HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20170710
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 10, 2017
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #102, Series of 2017 - Amendment to contract to analyze the potential
use of In-Situ Reservoirs as a component of Aspen's Integrated Water System
b) Resolution #99 - IGA with Pitkin County for management of Buttermilk parking
lots
c) Board Appointments
d) Minutes - June 26, 2017
VII. Notice of Call-Up
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
IX. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #19, Series 2017 - 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Amendment to Ordinance
#29, Series of 2009
b) Resolution #101, Series 2017 - Mandated Sign Code Update Policy Resolution
X. Action Items
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting July 24, 2017
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
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager
THRU: Scott Miller, Director of Public Works;
Dave Hornbacher, Director, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives;
DATE OF MEMO: June 30, 2017
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017
RE: Resolution 102, Series of 2017: Amendment to contract to analyze the
potential use of In-Situ Reservoirs as a component of Aspen's Integrated
Water System
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council amend its contract with Deere and Ault
Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $116,000 for professional services to analyze the potential use
of in-situ reservoirs as a component of Aspen’s Integrated Water System.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On October 10, 2016, Council passed Resolution #141,
Series of 2016 directing staff to implement certain water management measures to improve
resiliency against future climate change impacts and other system changes. Included in this
Resolution was the direction to:
Enhance and increase the City’s efforts to investigate alternative locations and sizing
requirements of the Maroon Creek Reservoir and/or Castle Creek Reservoir, and to report
findings back to City Council for further consideration and action as appropriate.
On May 27, 2017 Council passed Resolution #60, Series of 2017 approving a contract with
Deere and Ault Consultants to investigate the potential use of in-situ reservoirs as a component
of Aspen’s Integrated Water System.
BACKGROUND: The City Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Department is responsible
for assuring Aspen has a safe, legal and reliable water supply, now and into the future. To this
end, the City operates an integrated water system, which leverages many supply, storage,
operational and management techniques to optimize the City’s resources.
DISCUSSION: Water storage is a component of an integrated water system which allows
efficient operation of resources and reliable delivery of water even during times of emergency or
shortage. Aspen has minimal storage in its system, with less than a day of water supply available
as storage during peak times. To address this vulnerability, the City has maintained its
conditional water storage rights on Maroon and Castle Creeks, and in addition continues to seek
P3
VI.a
alternatives to these surface reservoirs. In-situ reservoirs have been identified as a promising
alternative to augment, and potentially reduce, the need for surface storage.
In-situ reservoirs create sub-surface water storage through the installation of slurry walls
extending from the surface to bedrock. With suitable geology, these slurry walls can create an in-
place, subsurface storage vessel. As needed, water would be withdrawn from the in-situ reservoir
via wells and pumped to a treatment facility. This amendment will also consider the use of open
water storage in alternative locations.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The execution of the attached contract with Deere and Ault will
require additional 2017 budget authority in the amount of $116,000. Water Fund has a sufficient
balance and reserves to cover this additional budget request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The City is committed to reducing its footprint (carbon and
water) and fighting climate change, but even with this effort and action the City recognizes that it
is best practice to plan for a future that looks very different than today. The City’s efforts to
develop its integrated water system are necessary to ensure the City’s resiliency.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council is requested to approve the amendment to its contract
with Deere and Ault Consultants, Inc., through adoption of Resolution 102, Series of 2017.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution 102, Series of 2017
Attachment B – Amendment to Contract with Deere and Ault Consultants, Inc.
P4
VI.a
RESOLUTION #102
(Series of 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND DEERE AND AULT
CONSULTANTS INC. TO ANALYZE THE POTENTIAL USE OF IN-SITU
RESERVOIRS AS A COMPONENT OF ASPEN’S INTEGRATED WATER
SUPPLY, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the City, as a municipal water provider, must plan responsibly
for the future water needs of its customers, and must develop a legal, reliable
water supply to meet those demands; and,
WHEREAS, the City operates an integrated water system to provide a safe,
legal and reliable water supply to its customers; and
WHEREAS, on-going development of Aspen’s Integrated Water System is
necessary to ensure Aspen’s future water supply; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has directed staff to investigate alternative
storage options; and,
WHEREAS, the City believes in-situ reservoirs have potential to augment
or replace proposed surface storage; and,
WHEREAS, additional work has been identified to further analyze the
potential use of in-situ reservoirs, which may include some open water storage;
and,
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 amend its existing
contract with Deere and Ault Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $116,000, and that
this Resolution 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 10th day of July, 2017.
P5
VI.a
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 July 10, 2017.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P6
VI.a
Additional Scope of Work Contract Addendum
Supplier Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc.
Contract Number 2017-041 Date June 30, 2017
Project: Evaluation of the potential to incorporate in-situ reservoirs as a component of Aspen’s
Integrated Water System
Work Completed by Date: October 31, 2017 Amount: $116,000.00
The Added Scope of Work shall be appended to the original contract agreement dated March 27,
2017 and approved by City Council on March 27, 2017, Resolution #60. The amended SOW
and fee will be reviewed by City Council on July 10, 2017 via Resolution #102. All terms and
conditions apply.
SCOPE OF WORK FOR RESERVOIR PRE-FEASIBLITY INVESTIGATIONS
Based on our in-situ screening study, we have developed the following scope to perform pre-
feasibility investigations for storage projects. The scope will primarily consist of feasibility level
site investigations, a conceptual layout and documentation in a memorandum. These
investigations will provide data to better define the engineering geologic conditions at the site.
We will use existing LiDAR topographic data for the conceptual layout, so no surveying is
included. Full feasibility level analysis and reporting, if necessary, would be performed in a later
phase.
Task 1 – Project Management
This task is reserved for project management tasks including meetings, correspondence and
contracting. Most correspondence will be phone conversations and conference call meetings to
discuss the status of the work. This task also includes two engineers to attend two meetings in
Aspen, one with City Council and one to interview any gravel miners in the vicinity.
Task 2 – Reconnaissance Level Engineering Geologic Mapping
For this task, we will conduct reconnaissance level geologic mapping of the site and nearby
vicinity. We will identify and observe any rock outcrops or soil exposures in the area. We
understand some gravel deposits in the area may contain boulders, so if adequate exposures are
found, we will conduct a boulder count to estimate the locations and maximum size of boulders
in the deposit. We have budgeted for approximately two days of work to complete this task.
Task 3 – Geotechnical Investigations
We will conduct feasibility level geotechnical investigations at the site. These investigations will
include drilling five to six borings, excavating five to eight test pits and performing laboratory
P7
VI.a
testing on soil and rock samples. The borings will provide information on depth to bedrock, the
approximate location of any boulder layers and permeability data for the bedrock. We will also
install nested piezometers to investigate the hydrogeologic conditions at the site. The test pit
excavations will be planned look for fine-grained soils that could be used for embankment or
slope liner construction as well as the potential for supplemental fines for slurry wall
construction. A qualified geologist will observe, log and sample the borings and test pits. Select
samples collected from the borings and test pits will be submitted to a soils testing laboratory for
index tests, including: gradation, fines-content, Atterberg limits, moisture content and density.
We will subcontract a driller and an excavator operator and call the Utility Notification Center of
Colorado to locate any utilities that may exist prior to digging.
Task 4 – Conceptual Layout
This task will involve a conceptual layout of a reservoir at the site. We will consider in-situ
storage as well as open water storage. We will use an existing LiDAR topographic survey for
this work, so a survey is not needed at this time. This task will include the following items:
· Conceptual layout including an elevation-area-capacity curve and water delivery
infrastructure.
· A geologic profile, showing existing foundation conditions.
· Potential volumetric calculations.
We will develop a pre-feasibility level engineer’s opinion of the expected cost of construction of
the conceptual reservoir, including engineering, permitting and contingency.
Task 6 – Memorandum
We will summarize the results of our pre-feasibility investigation in a concise memorandum.
The document will include summary logs of the borings and test pits, the plan and profile of the
conceptual layout and the preliminary cost estimate. Because full feasibility level analysis will
not be performed, our recommendations will be limited.
P8
VI.a
FEE SCHEDULE
Tasks Description Hours/Units Rate Total
1 Project Management & 2 Meetings in Aspen
Don Deere, Principal 32 340.00$ 10,880.00$
Victor deWolfe, Project Manager 40 125.00$ 5,000.00$
Miscellaneous expenses 900.00$
Subtotal Task 1 16,780.00$
2 Reconnaissance Engineering Geologic Mapping
Don Deere, Principal 4 340.00$ 1,360.00$
Victor deWolfe, Project Manager 24 125.00$ 3,000.00$
Staff Geologist 24 95.00$ 2,280.00$
CAD/GIS Technician 16 98.00$ 1,568.00$
Miscellaneous expenses 300.00$
Subtotal Task 2 8,508.00$
3 Geotechnical Investigations
Don Deere, Principal 40 340.00$ 13,600.00$
Victor deWolfe, Project Manager 90 125.00$ 11,250.00$
Staff Engineer 110 95.00$ 10,450.00$
CAD/GIS Technician 70 98.00$ 6,860.00$
Geotechnical Drilling Subcontractor (5-6 borings) 1 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$
Test Pit Excavation Subcontractor (5-8 pits) 1 4,400.00$ 4,400.00$
Soils Testing Laboratory 1 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$
Miscellaneous expenses 3,300.00$
Subtotal Task 3 70,060.00$
4 Conceptual Layout
Don Deere, Principal 10 340.00$ 3,400.00$
Victor deWolfe, Project Manager 40 125.00$ 5,000.00$
Staff Engineer 16 95.00$ 1,520.00$
CAD/GIS Technician 24 98.00$ 2,352.00$
Miscellaneous expenses 300.00$
Subtotal Task 4 12,572.00$
5 Memorandum
Don Deere, Principal 8 340.00$ 2,720.00$
Victor deWolfe, Project Manager 24 125.00$ 3,000.00$
CAD/GIS Technician 16 98.00$ 1,568.00$
Clerical 4 90.00$ 360.00$
Miscellaneous expenses 500.00$
Subtotal Task 5 8,148.00$
Total 116,068.00$
Total Estimated Cost (rounded to nearest $1,000) 116,000.00$
P9
VI.a
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: SUPPLIER:
________________________________ _________________________________
[Signature] [Signature]
By: _____________________________ By: Don W. Deere
[Name] [Name]
Title: ____________________________ Title: Chairman of the Board
Date: ___________________ Date: June 30, 2017
P10
VI.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mitch Osur, Director of Parking and Downtown Services
THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: July 3, 2017
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017
RE: Resolution No. 99, Series of 2017, Intergovernmental
Agreement for Management and Monitoring of County-Owned
Parking Lots at Buttermilk between the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council approval of Resolution No. 99,
Series of 2017, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement for management and
monitoring of county-owned parking lots at Buttermilk Ski Area between the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None
BACKGROUND: In 2000 the Colorado Department of Transportation and Pitkin
County condemned 23.4 acres near the Buttermilk Ski Area for the purposes of expanding
transportation infrastructure in service to and for State Highway 82. The Stapleton Lots
were specifically condemned for multimodal transit and recreation facility parking
purposes. Pitkin County recently gained sole ownership of the parking areas. The lots
were recently paved, which provided 347 parking spaces. The lots are signed for day
parking only.
