HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 0109 OSTB Regular Minutes_S MINUTES
OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD
REGULAR SESSION
January 9, 2014
Plaza One Meeting Room
530 E. Main St.,Aspen
OSTB Present:
Vacant Howie Mallory Hawk Greenway Tim McFlynn, Tai Jacober,
Dist. 1 Dist. 2 Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. 5
Chair
Staff Present: Dale Will, Gary Tennenbaum, Paul Holsinger, John Armstrong, Fran Soroka
Matt Adeletti, John Armstrong, Suzanne Wolff, Jon Peacock
Others Present: Graeme Means, Anna Pool
Tai Jacober called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. in the Plaza One Meeting Room.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Graeme Means introduced himself to the Board. Mr. Means has applied for the District 1 Trustee
vacancy.
Suzanne Wolff entered regular session at approximately 9:10 a.m.
Tim McFlynn entered regular session at approximately 9:35 a.m.
APPROVAL OR THE MINUTES
The OSTB regular and executive session minutes of November 21, 2013 were discussed and
corrections were noted by staff.
Hawk Greenway moved for the OSTB regular and executive session minutes of November
21, 2013 be approved as corrected. Howie Mallory seconded. Motion passed(4-0)
The OSTB regular and joint BOCC regular session minutes of December 3, 2013 were discussed
and corrections were noted by staff. OSTB executive session and joint BOCC executive session
minutes of December 3, 2013 were discussed and approved as presented.
Howie Mallory moved for the OSTB regular session and joint BOCC regular session
minutes of December 3, 2013 be approved as corrected. And the OSTB executive session
and joint BOCC executive session of December 3, 2013 be approved as presented. Tai
Jacober seconded. Motion passed(3-0)Hawk Greenway abstained.
Glassier Ranch
Gary Tennenbaum summarized reasons to recommend closing the Glassier Ranch to public
access pending completion of a long range management plan. Glassier Ranch has existing
agricultural leases through 2014. Interim management plan work for Red Ridge Ranch was
halted as Glassier Ranch negotiations progressed. Red Ridge Ranch and Glassier Ranch share
common boundary and viewed as a contiguous property is suited for one management plan. The
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Page 1 of 5
combined management will allow better options for recreational and agricultural use planning.
Staff intends a community involvement process similar to the successful Elk Park Final Design
community committee process. Staff estimates a draft management plan by June.
Discussion:
Board asked if an end date was needed for the public access closure. Staff prefers wording
indicating `pending management plan completion'. Without a posted closure, the property can be
accessed as public land.
Board questioned if OST uses guidelines for creating an interim management plan prior to final
management plan. Originally Staff had embarked on an interim plan for Red Ridge Ranch, but
halted the process as Glassier negotiations progressed and the prospects to combining the two
Ranches became a reality. Staff prefers to keep the properties closed until a full management
plan can work out the recreation,wildlife protection and agricultural use. Possibly kick start the
process early February with possible completion in June.
Board questioned who holds the agricultural leases. On Red Ridge Ranch has one due to expire
end of 2014 agricultural season held by A. Parker. Glassier Ranch has one lease to end at the
completion of the 2014 agricultural season held by R. Cerise.
Board was concerned how the empty structures will be secured and monitored. Structure entry
door locks are changed. Ranger and maintenance staff are monitoring the area. Additionally,
staff will contact the agricultural leaseholders and ask if either or both will keep an eye on the
property.
Board questioned if an historical inventory had been made. Most of the non-fixed farm
equipment lacks historical value. The structures do have historical value and have been
inventoried.
(See Board Action below)
Matt Adeletti entered regular session at approximately 9:45 a.m.
Pitkin County TDR Program—program questions & answers with Suzanne Wolff
The 1/8/2014 BOCC Memorandum—Annual Review of the Transferable Development Rights
Program is made part of this record as `Exhibit A'.
The TDR program started in 1994.
