessible bedroom and
bathroom.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 48
P238
IX.d
Page 4 of 5
Figure 2: Existing and proposed second floor
STAFF COMMENTS:
MINOR AMENDMENT TO A PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL
This amendment will allow the Applicant to develop a 660 sq. ft. addition to the existing
residence, making the residence and a bedroom to become accessible.
Staff Comments: Allowing for the expanded residence will create an accessible dwelling unit in
the affordable housing inventory. The footprint of the ground floor is being expanded behind the
existing garage and a second story addition is being proposed above the existing garage and a
portion of the ground floor addition. The addition essentially works with the existing footprint
and roof height and will continue to provide a scale and character that complements the
neighborhood. The materials being proposed for the addition are compatible and similar to the
existing house. The addition and remodel will allow the family to remain in the unit. APCHA has
reviewed the proposal and is okay with the request.
Figure 3: Existing and proposed facade
FEE WAIVER
The Applicant is requesting a waiver of any city assessed fees associated with the land use
approval and issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition. The request is not
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 49
P239
IX.d
Page 5 of 5
applicable to any special district fees. This request may be granted at the sole discretion of
the City Council and a fee estimate will be provided at second reading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff finds the request meets the
Project Review Standards and recommends approval of the request.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“I move to adopt Ordinance No. 42, Series 2015 for a Planned Development amendment
allowing for an increase in Floor Area for 72 Cloud Nine Lane.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – Project Review Standards
EXHIBIT B – Application
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 50
P240
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike McDill, Deputy Utility Director
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: July 17, 2015
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2015
RE: Fall Supplemental Funding Requests: Design of the Roaring
Fork Road Water Line Replacement
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting a capital budget supplemental request in the
form of a reappropriation of 2016 Water Capital Budget funds into the Water Fund 2015 budget
for the Design of the Roaring Fork Road Water Line Replacement. Staff is requesting $50,000
for this purpose based on the attached competitively selected proposal. If Council approves the
re-appropriation of $50,000 from the 2016 Roaring Fork Road Water Line Replacement project
budget into the 2015 project budget, then a balance of $500,000 would remain for completion of
the project in 2016.
BACKGROUND: The project to replace the existing under-sized and frequently repaired
waterline serving Roaring Fork Road with a new 8-inch ductile iron system was identified as a
high priority in the 2013 Water Utility System Master Plan and is currently programmed in the
2015 10-year Asset Management Plan (AMP) to be constructed in 2016. The budgeted amount
for this project in 2016 is $550,000. Authorizing these design funds this year will allow us to bid
this work in February or March of 2016 and have the project construction ready on April 1. This
is a substantial amount of work to complete and will probably require the whole construction
season. Getting an early start on it will greatly improve the probability of completing all of the
work in one year and avoiding any need to return to the neighborhood again in 2017 to complete
construction re-vegetation and clean-up. Bidding this work early in the construction season will
probably also improve the competitiveness of our bidders.
DISCUSSION: The attached proposal is for $46,320. The requested supplemental
appropriation will provide a contingency of about eight percent, in case we need additional
potholing or see a need to slightly increase the design perimeters.
As for the intended construction work, it is important to complete the water line replacement
work on Roaring Fork Road as quickly, efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Moving
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 51
P241
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
these funds forward into 2015 will increase the probability that all of the construction work to be
completed in 2016 and reduce the construction impacts to the neighborhood.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This action will result in an increase of $50,000 in 2015
to the Water Capital Budget and a similar reduction in the 2016 Water Capital Budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no significant environmental implications with
allowing the funding for design work to occur in 2015 as opposed to 2016. Increased
construction efficiencies will be possible through the reduction of mobilizations due to the
amount of work which will all occur in 2016.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approves the supplemental
appropriation of $50,000 into the Water Department’s 2015 budget.
ALTERNATIVES: If not approved, the design will start in January 2016, after the selected
consultant is authorized to proceed, and construction work will probably not start until mid-
summer and could continue into 2017. The City could also experience increased costs as the cost
of construction related goods and services (such as concrete, steel, services) may rise, due to
bidding the project late in the construction season.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the addition of $50,000 in funds to the Water
2015 budget for the design of the Roaring Fork Road Water Line Replacement capital project.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachments:
A. Memo For Waterline Replacement Design
B. Proposal from Roaring Fork Engineering
C. Resolution # 73
\2015 Budget\20150715 Fall Supplemental for Roaring Fork Replacement Design
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 52
P242
IX.d
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Andy Rossello, Utilities Engineer
Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: September 22, 2015
MEETING DATE: September 28, 2015
RE: Approval of a contract change order between the City of Aspen
and PCL Construction Services for the completion of the City
of Aspens Express Feeder Project
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests a PCL Construction Services contract change order
CRX 054 to the Galena Plaza Improvement Project, and in the Amount of $452,409.00 (attached
Exhibit B) for the Express Feeder Project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved this Capital Project, and associated
projects starting in 2007. Council has approved various projects associated with the Express Feed
Project every year since; this is the last piece of infrastructure necessary to bring the Express
Feeder Project into service.
BACKGROUND: The City’s Express Feeder Project was developed to bring a second, City
owned dedicated feed for the City of Aspen’s Municipal Grid System. The project improves the
reliability, and redundancy of the City’s Electric Grid in several ways. Most importantly, the city
currently receives power from Holy Cross Energy (HCE) at the Puppy Smith substation located
in downtown Aspen. The City historically had two back-up ties one at the Forest Service parcel
at Francis and 8th street, and one at Koch Park. The Forest Service recently sold the parcel and
the City opted to abandon the connection, knowing that the Express Feeder Project would act as
this tie. HCE has raised concerns about the usefulness of the Koch tie during ski season, as they
utilize this circuit to provide power to Aspen Ski Company. HCE feels that their system would
be at risk if the current Puppy Smith feeder were to experience an outage during ski season. As a
result City Staff feels it imperative to complete the Express Feeder Project this fall.