The parking areas are used primarily in the winter time for skiers accessing Buttermilk
Ski Area and for skiers using the Highlands Shuttle. During X-games the lots are used to
host the operational needs of that special event. The lots are not significantly used for
transit oriented purposes. Between April and November the lots are mostly vacant with
about 20 to 30 vehicles consistently using it for transit purposes. Recently, more people
are using it as trailhead parking for mountain biking opportunities at Sky Mountain Park.
Because of inconsistent enforcement, most of the use has been unauthorized; commercial
& construction staging/storage, long-term Burlingame resident/visitor extra vehicle
parking, RV storage, camping and small business services. Parking requests are
commonly made for this lot throughout the year.
P11
VI.b
DISCUSSION: The following parking designations would be put in place when Buttermilk Ski
Area is closed (Approximately April 2 through December 10) each year and has been created to
begin a dialogue about a change in parking area use. The Aspen Skiing Company has
been involved in this planning and is supportive of the change, given it does not interfere
with recreational parking.
Input has been received from RFTA, Pitkin County and City of Aspen Open Space and Trails,
Pitkin County Community Development, and the Aspen Skiing Company. Based on
communication from RFTA and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, the parking allocated in
this plan for transit and trailhead parking would meet current needs and would be adjusted if
capacity for either of those needs (transit or trailhead parking) were to be exceeded.
Conformance with the West of Maroon Planning (WOMP) document was brought up to
the BOCC as a potential issue. The BOCC directed Pitkin County Staff to garner input from the
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission. This was completed and the Commission generally
supported the proposed management plan as presented. They were not concerned about
visual impacts of the change. They recommended the plan be approved on a temporary
basis. If the plan proves to be successful and is supported into the future, an amendment
to the WOMP may be required.
This parking plan for Buttermilk has been created based on parking pressures and
requests being made from the Community knowing that the lots are significantly
underutilized outside of the ski season. The lots are also substantially misused as
previously discussed. This parking plan would better meet community parking needs and
generate revenue that would be used to more effectively and consistently enforce parking
rules at the Buttermilk lots.
Parking Area A (50 spaces)
24 hour free parking (intended for transit users).
No parking meter and monitored throughout the day.
Parking Area B (103 spaces)
96 hour permit vehicle parking $6.00 per day.
Metered parking with enforcement.
Up to 70 percent of this parking area may be reserved (at the County’s and Aspen’s discretion and
with pre-payment for all spaces) for special events.
Parking Area C (174 spaces)
5 day commercial/construction staging.
$40 per day (up to 4 parking spaces).
$180 per week (up to 4 parking spaces).
$550 per month (up to 4 parking spaces).
$3500 for summer season (up to 4 parking spaces).
Annual or temporary permitting with special event/commercial/construction companies.
P12
VI.b
Parking Area D (20 spaces)
No parking meter.
Day use only. Free trailhead parking.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Pitkin County would pay for all the capital improvements
required at the Buttermilk parking lot including signs, meter installation and jersey barriers. The
capital improvements are expected to cost approximately $25,000. Pitkin County would pay for 50
percent of a Parking Services Officer salary and expense mid-April till the end of November for the
enforcement of Buttermilk Ski Area parking lot management plan.
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County would share the meter and permit revenue 50/50. Provided an
operational scenario where 25 percent of parking area B and 30 percent of parking area C through
a full summer season, total parking revenue (less ticket revenue) is estimated to be $48,500. The City
of Aspen would receive half of this revenue. Pitkin County would receive 100% of the parking
ticket revenue.
Revenue Projection
Based on a 7 month contract
Expenses
Officer at 15 hours a week $10,500
Front desk at 5 hours a week $3,500
Permits at 40 a month $32
Total expense $14,032
Revenue
50% of Expected Revenue $24,250
Pitkin County Employee
Contribution $14,221
Total for Aspen $38,471
Excess revenue $24,439
Keep in mind, the financial aspects of this program are not the catalyst for this proposal. This
program would be put in place to attempt to fill a community need and more fully utilize an existing
County asset.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Flourishing natural and built environment, Easy of mobility via
a safe and efficient transportation systems. Another opportunity to get cars and trucks off the road
before they get to the roundabout.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of the intergovernmental
agreement for the management and monitoring of the county-owned parking lots at Buttermilk Ski
Area by the City of Aspen.
P13
VI.b
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could decide not to approve this agreement, Pitkin County would
need to find an alternative approach for enforcing parking at the Buttermilk Ski Area.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #99, Series of 2017, an intergovernmental
agreement for management and monitoring of county owned parking lots at Buttermilk Ski Area
between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #99
IGA
Map of parking areas
Management plan
P14
VI.b
RESOLUTION #99
(Series of 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY 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 an
intergovernmental agreement for the management and monitoring of county-
owned parking lots at Buttermilk between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, 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
Intergovernmental Agreement for the management and monitoring of county-
owned parking lots at Buttermilk between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County 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 10th day of July 2017.
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 July 10, 2017.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P15
VI.b
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
OF COUNTY-OWNED PARKING LOTS AT BUTTERMILK BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made this
day of 2017 by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (“Pitkin”), whose address is 123 Emma Road, Suite 106, Basalt,
Colorado 81621 and the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (“Aspen”), whose address is 130 South
Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611. Pitkin and Aspen may be referred to herein collectively as
the “Parties.”
RECITALS
1. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to, inter alia, C.R.S. § 29-1-201, et seq.,
and Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements of the
parties and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
2. Term. The term of this Agreement is from June 2017 to June 2018 and will
automatically renew annual for five years.
3. Aspen’s Agreement to Manage and Monitor Buttermilk Parking Lots.
Aspen agrees to manage and monitor the County owned parking lots at Buttermilk ski area.
Such management and monitoring shall include the following obligations:
Assist Pitkin with informational parking signs, lot delineation and meter installation by
providing at least two parking meters for lot “B” (see Exhibit A) and determining the best location
for meters, language on signs and lot delineation placement. Aspen will also provide the
application for customers to pay by phone. Repair parking meters as needed.
Issue parking permits for commercial/construction staging lot “C” as outlined in the
Buttermilk Parking Management Plan (Exhibit “B”). Monitor and ensure compliance with issued
parking permits and ensure no offensive activities occur as a result of issued
commercial/construction parking permits.
Allocate 50 percent of a parking attendant for eight months (April through November) to
monitor and manage the county-owned Buttermilk parking areas as outlined in Exhibit A. Ticket
and tow (remove) unlawfully parked cars, equipment and materials as needed to comply with the
Buttermilk Parking Management Plan. Parking area monitoring shall occur on a daily basis. Share
50 percent of parking meter and parking permit revenue with the Pitkin. Allocate 100 percent of
parking ticket revenue with Pitkin. Provide revenue sharing payments to Pitkin every 30 days.
Provide monthly reports on parking utilization and meet with Pitkin representatives as needed to
P16
VI.b
effectively manage the parking areas. Make recommendations for changes to the parking plan and
participate in implementing the changes.
Coordinate with Pitkin on authorizing special event use of lot “B” by assisting to delineate
parking areas reserved (and pre-paid) by special event organization.
4. Pitkin’s Obligations.
As a condition of this agreement, Pitkin shall have the following obligations:
Install parking meters provided by Aspen. Create and place parking signs as determined
through collaboration with Aspen. Delineate parking lots as outlined in Exhibit A and determined
most effective through collaboration with Aspen.
Provide funding to Aspen for 50 percent of the salary plus benefit cost of a parking
attendant for eight months of parking monitoring and management needs (April through
November). Submit payments for salary plus benefit cost (50%) of attendant every 30 days. Share
50 percent of parking meter and parking permit revenue with Aspen. Meet regularly as needed
with Aspen on parking management. Evaluate parking plan success and collaborate with Aspen
on parking changes; implement agreed to changes.
Coordinate with Aspen on authorizing special event use of lot “B” by assisting to delineate
parking areas reserved (and pre-paid) by special event organization
5. Assignability. This agreement is not assignable by either party.
6. Modification. This Agreement may be changed or modified only in writing by an
agreement approved by the respective Boards of the Governments and signed by authorized
officers of each party. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and
all other promises and agreements relating to the subject of this Agreement, whether oral or
written, are merged herein.
7. Severability. Should any one or more sections or provisions of this Agreement be
judicially adjudged invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate
the remaining provisions of this Agreement, the intention being that the various sections and
provisions hereof are severable.
8. Notice. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing
and shall be hand-delivered or sent by registered or certified regular mail, postage pre-paid to the
addresses of the parties as follows. Each party by notice sent under this paragraph may change the
address to which future notices should be sent. Electronic delivery of notices shall also be deemed
sufficient and considered delivered upon receipt of confirmation of delivery on the part of the
sender.
P17
VI.b
To: Pitkin County With copies to:
Brian Pettet
Director of Public Works Pitkin County Attorney’s Office
76 Service Center Road 123 Emma Road #204
Aspen, CO 81623 Basalt, Colorado 81621
Brian.pettet@pitkincounty.com
Mitch Osur With copy to:
Parking Director City of Aspen Attorney’s Office
455 Rio Grande Place 130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
9. Government Immunity. The parties agree and understand that both parties are
relying on and do not waive, by any provisions of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or
terms or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101, et seq., as from time to time amended or otherwise available to
the parties or any of their officers, agents, or employees. The Parties agree to hold each other
harmless for any loss, damages, expense, cost or claims of any character or any nature arising out
of Buttermilk parking management as contemplated in this agreement.
10. Current Year Obligations. The parties acknowledge and agree that any payments
provided for hereunder or requirements for future appropriations shall constitute only currently
budgeted expenditures of the parties. The parties’ obligations under this Agreement are subject to
each individual party’s annual right to budget and appropriate the sums necessary to provide the
services set forth herein. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as
creating a multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation of either or both
parties within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation. This Agreement shall
not be construed to pledge or create a lien on any class or source of either parties’ bonds or any
obligations payable from any class or source of each individual party’s money.