Board questions:
Explain the difference between using the terms TDR and Development Rights (DR)
DR's are through growth management—if you have a legally created parcel do you have a DR?
The TDR is the ability to transfer that DR to another location outside the parcel. This is not
always a one to one exchange depending on the acreage size. The TDR sending site is where
TDR is created and receiver site is where the TDR lands. There are areas in the County with
acknowledged receiver sites and these tend to be within Aspen's urban growth boundary.
`Exhibit A—TDR Tally:
1. Acres Deed Restricted: approximately 7,938 acres and Rezoning to Rural/Remote:
roughly 5,196 acres' —Are these the same acres? Yes, they are the same acres.
2. Rural/Remote Cabin Approvals: It is true that unless a cabin has been built a TDR can
be pulled off that parcel.
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Page 2 of 5
3. No exact Rural/Remote Cabins sites total exists.
In regard to the County's landscape, how will the TDR program look in 20-30 years? Suzanne
offered to send to the Board a bubble map illustrating the TDR program showing preservation
(sending) sites and approved receiver sites in Pitkin County.
Board asked Dale if he sees the Open Space Master Plan's success would be problematical
without the TDR negotiation tool. Dale offered and analogy to consider the total 352 TDR's
issued multiplied by an average of$200,000 would yield $35,000,000 in OST purchasing
capacity for negotiations or equivalent to about 6 years of OST's total capacity. What needs to
be examined further is how many TDR sending sites are left in areas that might be considered
compatible with the Open Space mission.
Keeping to the meeting's agenda the Board decided to continue discussion on the topic to a later
date.
Anna Pool and Jon Peacock entered regular session at approximately 9:58 a.m.
Graeme Means, Paul Holsinger, Suzanne Wolff and John Armstrong exited regular session at
approximately 10:15 a.m.
OST Organization Work Review—Anna Pool
Organizational consultant, Anna Pool returned to the Board to discuss findings from the
evaluation process and proceeded with a power point presentation `OST Program Six Month
Evaluation"which is made part of this record as `Exhibit B'.
Slide 9: What is the level of improvement in the focus, efficiency, and productivity of the OST
Board meetings, creating a more sustainable work/life balance for Board members while still
effectively accomplishing the goals of the program?(Board question)
Biggest improvement has been not requiring all staff to attend meetings by focusing monthly
meetings to one for operations and the other for negotiations and acquisitions.
Dale Will noted the increasing management plans quality produced by staff has benefited by the
monthly meeting change.
By allowing staff to focus on their areas of expertise the level of engagement and overall staff
morale has heightened.
The implemented changes have been very effective for the Board and staff.
Slide 10: What is the level of improvement you have seen in the Board's ability to focus more on
policy and less on operations? (Board question)
Two recent examples of the Board shifting their focus to policy occurred when the Board did
not interfere in the Roaring Fork Gorge Management Plan development by staff and
concentrated on the plan's implementation sequencing and costs. The Board's recent Open Space
Master Plan discussions reflect the Board moving in a policy creation direction.
Slide 12: How well is the Board following through on the Working Agreements? (Board
question)
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Page 3 of 5
The OST Board and Staff Working Agreements including the 1/09/14 meeting addition are made
part of this record as 'Exhibit C'.
Board reviewed their working agreements.
Board clarified they prefer receiving all meeting packet materials at one time with last minute
additions separate. Utilizing Google Drive enables members to view meeting materials online
and offers the Board a digital repository for retrieving past meeting materials on their own.
One addition was made to the Procedural Agreements: We agree to review working agreements
semi-annually and will be part of a new Trustee's integration.
Slide 13: What is the most important outcome of the initiative,from your point of view? (Board
question)
The last survey comment `Concern about potential for inadequate oversight from Board to Staff
was examined further. Board felt the expressed concern will diminish over time as the Board
becomes better at policy focus and both Board and staff become more confident with their
responsibilities. Dale Will contributed that he feels the program has the right mechanisms in
place to translate public perspectives into policy and the filters in place to eliminate over reacting
to program challenges.