The City Bid this project through a competitive bid process last month and had no interested
bidders. Staff then reached out to the approved City of Aspen Vendor, PCL Construction
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 53
P243
IX.d
Page 2 of 3
Services to price the project for fall 2015 construction as an add service to their current Galena
Plaza contract.
The Express Feeder Project will allow the City to switch from HCE electric power facilities to
municipal electric. This will result in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to energy use by City
facilities being substantially reduced. City facilities will also then have direct access to lower cost
and 100% renewable energy sources. One other benefit to making this switch will be more
flexibility in serving the City of Aspen’s electrical needs.
The project was initially comprised of five components, a substation upgrade, golf course east,
ARC, Water Plant Feeder, and finally, Powerplant Road to Forest Service connections. All
Substation improvements and the ARC feeder are completed and on line. The Water Plant Feeder
project is approximately 50% complete with services, and transformers needing to be installed
next spring after the tie at Powerplant Road are complete. The Express Feeder Project is the final
phase to complete tie in to provide reliability and redundancy for the downtown core electric
grid.
In addition to reducing energy costs for city facilities, the Express Feeder, when completed, will
provide a more reliable source of electric power to the Aspen Municipal Electric System. When
combined with the existing Puppy Smith 25kV Feeder, the Express Feeder will also reduce our
reliance on facilities owned by HCE.
DISCUSSION: The express feeder tie to that electrical switch will increase the reliability and
redundancy of the municipal grid. Lacking this tie the city is at risk of an extended outage if the
existing (Puppy Smith Feed) experiences any outage over the course of the winter, as HCE may
not be able to provide necessary power to the city through existing infrastructure when Aspen Ski
Company is operating at capacity. An added benefit resulting from the installation of this
equipment will enable the Aspen Municipal Electric System to directly feed the City Streets
Shop, which is currently served by HCE.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of the installation for this project is $452,409.00.
The project is the final component of a 3 million dollar infrastructure project that the city has
pursued since 2007. The Current Budget authority remaining is $195.266.49. We will be
requesting a fall Supplemental in the amount of $253,142.51 from the Electric Fund, less any
savings realized during construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will be 1125
tons/year for the combined elements of the Express Feeder circuit due to the increase in
renewable energy available to customers on the City municipal system.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: We request City Council approve the Change Order of
$452,409.00, to the Galena Plaza Improvement Project for the completion of the Express Feeder
Power System.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 54
P244
IX.d
Page 3 of 3
ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives would be for the city’s electric demand to continue being
served by Holy Cross Electric Association, and to remain limited to one primary feeder serving
the City Municipal Electric System with no redundancy and limited reliability during the ski
seasons and other high demand periods.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #110-2015
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City of Aspen Express Feeder Design Drawing
B. PCL CRX 054 for signature
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 55
P245
IX.d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director, APCHA
DATE OF MEMO: April 20, 2015
MEETING DATE: April 27, 2015
RE: Request expenditure approval from 620 Housing Administration Fund’s
2015 cash balance for APCHA Affordable Workforce Housing Guidelines
Policy Study
SUMMARY: As part of its Top 10 Goals for 2015, City Council requested a review and update
and of APCHA’s Guidelines. The last major update to APCHA’s affordable housing Guidelines,
including income and asset limitations, was in 1999. In early 2015, APCHA published a request
for proposal (RFP) seeking consulting services to review the following areas: affordability
analysis; income and asset analysis; household size analysis; analysis of qualifications to rent and
purchase; analysis of best practices; and refinement of housing program goals and objectives.
DISCUSSION: The project consists of three key elements, or deliverables:
1. Collection of data (primary and secondary);
2. Refinement of housing program goal and objectives;
3. Guideline recommendations.
The project schedule is expected to take seven months with APCHA Guidelines
recommendations to be completed by the end of November, 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The budget for this project is $60,000 to be paid for out of the
620 Housing Administration Fund’s 2015 cash balance.
RECOMMENDATION/ACTION: Approve funding for APCHA Affordable Workforce
Housing Guidelines Policy Study.
PROPOSED MOTION: To approve the contract for the APCHA Affordable Workforce
Housing Guidelines Policy Study.
2015 Budget Ordinance No. 41 - Page 56
P246
IX.d
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.41
(Series of 2015)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $80,880, AN
INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $85,000, AN INCREASE IN THE
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $1,398,500, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $634,070, AN INCREASE IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND OF
$3,834,680, AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT FUND OF $250,000, A
DECREASE IN THE WATER UTILITY FUND OF $40,220 AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC
UTILITY FUND OF $343,370, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND OF
$250,000, AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND OF $200,000, AN
INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $1,582,700, AN INCREASE IN THE
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND OF $60,000.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following funds: GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA
HOUSE FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, DEBT SERVICE FUND, ASSET
MANAGEMENT FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND, TRUSCOTT
HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND,
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager’s certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, DEBT
SERVICE FUND, ASSET MANAGEMENT FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY
FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYEE
HOUSING FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND: the City Council hereby makes
supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Exhibit A.
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
P247
IX.d
Page 2 of 2
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON
FIRST READING on the 9th day of November, 2015.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 23rd day of November, 2015, in
the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 23rd day of November, 2015.
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P248
IX.d