11. Binding Rights and Obligations. The rights and obligations of the parties under
this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective successors and assigns.
12. Agreement made in Colorado. This Agreement shall be construed according to the
laws of the State of Colorado, and venue for any action shall be in the District Court in and for
Pitkin County, Colorado. Each party to this Agreement shall have standing to bring an action to
enforce the terms of this Agreement in District Court, including an action for specific performance
and injunctive relief.
13. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the substantially prevailing party, whether by final judgment or out
of court settlement, shall recover from the other party all costs and expenses of such action or suit
including reasonable attorney’s fees.
P18
VI.b
14. No Waiver. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term or condition
of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by any
party.
The foregoing Agreement is approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado at its regular meeting held on the day of 2017.
The foregoing Agreement is approved by the City of Aspen, Colorado at its regular meeting
held on the day of 2017.
In Witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed as of the day
and year first above written.
City of Aspen
By: _
Steven Skadron, Mayor
Attest:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PITKIN COUNTY
ATTEST:
BY:
Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk George Newman, Chair
P19
VI.b
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely, County Attorney Jon Peacock, County Manager
P20
VI.b
P21
VI.b
County-owned Parking Areas at Buttermilk Management Plan
In the year 2000 the Colorado Department of Transportation and Pitkin County condemned
23.4 acres near the Buttermilk Ski Area for the purposes of expanding transportation
infrastructure in service to and for State Highway 82. The Stapleton Lots were specifically
condemned for multimodal transit and recreation facility parking purposes. Pitkin County
recently gained sole ownership of the parking areas. The lots were recently paved, which
provided 347 parking spaces.
The following parking area management plan has been put in place to more fully utilize the
parking areas and create parking that would more effectively meet community needs. Parking
area allocation may change based on transit user parking needs. Parking rates may be adjusted
by County Staff based on market demands (and after consultation with the City of Aspen
Parking Director) by no more than +/-25% from currently approved rates.
The following designations reference parking areas as delineated in the attached map for the
parking areas:
No camping or sleeping in vehicles will be permitted in any of the areas.
Parking Area A (50 spaces)
24 hour free parking (intended for transit users).
No parking meter and monitored throughout the day.
Parking Area B (103 spaces)
96 hour permit vehicle parking $6.00 per day.
Metered parking with enforcement.
Up to 70 percent of this parking area may be reserved (at the County’s discretion and with
prepayment for all spaces) for special events.
Parking Area C (174 car spaces)
5 day commercial/construction staging.
$40 per day (up to 4 parking spaces).
$180 per week (up to 4 parking spaces).
$550 per month (up to 4 parking spaces).
$3500 for summer season (up to 4 parking spaces).
Annual or temporary permitting with special event, commercial or construction companies
.
Parking Area D (20 spaces)
Day use only. Free trailhead parking.
No parking meter and monitored through the day.
P22
VI.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
From: Linda Manning, City Clerk
RE: Board Appointment
Date: July 6, 2017
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
By adopting the consent calendar, Council is making the following board appointments:
Board of Adjustment: Andrew Sandler Regular Member
Collin Frank Regular Member
Historic Preservation Commission Scott Kendrick Regular Member
Roger Moyer Regular Member
P23
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 26, 2017
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES –HPC Annual Awards ............................................................. 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #96, Series of 2017 – Aspen Ice Garden Electrical Upgrades Change Order #001 ........... 3
Resolution #97, Series of 2017 – Replacement of Police Department radar trailers with messaging
signs .............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #98, Series of 2017 – Public Safety Radio equipment replacement Construction Inc. ...... 3
Minutes – May 8, 22 and June 12, 2017 ............................................................................................... 3
ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 2017 – Harassing Dog Code Amendment ................................................ 3
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2017 – 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Amendment to Ordinance #29, Series
of 2009 .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2017 – Lots 12 and 12A of Callahan Subdivision; Minor Subdivision –
Lot Split; Planned Development Amendment, and Removal of an ADU .................................................... 5
P24
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 26, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins,
Hauenstein, and Myrin present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES –HPC Annual Awards
Mayor Skadron said these are the 24th annual HPC awards. There are over 100 projects recognized
through town. The first award tonight is given to 626 W Francis Street. It was built in 1964 as a duplex
with swiss chalet and modern approaches. It was voluntarily landmarked and applauded by HPC. The
architect is Kim Raymond Architects INC, contractor – Adam Rothberg and the developer is 626 W
Francis LLC.
The second award is for the powder house at 1280 Ute Avenue. They turned the old building into an
office space. The owners are Pete Mcbride and Kate and Matt Holstein. The builder is Jim Jensen and
the metalsmith is Brenton Curtis. Jeffrey Halferty from the HPC handed out the awards.
Mayor Skadron thanked the winners for the community minded restoration projects that respected HPC
and the community goals.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Tom Marshall- said there has been over 300,000 dollars spent on the last transportation study.
We do this every few years and it is not right. Logically we will not run a light rail down Main
Street. The gondola is out. The answer is the bus, whether it is gas or electric. We need a
flexible transportation system. The only practical one is the bus. He also brought up the idea of
taxing bicycles.
2. Toni Kronberg talked about the petition that was submitted and rejected due to failure to turn it in
in a timely manner.
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS
Councilwoman Mullins said she went to the CML conference in Breckenridge. Each of our communities
are dealing with similar things. What is different is how they deal with them. It was a pretty valuable
conference.
Councilman Myrin said he agrees with Toni. If we are hesitant to put something on the ballot we should
ask ourselves why. The Electric vehicle sales event ends this Friday. Go to garfieldcleanenergy.org for
more information. Councils top ten list making session is July 27th and 28. Let council know what you
want us to work on for the next two years. On the Wagner Park grass replacement, he would like to see
the city contribute the 2 ½ weeks and the organizing entity contribute the cost to replace the grass. It is a
big ask for the city. Our contribution is the time of the park being closed. Grizzly bridge access by the
music tent is closed, is that public or private. Steve Barwick said he would look into this. The pedestrian
mall workshop this past Saturday was well attended and a good event.
Councilman Hauenstein stated after the November election his daughter came to him and told him about
students fearful of their parents being deported. I came to council and asked for the police to make no
extra effort to target people by the way they looked. I think it is important for us to state our beliefs from
time to time. He read a proclamation stating Aspen as a city of tolerance and welcome.
Mayor Skadron said today was the kick off of the music festival. He spoke at the event today. The
IDEAS festival is also happening.
BOARD REPORTS
Councilwoman Mullins said the Board of Health has a new public health director and she is doing a great
job. If you want to know more talk to Ann. There is a Bill right now in the house to digitize vaccination
cards.
P25
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 26, 2017
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso #96 – Ice Garden electrical upgrades
Councilman Hauenstein said there is a 30 percent contingency. It seems high. Does this change order
make the Ice Garden and Red Brick carbon free.
Jeff Pendarvis, asset, said it is a remodel to part of the system. In 2010 council directed staff to have an
adequate contingency 25-30 percent to cover large projects. To go off of fossil to all electric we had the
contingency and could have gone forward but we wanted to bring it back to you. We are trying to get to a
policy decision.
Councilman Myrin said this came out of a request I made. At some point the mechanical will need to be
replaced. I don’t think there is any rush to abandon what is there. Councilman Hauenstein said he is
totally in support of getting off of fossil fuels.
Reso #97 – radar trailers
Councilwoman Mullins asked how many and where will they be located. Bill Linn, police, said it is for
two signs on trailers. Councilwoman Mullins said currently we have three. Mr. Linn said we are getting
rid of the current third. We have budget next year for the third.
Mayor Skadron said he finds the trailers necessary but distasteful.
Councilman Myrin asked if they will comply with the new sign code. Jim True, city attorney, said he
does not have an answer to that now. It is a legitimate question. It would have a provision for
government advisory and direction signs. We would anticipate they would comply with how we design
that. Councilman Myrin said the memo said several accidents happened with the last ones and people
driving into them. Mr. Linn said we like to think since they are bright that won’t happen but we can’t
control where people put their cars.
· Resolution #96, Series of 2017 – Aspen Ice Garden Electrical Upgrades Change Order #001
· Resolution #97, Series of 2017 – Replacement of Police Department radar trailers with messaging
signs
· Resolution #98, Series of 2017 – Public Safety Radio equipment replacement Construction Inc.
· Minutes – May 8, 22 and June 12, 2017
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 2017 – Harassing Dog Code Amendment
Mr. Linn said this code amendment will bring the current code in alignment with what Pitkin County
currently enforces. This is a shortcoming in our code. The current code allows for us to intervene with
vicious animals. If a dog bites or carries out violence on another person or animal. This is a gap between
that. A good example would be for a runner or biker on a trail with a dog running after and biting at your
ankles. Ginna Gordon, community response office, stated she has been working with the department for
8 months and this is a source of frustration for us. Only 20 percent of dog calls fall within the vicious dog
ordinance. This is something we wanted to look at. Most ski towns have some type of dangerous dog
ordinance.
Councilman Myrin said the memo states it will protect wildlife. It seems like maybe little kids as well.
Councilwoman Mullins asked where would the revenue go. Mr. Linn replied the same as any other fines,
the general fund.
Mayor Skadron said we are adopting the ordinance used by Pitkin County. Ms. Gordon said their code
includes biting. Ours does not include that. Once a dogs bites someone it falls under vicious.
P26
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 26, 2017
4
Councilwoman Mullins move to read Ordinance #20, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 20
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
TITLE 6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN – ANIMALS AND FOWL – TO
ADD A NEW SECTION 6.08.190 ENTITLED: KEEPING A HARASSING DOG PROHIBITED.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #20, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2017 – 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Amendment to Ordinance #29, Series
of 2009
Amy Simon, community development, stated this will amend the 2009 ordinance. This is a unique
situation. There were many years of discussion about post war mid century resources and how the city
would proceed with designation. In 2009 there was a process in place where a property could not proceed
with work without taking a 90 day pause and talking to staff and Council about their plans and talking
about options. The owners applied for a demo permit then approached Council. There was an agreement
made that allowed the owners to keep the demo permit that would be valid for 10 years. This took
pressure off them to remove the building. They never intended to remove it in the first place. The
ordinance is about to expire in two years. They still would like the assurance that there is no pressure.
They are proposing a change of another 10 years in validity for the demo permit. If action is taken to
demo we are asking that another 90 day period be enacted. There is a provision if demo is not acted on
Council could chose to involuntarily landmark the property. The applicant would like that removed.