Slide 14: What still needs to be improved? (Board question)
The Board decided to discuss the listed comments as a separate agenda item.
Slide 16: What is the level of improvement you have seen in Dale's ability to provide timely
support and more focused management support, either directly or indirectly through the Deputy
Director for Land Stewardship? (Staff question)
Continue to work on the organization's structure defining roles and clarifying staff s
expectations. Board suggested continued work with Anna Pool through 2014 to move the status
from `still in progress' to `working'.
Majority of interviewed staff felt their work satisfaction had improved.
Slide 19: Recommendations (Board and Staff)
Board is moving out of a reactive management style (toddler go-go phase)to clarifying roles for
Board and staff(adolescent phase).
Jon Peacock offered his observations that the OST program has become so much larger and
sophisticated from its entrepreneurial startup mindset and change was needed to recognize the
divisions of responsibility between policy and operations. Even if all acquisitions stopped there
remains in the program a tremendous amount of perpetual program responsibilities into the
future. This program has matured and the Board and Director are adjusting how the program
will proceed into the future. These types of organizational structural change typically occur over
3-5 years and a remarkable amount of progress has been made in seven short months.
Board questioned whether the County Attorney had responded with an opinion about allowing
Board members to attend meetings via electronic conferencing and whether the Board member
can vote at that time. At the same time the Board was asking Ms. Pool's option on the subject.
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Page 4 of 5
She felt an occasional virtual attendance would not hamper the Board's process and advised the
Board to set guidelines.
Matt Adeletti exited regular session at approximately 11:00 a.m.
Jon Peacock exited regular session at approximately 11:20 a.m.
BOARD COMMENTS
Board Retreat
Tim McFlynn suggested a two part retreat agenda- 1)what are the ideas and timeline for re-
authorization and 2) what are the program's recurrent challenges?Visit both with the intent for a
successful 2016 reauthorization strategy.
BOARD ACTION
Glassier Ranch Open Space
Hawk Greenway moved for the Glassier Ranch to be closed to public access pending the
completion of a long range management plan in 2014. Tim McFlynn seconded. Motion passed
(4-0)
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The OSTB moved to enter executive session in accordance with CRS 24-6-402(4)(a)and(e)for
the purpose of discussing acquisitions and negotiations at 11:40 a.m. The OSTB adjourned
executive session at 1:05 p.m.
ADJOURN
The OSTB meetings of were adjourned at approximately 1:05 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
Tai aJ cober C it ran
Soroka
Pitkin Count Open Space& Trails Board Pitkin County Open Space& Trails
Administrator
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting—January 8, 2014
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner
RE: Annual Review of the Transferable Development Rights Program
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to BOCC Ordinance 95-24,the BOCC must review the transfer of
development rights (TDR)provisions of the Rural/Remote ordinance annually at a public hearing. The
decision on whether to modify or amend the TDR provision lies solely within the legislative discretion of
the BOCC. A summary of all TDR activity is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit"A." A brief
evaluation of the program is contained herein.
The purpose of this memorandum is twofold:
1. To keep the BOCC apprised of the status of the TDR program; and
2. To provide the BOCC with an opportunity to comment on the program.
EVALUATION: As stipulated in Ordinance 95-24, Staff has considered the following factors in
evaluating the effectiveness of the TDR provision:
❑ Whether there is an adequate market place for TDRs or whether additional measures should be taken
to increase the marketability of TDRs;
352 TDR certificates have been issued to-date(see current list on the web at
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/county/Com%20Dev/Planning/tdr-certificate-list.pdf). This
number includes certificates issued from Rural/Remote properties, constrained and visually constrained
sites,properties designated to the County's Historic Register,Limited Development Conservation parcels
and properties zoned CD-PUD. No TDR certificates have been issued from properties zoned TR-1 or
TR-2. The BOCC has approved the issuance of 3 additional TDRs for constrained sites
(Grosjean/Spencer and Spizzirri),but the Certificates have not been issued.