Councilman Hauenstein said the permit was originally issued to fend of Aspenmodern designation. Ms.
Simon replied yes. Councilman Hauenstein asked is the Aspenmodern program all voluntarily. Ms.
Simon replied yes. Mr. Hauenstein asked why would we not remove the involuntarily part. Ms. Simon
said that is a good discussion for second reading.
Mayor Skadron said this is for a permit extension and or other amendments. What are the other
amendments. Ms. Simon said they did not suggest any. The extension is the easy way.
Councilman Myrin Moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 19
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #29, (SERIES OF 2009) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE.
Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
P27
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 26, 2017
5
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2017 – Lots 12 and 12A of Callahan Subdivision; Minor Subdivision –
Lot Split; Planned Development Amendment, and Removal of an ADU
Ben Anderson, community development, told the Council the property is located in the Stillwater Ranch
HOA and zoned R15. It is one parcel drawn and labeled as two lots. The current owners purchased the
property as a single lot. The lot split requires three approvals; lot split, a minor planned development
amendment to establish floor area and removal of an ADU. Second reading is scheduled for August 14.
Councilwoman Mullins asked what housing mitigation was undertaken originally. Mr. Anderson replied
lot 12A has a guesthouse and was vacant when purchased. When the building permit was submitted and
completed an ADU was completed.
Councilman Myrin said page 396 talks about the ADU being oversized. Is the .38 applied if is oversized
or bigger. Mr. Anderson replied correct. When the 2000 PD amendment confirmed it as a single lot,
based on the presence of the guest house, the balance of the floor area was assigned to the main house.
The floor areas for each lot remain as it was for the 2000 PD. Councilman Myrin said at second reading
he would like some clarity for what it would be under today’s code. Page 385 says it must always be sold
together and never separately. That is what we are changing here. What was the reasoning behind that
initially. Mr. Anderson said it was part of the initial subdivision agreement.
Councilman Hauenstein asked if the ADU was ever used as employee housing. Mr. Anderson said he is
not sure, it was never deed restricted. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, said the ADU has been
rented at times but it has never been deed restricted so we can never say if it was a qualified rental.
Councilman Myrin moved to read Ordinance #18, Series of 2017; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 18
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
REVIEWS FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION – LOT SPLIT, A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW AND THE REMOVAL OF AN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT FOR 1449 AND 1452 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED LOT 12
AND 12A, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED MAY 19, 1796
IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7, AND AMENDED FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16, AND PARCEL B, THAT CERTAIN
PARCEL PLATTED AND DESCRIBED AS “OPEN SPACE FOR LOT 12A” ON THE FINAL PLAT
OF CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7,
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 2017 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn at 6:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P28
VI.d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Amendment to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009
Second Reading of Ordinance #19, Series 2017
DATE: July 10, 2017
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Vaughan Capital Partners,
L.P.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mitch Haas, Haas Land
Planning
LOCATION:
211 W. Hopkins, Lots F and
G, Block 53, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado,
PID #2735-124-63-003.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-6, Medium Density
Residential. The property is a
6,000 square foot lot and
contains a single family home.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: 211 W. Hopkins Avenue is a Pan Abode
kit structure, built by the applicant as a vacation home in 1956. The
City of Aspen first identified Pan Abode buildings like this one as
potentially having historic significance as part of historic preservation
studies conducted in 2000. For more than a decade after that, the City
debated and initiated a few versions of the current AspenModern
program. In 2009, at a time when the City required a “demolition
delay” and negotiation period before a property of interest could be
demolished, this owner approached Council and negotiated the terms
outlined in Ordinance #29, Series of 2009. The City committed to a
demolition permit that is valid until 2020 (about 10 times the normal
period) to reduce the pressure on the homeowner to remove the
building. Before demolition, the owner must give the City 90 days
notice to allow a chance to advocate for preservation options. The
owners have no current plans to remove the house. With the permit
set to expire in the next couple of years, the owners have requested a
permit extension and/or other amendments to the ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of
amendments to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009.
Figure 1: Photo of
211 W. Hopkins
Avenue
P29
IX.a
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the 2009 ordinance that approved an extended
demolition permit for this property. City Council is the sole review authority.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There are no criteria in the Municipal Code regarding this amendment. Only Council can pass or
amend an Ordinance, and the amendment must be considered at a public hearing.
In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #30, Series of
2007, that prohibited any exterior alterations, land use applications, or building permits affecting
all non-landmarked buildings constructed at least 30 years prior, unless it was determined that no
potential historic resource was negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect
Aspen’s significant architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as
well.
Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous meetings to
discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular, Council wished
to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from all properties over 30
years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to potentially qualify for landmark
designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 was adopted to replace
Ordinance #30.
Ordinance #48 created a more specific list of post-World War II potential historic resources,
including 211 W. Hopkins Avenue. After the passage of Ordinance #48, the owners of 211 W.
Hopkins had the following options for alterations to their property:
P30
IX.a
A. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay under
Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or
B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from
Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC review
(depending on the scope of work) of the project, or
C. Refuse the option for HPC review and submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90
day delay period, during which time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate
preservation of the property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to
landmark designate the property, the building permits will be processed as requested.
In March of 2009, the owners of 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, submitted an application for a
demolition permit and requested negotiation with Council. The discussion took approximately a
year to be resolved (partly due to scheduling conflicts), but resulted in a number of agreements.
The property owner had no immediate plans to demolish the existing house and wanted
assurance that they would not have to choose between demolition or an involuntary historic
designation for several years. The City wanted to preserve the opportunity to incentivize a
voluntary designation or attempt preservation options, such as an off-site relocation, given that
211 W. Hopkins is one of the best remaining examples of a Pan Abode home. Pan Abodes have
a particular significance to Aspen’s post-war development boom since their quick assembly and
affordable price suited the short building season and demand for new construction in that era.
The granting of a demolition permit that would be valid for 10 years was unprecedented.
Because it was unknown at that time how the on-going discussions of regulations for post-war
historic properties would unfold, the agreement with the property owner allowed for the City to
initiate an involuntary designation if demolition didn’t occur before the permit expired. The
permit expiration date is now three years away. The property is owned by several family
members who still have no near term plans to demolish and do not want to be forced into that
position. Staff is in favor of making amendments to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009. Although
the AspenModern program adopted in 2011 made designation of properties like this one
voluntary, this property owner initiated agreements at a time when the City had more options to
insist on preservation and staff believes that most of the terms of Ordinance #29, Series of 2009
should be retained. The property owner’s request is to extend the demolition permit and strike
the option for Council to initiate involuntary designation.
The terms of Ordinance #29, Series of 2009 are listed below. Edits recommended by staff are
shown with redlines:
1. Council hereby authorizes Permit #0013.2009.ARBK for the demolition of the house, to
be processed for issuance by the City of Aspen Building Department. The permit shall be
available for issuance for a period of 10 years from the effective date of this Ordinance.
Howard A. Vaughan, Jr, of Vaughan Capital Partners L.P., commits to not demolishing
the house for a three year period from the effective date of this Ordinance. The
agreement to not demolish for three years only remains valid as long as Mr. Vaughan is
alive.
1. The City of Aspen Building Department accepted a permit to demolish the home at 211
E. Hopkins Avenue and committed to issuing that permit (Permit 0013.2009.ARBK) at
such time that the property owner requests, up until May 17, 2020. Through this
Ordinance, Ordinace #19, Series of 2017, City Council directs the City of Aspen Building
Department to extend that expiration date an additional ten (10) years, to May 17, 2030,
with the condition that before the property owner may receive the permit, they will be
P31
IX.a
required to supplement the permit application with any life-safety, construction
management or other information that is standard practice for demolition permits at the
date the applicant contacts the City.
2. Prior to issuance of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the owner shall provide written
notification to the Community Development Director, by certified mail. Receipt of the
letter shall commence a new ninety (90) day negotiation period. Within the ninety day
negotiation period the following shall occur:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark
through Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415 provisions for AspenModern
designations. The applicant will be asked to consider other alternatives to acting on
the remodel or demolition permits, and to identify incentives that would deter the
demolition. Based on the conversation with the owner, the Community Development
Director may waive the requirements of b and c, below.
b. The applicant will be asked to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission
during a public meeting to discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the
appropriateness of any incentives that the applicant requests. HPC shall make a
recommendation to City Council, whether the applicant participates in the meeting or
not.
c. The applicant will be asked to meet with City Council during a public meeting to
discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the appropriateness of any
incentives that the applicant requests. City Council may negotiate directly with the
property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director or
other City staff as necessary to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource. The City Council may
choose to provide this direction in Executive Session pursuant to State Statute. As
part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council shall require that the
property be designated as a Historic Landmark pursuant to the standards and
limitation of the Municipal Code. Council may grant incentives by adopting an
Ordinance at a public hearing. Council may also direct HPC to grant incentives that
are within their own purview. City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to
terminate negotiations at any time. Upon the passage of 90 days, or any mutually
agreed upon extension thereof, or upon Council’s termination of the negotiation, if
the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement,
Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be issued.
3. Upon issuance, Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be valid for a period consistent with the
Building Code in effect at the time of issuance.
4. It is expected that the owner will cooperate in good faith with any efforts to relocate the
building in lieu of demolition.
5. Upon expiration of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the City is authorized to commence the
landmark designation process for the subject property. (Note: At First Reading, staff
indicated that this condition should remain as a safety net for preserving the building.
The owner strongly objects and, after reconsideration, we prefer to eliminate the potential
P32
IX.a
for this language to cause them to act on the demolition permit that they have a right to
receive.)
6. Upon landmark designation of the subject property pursuant to Section 1, Number 5
above, the property shall be eligible for the landmark benefits and incentives, Section
26.420 of the Aspen Land Use Code, in place at the time of recordation of this
Ordinance, attached as Exhibit A.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the request to amend Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, be approved on
Second Reading as described above and stated in the attached Ordinance #19, Series of 2017.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2017.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #19, Series of 2017
Exhibit A: City Council Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit B: Application
P33
IX.a
Ordinance #19, Series of 2017
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE #19
(SERIES OF 2017)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #29 (SERIES
OF 2009) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE
PARCEL #2735-124-63-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Vaughan Capital Partners, L.P., represented by Haas Land Planning, requesting approval
of an amendment to Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, affecting their property at 211 W.
Hopkins Avenue. Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, placed conditions on any future
proposal to demolish the structure on the subject site; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant requested Council amend the terms of the Ordinance with
regard to the expiration date of a demolition permit issued as 0013.2009.ARBK, and
reconsider the City Council’s ability to initiate historic designation of the property if
demolition does not take place before the permit expires; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application and
recommended approval of amendments to the Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Ordinance #29, Series of 2009, Sections 1, is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
Section 1.1:
1. The City of Aspen Building Department accepted a permit to demolish the home at
211 E. Hopkins Avenue and committed to issuing that permit (Permit
0013.2009.ARBK) at such time that the property owner requests, up until May 17,
2020. Through this Ordinance, Ordinace #19, Series of 2017, City Council directs
the City of Aspen Building Department to extend that expiration date an additional
ten (10) years, to May 17, 2030, with the condition that before the property owner
may receive the permit, they will be required to supplement the permit application
with any life-safety, construction management or other information that is standard
practice for demolition permits at the date the applicant contacts the City.
Section 1.2.a:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property
owner to discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and
other benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as
a Historic Landmark through Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.415
P34
IX.a
Ordinance #19, Series of 2017
Page 2 of 3
provisions for AspenModern designations. The applicant will be asked to
consider other alternatives to acting on the remodel or demolition permits, and
to identify incentives that would deter the demolition. Based on the
conversation with the owner, the Community Development Director may
waive the requirements of b and c, below.
Section 1.5: Deleted in its entirety
Section 1.6: Deleted in its entirety.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,
unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of July, 2017, 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 26th day of June, 2017.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P35
IX.a
Ordinance #19, Series of 2017
Page 3 of 3
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this __________________.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P36
IX.a
ORDINANCE #29
Series of 2009)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
TERMINATING ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007 NEGOTIATIONS FOR
LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 211 W. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G,
BLOCK 53, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WITH CONDITIONS
PARCEL ID: 2735.124.63.003
WHEREAS, Vaughan Capital Partners L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership, whose address is
11414 Maple Avenue, Hebron, Illinois, 60034, represented by attorney John Kelly of Oates,
Knezevich, Gardenswartz & Kelly, P.C., has applied for a building permit to demolish the house
located at 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 53, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado. Under the provisions of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, Vaughan Capital Partners L.P.
subsequently consented to a ninety day review and negotiation of potential historic significance
of the subject house. The negotiation period was extended thrice, with the owner's consent; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 (e) of the Municipal Code states that "the Community
Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public
meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the Potential Historic
Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the Historic
Preservation Commission;" and
WHEREAS, the property owner was notified of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting;
and
WHEREAS, Sara Adams, performed an analysis of the building and found that the criteria for
landmark designation are met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on November 11, 2009, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application, found that the subject property is the best example of the
Pan Abode style in Aspen, and approved a motion to recommend Council pursue negotiations for
landmark designation by a vote of 4-0.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that negotiation for landmark designation may be appropriate,
but are premature without any development plans or proposal from the applicant for incentives that
would deter demolition or alteration; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance to terminate negotiation with conditions
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
211 W. Hopkins Avenue
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Page 1 of 4
P37
IX.a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Neeotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Aspen City Council hereby grants the following:
1. Council hereby authorizes Permit #0013.2009.ARBK for the demolition of the house, to
be processed for issuance by the City of Aspen Building Department. The permit shall be
available for issuance for a period of 10 years from the effective date of this Ordinance.
Howard A. Vaughan, Jr, of Vaughan Capital Partners L.P., commits to not demolishing
the house for a three year period from the effective date of this Ordinance. The
agreement to not demolish for three years only remains valid as long as Mr. Vaughan is
alive.
2. Prior to issuance of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the owner shall provide written
notification to the Community Development Director, by certified mail. Receipt of the
letter shall commence a new ninety (90) day negotiation period. Within the ninety day
negotiation period the following shall occur:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
The applicant will be asked to consider other alternatives to acting on the remodel or
demolition permits, and to identify incentives that would deter the demolition. Based
on the conversation with the owner, the Community Development Director may
waive the requirements of b and c, below.
b. The applicant will be asked to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission
during a public meeting to discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the
appropriateness of any incentives that the applicant requests. HPC shall make a
recommendation to City Council, whether the applicant participates in the meeting or
not.
c. The applicant will be asked to meet with City Council during a public meeting to
discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the appropriateness of any
incentives that the applicant requests. City Council may negotiate directly with the
property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director or
other City staff as necessary to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource. The City Council may
choose to provide this direction in Executive Session pursuant to State Statute. As
part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council shall require that the
property be designated as a Historic Landmazk pursuant to the standards and
limitation of the Municipal Code. Council may grant incentives by adopting an
Ordinance at a public hearing. Council may also direct HPC to grant incentives that
211 W. Hopkins Avenue
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Page 2 of 4
P38
IX.a
are within their own purview. City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to
terminate negotiations at any time. Upon the passage of 90 days, or any mutually
agreed upon extension thereof, or upon Council's termination of the negotiation, if the
City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement,
Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be issued.
3. Upon issuance, Permit #0013.2009.ARBK shall be valid for a period consistent with the
Building Code in effect at the time of issuance.
4. It is expected that the owner will cooperate in good faith with any efforts to relocate the
building in lieu of demolition.
5. Upon expiration of Permit #0013.2009.ARBK, the City is authorized to commence the
landmark designation process for the subject property.
6. Upon landmark designation of the subject property pursuant to Section 1, Number 5
above, the property shall be eligible for the landmark benefits and incentives, Section
26.420 of the Aspen Land Use Code, in place at the time of recordation of this Ordinance,
attached as Exhibit A.
Section 2: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 3: Existine Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8`h of March, 2010 continued to the 22"d of
March, and finally the ]0`h of May, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
Colorado, fifreen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen, mailed to property owners within three
hundred (300) feet and posted on the property.
211 W. Hopkins Avenue
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Page 3 of 4
P39
IX.a
P40
IX.a
Exhibit A
Chapter 26.420
BENEFITS FOR PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES
Sections:
Sec. 26.420.010. Purpose and intent.
Sec. 26.420.020. Benefits.
Sec. 26.420.010. Purpose and intent.
A. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are
an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable
community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an
innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country.
B. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been
legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and
maintaining their property.
C. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated
anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically
vital and cherished by many. ,• ~
D. The purpose of this Chapter is to set forth in one location all of the benefits that are potentially
available to owners of properties listed on Aspen's inventory of historic landmark sites and structures.
E. All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures may be
eligible for the following benefits. Applications for the award of the benefits may be obtained from
the Community Development Department and specific policies and procedures for each benefit will
be established by the Historic Preservation Commission. (Ord. No. 2-2002 § 1 (part), 2002)
Sec. 26.420.020. Benefits.
A. Financial benefits.
1. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an amount up to
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation of Section
26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, "Demolition by Neglect," or to fund other rehabilitation work
which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a designated structure. To be
eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence of financial need. These one-time
loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer-of--title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever
comes first.
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 4
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400, Page 59
P41
IX.a
Exhibit A
2. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement" from a
property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their property in
exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the site to show that
future development is limited. The five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus provided
in Subsection 26.415.120F, of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation
easement.
3. City-owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset management
plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or restore City-
owned designated properties.
4. Transferable development rights. Per Chapter 26.535 of this Code, owners of properties listed
on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may sever and convey, as a
separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different and
nonhistoric property within the City.
B. Developmental benefits.
1. Dimensional variances. The following variances may be approved if it is shown that they are
part of a proposed development which has no negative impact on the character-defining
features of the designated property or historic district:
a. Side, rear and front yard setbacks;
b. Minimum required distance between buildings;
c. Maximum floor area may be exceeded up to five hundred (500) square feet;
d. Variance to exceed the allowed site coverage by up to five percent (5%);
e. Parking waivers and waivers of cash-in-lieu fees are permitted on sites unable to contain
the required number of on-site parking spaces required by underlying zoning;
The open space dimensional requirement may be varied when a historic commercial
building is relocated on its site, resulting in an inability to meet the standard.
Refer to Subsections 26.415.120.B., C and E for further information.
2. Increased density. Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on
a smaller sized lot than is required for a nondesignated property in the following Zone
Districts: R-6, R-15, R-I SA, RMF and O. Refer to Chapter 26.710 for further information.
3. Historic landmark lot split. When a designated parcel is at leas[ six thousand (6,000) square
feet in size, subdivision into two (2) parcels, neither of which is smaller than three thousand
3,000) square feet in size, for the purpose of creating up to three (3) residential dwelling units
may be allowed in the following Zone Districts: R-6, R-I5, R-15A, RMF and O. Refer to
Subsection 26.415.120.A for further information.
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 4
City of Aspen Land Use Cade
Part 400, Page 60
P42
IX.a
Exhibit A
4. Waiver of fees. Waiver of park dedication fees may be granted for development on properties
listed on the Aspen inventory of historic sites and structures.
5. Conditional uses. Certain land uses may be permitted in a given Zone District only for
designated properties. Refer [o Chapter 26.710 for further information.
6. Exemption from the growth management quota system.
a. Change-in-use with no expansion of net leasable square footage requires no affordable
housing impact mitigation.
b. Expansions of designated properties shall only be required to mitigate growth impacts
when net leasable and floor area is increased.
c. When a development is required to mitigate for affordable housing, the amount of housing
that must be provided on site or through acash-in-lieu payment may be reduced by one
percent (1%) for every one percent (1%) the project is under the maximum allowed floor
area.
d. Designated properties shall be exempt from competition for growth management quota
system allocations.
e. Accessory dwelling units or cash in lieu fees shall not be required on properties where a
Historic Landmark Lot Split" is approved after March 31, 2002.
Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information.
C. Technical assistance.
Tax credit applications. City Planning staff shall assist property owners in participating in
State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the preparation of
application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining certification. A
twenty percent (20%) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available for locally
designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20%) Federal Income Tax
Credit which is available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
2. Community-initiated development. The City will consider opportunities to be involved in
public-privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion or infill projects that
demonstrate good historic preservation practices.
3. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC) provides for flexibility in its
application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City has adopted the
International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs in a manner
that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure.
Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2009
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 4
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400, Page 61
P43
IX.a
P44
IX.a
Staff Summary of Exhibit A:
With Standard Landmark Incentives (May 2010 Land Use Code)
Zoning R-6
Existing lot size 6,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot size 3,000 sq ft./ dwelling
Maximum number of residential
2 residential units: either 2 detached or 1 duplexunits
3240 sq. ft. (the current R-6 FAR maximum) + potential 500 sq. fr.
Maximum FAR FAR Bonus granted by HPC
Eligible to sever and sell TDRs in increments of 250 sq. ft. to reduce
Transferrable Development Rights maximum FAR with Council approval.
HPC may grant setback variances in order to preserve historic
Setback Requirements resource
AH mitigation requirement waived on a landmark lot that has a
Affordable Housing Mitigation historic resource on it.
Parking HPC may grant a waiver of parking requirement.
Transportation Demand
Fee waived for additions to historic landmarks
Management Fees
Parks Fees Fee waived for additions to historic landmarks
More flexibility to remove trees at the rear and possibly one tree at
the front of the property to preserve the historic home and make room
Existing Trees for an addition. Removal of trees requires Parks Department
approval.
P45
IX.a
P46
IX.a
P47
IX.a
P48IX.a
P49IX.a
P50IX.a
P51IX.a
P52IX.a
P53IX.a
P54IX.a
P55IX.a
P56IX.a
P57IX.a
P58IX.a
P59IX.a
P60IX.a
P61IX.a
P62IX.a
P63IX.a
P64IX.a
P65IX.a
P66IX.a
P67IX.a
P68IX.a
P69IX.a
P70IX.a
P71IX.a
P72IX.a
P73IX.a
P74IX.a
P75IX.a
P76IX.a
P77IX.a
P78IX.a
P79IX.a
P80IX.a
P81IX.a
P82IX.a
P83IX.a
July 10, 2017 Mandated Sign Code Update Policy Resolution Memo
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
James R. True, City Attorney
RE: Policy Resolution: Reed-compliant Amendments to the Sign Regulations in the
Land Use Code
Resolution 101, Series 2017
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2017
SUMMARY:
The attached Resolution 101, Series 2017 describes Council policy direction for code amendments
to the sign regulations in the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The objective of the proposed code
amendments is to comply with the requirements of the United States Supreme Court decision in
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015).
If the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will draft an ordinance for Council’s consideration to
amend the Land Use Code is accordance with the policies contained in the resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
This meeting is to review potential changes to the Land Use Code sections regulating signage.
Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code
amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the second step in the process:
1. Public Outreach.
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued.
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
BACKGROUND
In June, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (Reed) that
municipal sign code regulations must be “content neutral,” meaning that regulations on signage
must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity
displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the sign to
determine if it complies with a regulation then it is not content neutral. This ruling rendered
aspects of municipal sign codes around the country non-compliant, requiring revision to ensure
that references to the content of signs were removed from the regulations.
P84
IX.b
July 10, 2017 Mandated Sign Code Update Policy Resolution Memo
Page 2 of 6
In the Reed case, the sign in question was a temporary sign advertising the location of a church
service, which was placed and removed weekly. These signs were classified by the Town as
political or ideological signage, which were limited to being displayed only within specified
hours. The Town cited Reed (the church) for exceeding the time limit allotted for the display of
such signs. Reed sued for infringing freedom of speech, because the sign regulations were based
on the political or ideological content of the sign.
The Supreme Court sided with Reed, in part, because the Gilbert sign code made a distinction
between various forms of temporary signage and imposed different regulations based on their
content. This simple distinction had implications for municipal governments around the country,
who have been forced to amend sign regulations to be content neutral. Like these other
municipalities, the City of Aspen is required to make changes to comply with the Reed ruling.
Staff first met with Council on April 18, 2017 to discuss these amendments. At that meeting,
Council directed staff to begin the code amendment process. Subsequently, staff began the
public outreach efforts, meeting with stakeholders and community members to inform them of
the requirements under Reed, gauge their opinions on sign regulations and disseminate
information to the public about the process. A project page on AspenCommunityVoice.com
went live in late April, providing information and feedback tools to the public and business
community. Planning staff met individually with the Aspen Resort Chamber Association, the
Aspen Board of Realtors, the Commercial Core and Lodge Commission, the Historic
Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission to disseminate information
about Reed, describe some of the amendments that may be required under Reed, and gather
feedback on those aspects of the sign code which may be most important or impactful to their
interests. The public outreach process has yielded useful and compelling information that has
informed the Policy Resolution and draft amendments. A detailed summary of the outreach
findings is included in Exhibit C.
OVERVIEW
This memo highlights the important areas of the sign code which should be amended to comply
with the Reed court case. Each topic area includes the previous direction from Council on the
topic, relevant P&Z and HPC comments, and relevant data collected from the public outreach
process. These topic areas correspond to specific policy statements in the Policy Resolution.
There are numerous smaller changes needed as well, including changes to language and
formatting in the current sign code required to remove potentially content-based regulations. Not
all of those potential changes are highlighted in the Policy Resolution or this memo, as they are
captured in the general policy statement directing the code to be revised for Reed compliance
and required to meet the Reed standard. The numbered items below correspond to the numbers
in Section 2 of Resolution 101.
1. Maintain the Status Quo: At the June 13th work session, Council directed staff to maintain
the status quo, to the extent possible, with respect to commercial and residential signage.
This was in response to the view that, generally, the current regulations are working. This
view is supported by the results of both the community and business surveys. The
community stated that the current sign regulations adequately assist in their finding goods
P85
IX.b
July 10, 2017 Mandated Sign Code Update Policy Resolution Memo
Page 3 of 6
and services and cultural amenities in town. While the business community felt that the
amount of signage available to them is adequate for their needs. To the extent possible, the
amendments to the sign code will attempt to maintain the status quo, except for those areas
where Council directs staff to make more targeted changes.
2. Light Pole and Main Street Banners: During the work session, Council supported
developing a licensing system, administered by the City, to continue to allow light pole and
Main Street banners for advertising non-commercial and special events. This system will
depend on code language stating that the infrastructure for these types of signs is City
property and requires a license or special permit for the display of a banner. This system
will, in effect, make the banners public property subject to the less restrictive legal standard
available to government speech. The business and community surveys did not address these
types of signs specifically, but the community survey found that 31% of respondents
identified finding civic, recreational and cultural amenities and events as being an important
function of signage in Aspen.
3. Government-required Construction Site Sign: This concept was the direct result of
Council’s discussion of the various types and impacts of yard signs in the community.
Council suggested staff develop the format and content of a uniform construction site sign
that may include: building permit number, project contact information, project descriptions,
contractors and other entities participating in the project, and a visual depiction (where
relevant) of the project. The effect of this would be to reduce the complexity of the potential
changes to the yard sign standards, as well as reduce visual impacts from construction sites
on neighborhoods. By making the sign a government requirement, the sign itself would be
subject to the less restrictive standard available for government signage. The public outreach
process did not address this issue specifically. However, some members of the real estate
community have submitted comment regarding the importance of for sale signs to the
success of their business. Others in the real estate community felt that the elimination of
yard signs would not harm their business. The development of the uniform construction site
sign would eliminate those types of signs from the broader yard sign discussion, making the
regulations for other yard signs, including real estate signs, simpler and better able to account
for real estate signs as distinct from construction signs.
4. Real Estate Signs: During the discussion regarding yard signs, Council discussed whether
some changes to the regulation of real estate signs was warranted. There was some Council
discussion, but no consensus, on whether to reduce the maximum allowable size for real
estate signs. But the direction provided was to attempt to maintain the status quo. Staff
believes that yard sign regulations could be drafted that would allow for the status quo to be
maintained for real estate signs. As was stated above, the real estate community has
provided mixed comments on real estate signs, with many commenting that it was important
to the success of their business to continue to allow for them.
5. Sandwich Board Signs: During the Council work session, there were a variety of opinions
on the continued use of sandwich boards ranging from continuing to allow the status quo to
eliminating them in their entirety. A majority of City Council supported retaining the status
quo for sandwich boards in limited applications. Respondents in the community survey
P86
IX.b
July 10, 2017 Mandated Sign Code Update Policy Resolution Memo
Page 4 of 6
favored continuing to allow for sandwich boards in limited applications in commercial zones.
The public indicated that sandwich board signs are important for finding specific businesses,
and the business community identified sandwich board signs as the second most important
sign type behind hanging signs. Rather than making sandwich board signs available to
specific business types, Council favored using the sandwich board allowance to support its
second tier commercial space regulations and policies. Based on the previous Council
discussion, as well as input from the surveys and HPC and P&Z, the policy resolution is
written to allow for sandwich board signs for businesses located in second tier spaces in the
CC, C-1, NC, SCI and EBO zone districts.
6. Vehicle Signs: Council directed staff to continue to allow vehicle signage that is incidental
or secondary to the primary use of the vehicle for transportation. This will ensure that
contractors’ trailers, delivery vans and work trucks are not caught in regulations for less
desirable vehicle signage. Council also directed staff to explore duration and size restrictions
on street blimps and other types of primary purpose vehicle signage to ensure they are not
permitted to linger or proliferate in town.
7. Marijuana Business Window Wraps: Council provided feedback to staff that the full
window wraps used by marijuana businesses to comply with state separation standards are an
eyesore. Staff suggests eliminating the ability for such businesses to use full window wraps,
favoring instead the use of window displays, which are not treated as signage in the code, to
comply with state requirements. This change would not alter the regulations for window
wraps generally, which are discussed below.
8. Window Wraps: The discussion of marijuana window wraps included discussion of
window wraps generally. Council felt that, given the importance placed on these signs by the
business community (32% indicated they are the most important sign type for businesses),
they should continue to be available in commercial districts. However, there was discussion
as to the appropriateness of window wraps (which are allowed to cover 50% of the window
area and include 25% of that area as commercial copy) in the Main Street Historic District.
This zone is lower intensity than the downtown historic commercial zones and more
residential in character. As such, staff suggests allowing window wraps as currently
provided for in the code in the CC, C-1, NC, SCI and EBO zone districts. This has been
included in the policy resolution.
9. Television Displays: The current sign regulations distinguish between commercial and non-
commercial use of televisions and other digital displays. Council directed staff to craft
regulations which allow for the continued use of televisions for non-commercial applications
(e.g. showing a baseball game) in bars, restaurants and other commercial spaces while
ensuring that televisions aren’t placed directly in windows to display purely commercial copy
(e.g. a looping advertisement). To achieve this, staff will draft regulations which require a
minimum distance for TVs from rights-of-way while not distinguishing between commercial
and non-commercial applications. The public outreach efforts did not include discussion of
televisions. However, none of the individual comments in public meetings, stakeholder
meetings or at the end of the surveys made specific reference to televisions, indicating that it
is not an area of focus or concern for the community or businesses.
P87
IX.b
July 10, 2017 Mandated Sign Code Update Policy Resolution Memo
Page 5 of 6
10. Signs in Paepcke Park: Council supported staff’s suggestion to remove the code section
providing for a separate process for the display of signs in Paepcke Park. Signage in Paepcke
Park will be treated the same as signage in other parks, which is permitted as part of a special
event permit. This will shorten and simplify the code and prevent the possibility that
Paepcke Park could be used as a venue for the display of non-commercial signage not
associated with an event requiring a City permit.
11. Backlit Signs: Council requested that staff explore further regulating halo and other backlit
sign types. The current regulations permit the use of LEDs, which can be bright enough to
create a nuisance. Council noted some examples downtown of LED-backlit signs which are
brighter than ought to be permitted for commercial signage. Staff is researching what
appropriate standards for such illumination might be, and the proposed regulations will be
included in the draft ordinance.
As was noted above, there are numerous other amendments required to comply with Reed which
are not embedded in the specific policy statements in Resolution 101 and listed above. Those
small amendments are captured in the over-arching policy of complying with the requirements of
Reed. The draft ordinance to amend the sign code will include all of the recommend changes to
achieve that over-arching policy.
P&Z FEEDBACK: The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) discussed the sign code changes
at their June 20, 2017 meeting. The discussion included all the key policy areas discussed with
Council at the June 13, 2017 work session. P&Z focused their comments on the following areas:
1. Menu Boxes: The consensus was that menu boxes are an appropriate sign type for
restaurants, and they supported the existing policy of allowing them as an additional sign
type for restaurants that does not impact their over-all sign allotment. The Commission
expressed concern that, if menu box type signs were allowed for all commercial uses, that
unwanted signs could proliferate downtown. One suggestion for continuing to allow for
menu boxes while preventing a proliferation was to limit menu box signs to those
businesses with a public restroom. Staff is exploring the feasibility of this option for
possible inclusion in the draft ordinance.
2. Sandwich Board Signs: The Commission was split on sandwich board signs, with some
favoring the status quo, some favoring a more cautious approach in light of a possible
increase in number, and other members favoring Council’s direction to allow sandwich
boards for second tier space tenants. The group recognized the value of these signs for
businesses, particularly the changeable nature of the copy on the signs and their ability to
direct pedestrians to commercial spaces.
3. Yard Signs: The commission generally felt that there are not presently issues with yard
signs, including real estate and political signs. Members supported providing size and
quantity regulations for residential yard signs which may be displayed on a year-round
basis.
P88
IX.b
July 10, 2017 Mandated Sign Code Update Policy Resolution Memo
Page 6 of 6
4. Light Pole and Main Street Banners: The commission supported the continued
permitting of banners on light poles for special events under the auspices of a new City
permitting process as described above. The commission was split on the value, utility and
aesthetic quality of banners over Main Street. Some on the commission felt that they
function as billboards and are not appropriate. Others questioned the value of the banners
but deferred to the non-profit and special events community as to whether they are
important signage options.
HPC FEEDBACK: The Historic Preservation Commission provided staff with comments on the
importance of historic markers, historic signs, and interpretive signs in the community. To the
extent that historic markers may be impacted by the Reed-mandated code changes, HPC felt
strongly that historic building markers should be retained and continue to be allowed for newly
designated buildings. HPC also commented on the value that historic business signs and
advertisements (e.g. the “Dry Climate Cigars” ad on the side of the Woods building or the
“Aspen Times” lettering on the old Aspen Times Building) have for the community’s historic
fabric. They strongly favored exempting such signs from the sign regulations in order to ensure
they are not impacted by the Reed amendments. Finally, HPC favored exempting interpretive
signs, such as plaques on Gondola Plaza, from the sign regulations to ensure they too are not
impacted by the Reed amendments. Staff believes these types of signs can continue under the
Reed-based code amendments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to approve Resolution No. 101, Series 2017, approving a Policy Resolution regarding
amendments to the sign regulations in the Land Use Code to comply with the requirement of
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015).”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Resolution 101, Series 2017
Exhibit C – Sign Code Update Public Outreach Report
Exhibit D – City Council Work Session Summaries
P89
IX.b
Mandated Sign Code Update Staff Findings – July 10, 2017
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes there is a community interest in amending the Land Use Code (LUC) to comply
with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court Case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. The
proposed amendments ensure that the sign code balances community aesthetics with the
commercial and informational benefits of signage. The proposed amendments also ensure that
the City’s sign regulations remain in accord with federal legal requirements.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy,
community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Findings:
Updating the city’s sign code to comply with the Supreme Court’s Reed decision will ensure that
the legality of the sign regulations in the Land Use Code is maintained, and that the city can
continue to regulate signage to preserve Aspen’s small mountain town character. In work
sessions on this matter, City Council articulated a general goal of ensuring that the public is
provided with access to commercial, civic and wayfinding information in a manner that enhances
public health, safety and welfare while preserving community aesthetics through the regulation
of signage. These goals are supported by the following Aspen Area Community Plan Policies:
· V.2 Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community
needs.
· V.3 Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our
architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of
heights, in order to:
o Create certainty in land development.
o Prioritize maintaining our mountain views.
o Protect our small town community character and historical heritage.
o Limit consumption of energy and building materials.
o Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs.
o Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion,
and demand for affordable housing.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P90
IX.b
Mandated Sign Code Update Staff Findings – July 10, 2017
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 2
C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the
community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the
purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Findings:
The proposed policies and code amendments support and enhance community character by
balancing community aesthetics and character with the value of commercial, civic, safety and
wayfinding signage throughout the community. Further, the proposed policies and code
amendments ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the City’s sign regulations by
ensuring their compliance with the requirements of the Reed decision.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P91
IX.b
C O M M U N I T Y O U T R E A C H
S I G N C O D E A M E N D M E N T S U M M A R Y R E P O R T
The Community Development Department is amending the Sign Code (Chapter 26.510 of the Land Use Code)
to bring the chapter into compliance with the requirements of the Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of
Gilbert (2015).
This report summarizes the results of surveys gained from various outreach efforts from April 23 - June 2, 2017.
The public outreach process will continue until the Policy Resolution is adopted in July, 2017.
Unique
website
visits
Visual
preference
votes
3 Open House
Community
Meetings
50+ 302 132 48
Surveys
completed
P A R T I C I P A T I O N S N A P S H O T
Join the conversation at www.aspencommunityvoice.com
Visited at
least one
project page
118
S U R V E Y #1 : B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y #2 : G E N E R A L C O M M U N I T Y
Total survey participants
P R O F I L E R E S P O N D E N T
Two discrete surveys were created to elicit specific information from the perspectives of the community as well
as Aspen's business community.
26 Total survey participants 22
81.5%
18.5%
Have owned business for over 11 years
Have owned business for 6-10 years
76.9%
15.4%
7.7%
Are located in the MU zone district
Are located in the CC zone district
Are located in the C-1 zone district
65 years + years of age
50 - 64 years of age
30 - 49 years years of age
18 - 29 years of age
City of Aspen residents 27.3%
36.4%
22.7%
13.6%
52%
D I R E C T O U T R E A C H
ACRA
Aspen Board of Realtors
CCLC
Door-to-door business
outreach (Downtown
Service Coordinator)
HPC
P&Z
P92
IX.b
A . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y
Retail
23%
Restaurant
19%
Lodge
4%
Service
15%
Office
27%
Non-Profit
8%
Other
4%
0
0.75
1.5
2.25
3
Hanging SignsSandwich BoardWall SignWindow DecalVisibility
62%
Location
15%
Materials/Appear
23%
Finding: Professional Office use
comprised the majority of survey
respondents, closely followed by retail and
restaurant businesses.
Finding: Hanging signs were the least
important sign type for the business
community.
Finding: The business community indicated
visibility was the most important factor for
signage.
B U S I N E S S T Y P E S
S I G N T Y P E S
F A C T O R S
Question: What signs are most
important to your business? Please
rank in order of importance.
Question: What is the most important factor
for your signage?
Question: What type of business are you?Responses 16%
32%
26% 25%
P93
IX.b
0
2
4
6
More signsFewer signsNo sand boardsMore sand boardsLimit sign/bldg8
10
0
5
10
15
More signsFewer signsNo sandwich boarMore sand boardsLimit sign/bldgA . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y
(C O N T I N U E D )
Finding: Business owners indicated the
strongest detriment to their business
would be limiting the amount of signage
per building.
However, large numbers of respondents
indicated that more signs would be
detrimental to business.
D E T R I M E N T
B E N E F I T
Finding: 32% of respondents indicated the
greatest benefit to their business was
largely the ability to have more signage.
However, 31% responded that limiting the
amount of signage per business in some
way would be beneficial.
Question: What change to Aspen's signage
would be the most detrimental to your
business? Please check all that apply:
Question: What changes to Aspen's
signage would be most beneficial to your
business? Please check all that apply: ResponsesResponsesMore signsFewer signsNo sandwich boardsMore sandwich boardsLimit the amount ofsigns per buildingMore signsFewer signsNo sandwich boardsMore sandwich boardsLimit the amount ofsigns per building 32%
15% 15%
12%
16%
21% 21% 21%
13%
26%
P94
IX.b
B . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y
0
5
10
15
20
Hanging SignsSandwich BoardWall SignWindow DecalFinding: Consumers of Aspen businesses
favored hanging signs and wall signs equally,
with window decals a close second.
Consumers found sandwich board signs to be
the least appropriate for the City of Aspen.
L O C A T I O N F A C T O R S
Question: As a consumer in Aspen, what types
of signs do you find most appropriate in
Aspen? Please check all that apply.
P R E F E R R E D S I G N A G E
Locate Specific
39%
Locate New
27%
Civic/Rec/Cult
31%
Other
4%
Question: Business signage is important for
(check all that apply):
1) Finding a specific business;
2) Finding new businesses;
3) Finding Civic, Recreational, and/or Cultural
facilities; and
4) Other
Finding: Respondent were most concerned with
using signage to locate specific businesses
within the City of Aspen.
Hanging Signs
15%
Sandwich Board
34%
Wall Sign
25%
Window Decal
26%Question: What signs do you feel are most
important to being able to find stores? Rank in
order of importance.
Finding: Sandwich boards were ranked as most
important for consumers to locate businesses.
Hanging signs were ranked as the least
important.
S I G N A G E F O R L O C A T I N G
Finding specific
businesses
Finding new businesses
Civic/
Recreational/
Cultural
29% 27%
15%
29%
P95
IX.b
B . F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E C O M M U N I T Y S U R V E Y (C O N T I N U E D )
Finding: 41% of respondents felt the
existing amount of signage too much,
leading to a cluttered appearance.
A M O U N T O F S I G N A G E
Question: The amount of signage in
Aspen's commercial areas is:
1) Not enough; it is hard to find
businesses, services and amenities I want
to visit.
2) Just right, I know where businesses are
located and how to get there.
3) Too much; buildings are sidewalks
appear cluttered.
C . S T A F F A N A L Y S I S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Not enough
23%
Just right
36%
Too much
41%
There are common themes between the results of the Community and Business survey, which
reflect some of the comments received in open houses and the direct outreach process. In
general, the community seems happy with the status quo when it comes to signage.
Businesses feel that the amount of signage available to them is adequate. Residents generally
feel that the amount of signage in town aids in finding what they need.
There are two noteworthy contradictions. First, community members felt that sandwich board
signs are both the least appropriate sign type for Aspen and the most important sign type for
finding businesses and amenities. This may be due, in part, to the clutter associated with
sandwich boards in the right-of-way contrasted with the proximity of those signs to building
entrances and the relevance of the information provided on a sandwich board sign.
Second, the business community is split on whether more signs would be beneficial or
detrimental to the success of their business. This may be attributed to the perceived individual
benefit of more or highly visible signs for a specific business, but the over-all detriment to
aesthetics and way-finding caused by too much signage in commercial areas.
P96
IX.b
1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2017
AGENDA TOPIC: Reed-compliant Sign Code Update
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director;
Phillip Supino, Long-Range Planner;
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art Daily, Bert Myrin
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Staff and City Council discussed various aspects of the process and possible
outcomes from the Supreme Court mandate sign code revisions. Staff requested specific direction from Council on
key items from the code amendments process, and presented preliminary findings from the public outreach report.
DISCUSSION: Staff presented the background of the Reed case to Council and described the process for
amending the code to comply with the requirements of the Supreme Court case. Council discussed with staff the
Key Discussion Points outlined in the staff memo.
1. Non-Commercial Speech on Public Property: Council favored the continued allowance for special event
banners over Main Street and on light poles. Council supported the less restrictive option described in the
memo, where the City creates a process to establish licensing for the use of the City property and takes
‘ownership’ of the signage for these locations prior to erecting the banners. This would, in effect, make the
banners government speech, which is subject to a lower level of scrutiny under Reed.
2. Yard Signs: Council discussed changing the limitation on the size of real estate signs, and they supported
the idea of creating a government-required construction site sign to eliminate the need for multiple
construction site signs on each active site. Council supported the less restrictive option of allowing for a
limited number of small yard signs to be displayed year round on residential properties. This would allow
for a combination of real estate, political, decorative and other signs without prescribing which are
displayed and at what duration.
3. Window Wraps: Council supported maintain the status quo for window wraps while eliminating them
form the Main Street Historic district. Council also supported the idea of eliminating the use of full window
wraps by marijuana businesses to comply with state separation regulations. They favored window displays
in lieu of full wraps.
4. Televisions and Electronic Displays: Council directed staff to draft regulations which allow for the non-
commercial use of TVs while preventing TV displays of commercial content from proliferating too close to
windows.
5. Sandwich Board Signs: Council favored preventing a proliferation of sandwich board signs by limiting
them to use by tenants of second tier commercial spaces. This may not maintain the exact status quo of
existing sandwich board signs, but it was the preferred alternative to eliminating them or allowing them for
all commercial tenants in applicable zone districts.
6. Vehicle Sings: Staff was directed to maintain the status quo by ensuring that street blimps and other
billboard type vehicles are restricted from town while allowing for secondary signage on work and delivery
vehicles.
7. Paepcke Park: Council supported staff’s suggestion to simplify the code by eliminating this code section.
8. Halo and Backlit signs: Council requested that staff include limits on the brightness of LED-lit halo and
backlit signs to prevent light pollution.
P97
IX.b
2
NEXT STEPS: Staff is returning to Council with a Policy Resolution for consideration at the July 10, 2017
Council Meeting.
P98
IX.b
Reed Compliant Sign Code Amendments
Resolution No. 101, Series 2017
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 101
(SERIES OF 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING
CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S SIGN REGULATIONS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION IN THE CASE OF REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ., 2015.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), a Policy Resolution is required
to initiate the process of amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the United State Supreme Court found in the case of Reed v. Town
of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015) (Reed) that commercial and non-commercial signage are forms of
speech protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and consultants White &
Smith, LLC conducted research into national best practices regarding sign code
compliance with Reed to aid in the drafting of revised sign regulations; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with community members and stakeholders, the
Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City
Council regarding the amendments to the sign code; and,
WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code to comply with the requirements of
Reed will ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the sign regulations within the
City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on July 10, 2017, the City Council approved Resolution No. 101, Series of 2017,
by a __ to __ vote, requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
P99
IX.b
Reed Compliant Sign Code Amendments
Resolution No. 101, Series 2017
Page 2 of 3
Section 1: Code Amendment Objective
The goals and objectives of these code amendments are to:
1. Comply with the requirements of First Amendment (free speech) caselaw; and,
2. Ensure the appropriate balance of signage and community aesthetics; and,
3. Maintain public health, safety, and welfare by preventing sign clutter, distractions
from roadways and obstructions from signage; and,
4. Provide opportunities for commercial and non-commercial signage in commercial
and residential zone districts; and,
5. Limit the proliferation of excessive signage in commercial and residential zone
districts; and,
6. Ensure that sign regulations meet the informational, advertising, wayfinding and
speech needs of residents, businesses and visitors.
Section 2: Sign Code Amendment Direction from Council
City Council provided the following general direction in work sessions related to these code
amendments:
1. To the extent possible, maintain the status quo when it comes to sign quality and
design, particularly regarding the size, quantity, and types of signs available.
2. Develop a licensing system for the use of city property (e.g. light poles and banners
over Main Street) for the display of signs.
3. Develop a single, government-required, comprehensive construction sign inclusive
of public safety and related copy for display on permitted construction sites.
4. Continue to allow temporary signs on properties in residential areas.
5. Ensure the continued, limited availability and use of sandwich board signs in
appropriate commercial zone districts while preventing the proliferation of such
signs. To the extent possible, use sandwich board signs to support Council’s second
tier space policies.
6. Limit the time that vehicle signage may be displayed to ensure that Street Blimps
and other forms of vehicle signage is controlled, while not precluding commercial
speech on vehicles that is incidental to the primary use of the vehicle.
7. Ensure that marijuana businesses are provided a means other than full-coverage
window wraps to comply with State of Colorado requirements for the separation of
displays and sales areas from rights-of-way.
8. Limit the use of window wrap signs to the following zone districts: CC, C-1, NC,
SCI, L, CL, EBO. Ensure that an appropriate proportion of such signs is available
for copy.
9. Continue to allow for the display of televisions, such as televisions in bars, while
preventing the proliferation of those displays.
10. Eliminate the special allowance for signs in Paepcke Park, and include Paepcke Park
in the process for sign permitting in other parks in association with a special event.
11. Ensure that halo lighting and other backlit signs do not create a public health
nuisance by controlling the brightness of such signage in accordance with the City’s
existing lighting regulations and industry best practices.
P100
IX.b
Reed Compliant Sign Code Amendments
Resolution No. 101, Series 2017
Page 3 of 3
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted this 10th day of July, 2017.
_______________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney
P101
IX.b
i
I
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
i
ADDRMS OFOPE�iTY:
47 C/ ��EnJ7� ,Aspen,CO
i
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
c� d�
20 )7--
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
Va /O ti ^Or— (name,please print)
being r r r ting an pplicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that ave complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E)of Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height.-Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing
on the_day of 20. to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing,of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, .Which contains the information described in Section .
26:304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen(15) days prior to
the.public hearing, notice Was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. .A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to,this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
ignature
The foregoing"A avit of Notice"was ac owlJpdged be e me thin day
of ( 20�by l�gt
'
¢CiTY
weuogoI OFASPEN.. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
q¢ pMENpMENTTO TN --. ...
`NOT ICE IS HERESY
dVEN04a
IN bo bald on MallsYY Juno 26 201] at a:,. ✓J
mseUnO to beoln el 5'00 p m baba 1M Aspen" lyy cO ml$310n expires:
F_0111yy cuM6 OouIIdl CMmbare.cm wn I r y P _
.OMmv SL,Aepan.b dNemdna H urend*+nb
Ne MM oI the Len,U.com M If be pursued. \���t/,�V��/Wt/�v/✓-`/l%.'
.Tha polanUM amandrmnle wOMd amen,Ne land
I`-use rnde rald1Fn t0 tM apo r. ubtlane In an,e a
aclbn 26.610.all Baer enbuU, W
i_ reOUlrad.-Far luNNr bbmndan,aanud FhNlp Notary Public
t.
n Suplm el ill coyy of hpen Carvn l Oa
V'-ment ppeeopea�ehnaeM,13035 Oelerr SL,Aspen,..C
CO
(wo)429216],phu'q.supMn•dtyabapen.0
p
FWlfebed Ip Eia Adp"Tifton May 2S,'201]
I'26zfiaszl, IMENTS AS APPLICABLE: .
• COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY CRS. §24-65.5-103.3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCCHkDULED P LIC HEARING DATE:
to J•tom 20_L2
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I' (name,please print)
being or repr senting an Applicant t6the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E)of/the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of.letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing
on the_day of , 20_, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing,of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.,Q60(E)(2) of the Aspen Laqd Use Code.
At least fifteen(15) days prior to
the public hearing, 'notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred(300) feet of the
, e development application. The names and addresses of
pFpRy;9 'shalbe those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
j ali)nd&redi'na nlbte than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. .A
c y t)te gwrli apd governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto..
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section- 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on nextpage)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and.new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
Z` .
Signa re
The, oregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
of 2017 ,by�A� .
Pmuo Home
RF AYAN0MEW1OLANDUSSCOPF ASPEN MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
NOTICE;Is MMMY GIVEN"-res h.."
1f e•b MIG on Namllq•"11120 .al a nre0
b bDin a16AD pm.bless Sw Ar pry Cwmrtl,
eoulrb CMmEae.Clry Ne0.I, (Weru 6L.N• My commission expires: o
s�a aelamam If emenmm is m as Iea Of Da
nG u.e cam.once b Tn.D°�
pMeeb ft am Wilab s in am ewbn MEW.
Intiwmndft npwb.&O.Atl For..
kb°"'oerns , „j Notary Public
,V. sbGmn Naga
wen Cro Can - KAREN REED PATTERSON
iFGo W in the Aspen iun.e on.un.m.201; NOTARY PUBLIC
m ATTACHMENTS AS APPLIC LE:8TATE OF COLORADO
• 2767
COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION mycommmisssionExpkesFY ID eebruary15,2020
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SI
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATIONOFMINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY CRS. §24-65.5-103.3