The number of TDR certificates issued annually fluctuates, as shown below:
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 13 37 13 24 15 11 16 3 32 51 62 13 17
2010 2011 2012 2013
5 12 1 26
Certificates issued in 2013 include 15 for the Capitol Creek Ranch, 7 for the Nichols CD-PUD, 2 for the
Anthes/Brown archaeological site, 1 for the Bunta historic designation and 1 for a Rural/Remote site.
Of the 352 certificates issued, 171 transferred rights have"landed"on receiver sites(been extinguished)
in the form of new growth management exempt homes(31 TDRs)or additional floor area(140 TDRs).
The table below shows the number of certificates extinguished each year:
1
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
21 1 1 5 12 5 6 12 6 20 19 11
2010 2011 2012 2013
4 9 15 24
Approvals have been granted for use of 344 TDRs on receiver sites: 255 for additional floor area and
89 for new development rights. Approved but not-yet-built development proposals allow for the use of
up to 204 TDRs on receiver sites: 146 for additional floor area and 58 for new development rights.
Pending applications would allow for the use of 5 additional TDRs on receiver sites: 4 for additional
floor area and 1 for a new development right. Note that properties in the Urban Growth Boundary and
certain properties in the Rural Area (lots in Starwood, Starwood Ranch, Owl Creek Ranch, East Owl
Creek, Eagle Pines, Castle Creek Valley Ranch, White Star Ranch, Star Mesa and Aspen Valley Downs)
do not require special review approval to receive TDRs for additional floor area. These properties are a
substantial pool of potential receiver sites that are not reflected in the number of approved receiver sites.
34 TDRs have been extinguished to date on properties where special review approval is not required. A
list of approved TDR receiver sites is attached as Exhibit B, and a summary of receiver sites and
extinguished TDRs by planning area is attached as Exhibit C.
The landing of TDRs has been fairly steady over the years,though the number of receiver sites approved
over the last few years is clearly lower due to the economy. Given the number of approvals granted and
the continued,though lessened,requests for approvals for TDR receiver sites,it appears that there is an
adequate market place for TDRs.
❑ Whether the provision offers sufficient incentives to encourage transfers out of the Rural/Remote
Zone District into areas more suitable for residential development;
While the price of a TDR certificate has decreased substantially over the last several years,the price
continues to provide a compelling incentive to sever rights from Rural/Remote properties, as well as from
other areas from which TDRS can be severed. The 2006 Code requires that any sale, assignment,
conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of a TDR certificate be reported to Community
Development within 5 days of such transfer, and that the report disclose the total value of the
consideration paid for the certificate. This information is included in the TDR certificate database
referenced above, and staff is now able to provide much more accurate data regarding TDR sales. In
2013,21 TDR transactions were reported for which there was a consideration paid for the certificate
(certain certificates have been conveyed with no consideration). These transactions have ranged in price
from$130,000(4/2/13)to $185,000 (4 transactions throughout the year). The most recent sale(11/13/13)
was $145,000. The following table provides a comparison of the number of transactions and the price
range over the last several years:
Year Number of TDR transactions Price Range
2013 21 $130,000 to $185,000
2012 22 $115,000 to $150,000
2011 11 $125,000 to $165,000
2010 10 $160,000 to $225,000
2009 6 $200,000 to $260,000
2008 10 $282,500 to $310,000
2007 34 $250,000 to $318,000
2
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Of the 352 TDRs that have been issued, 244 have been severed from Rural/Remote properties and 107
have been severed from"other"properties(constrained,visually constrained,historic,Limited
Development Conservation parcels).
Staff would note that the provisions to allow transfers from areas other than Rural/Remote (TR-1, TR-2,
constrained and visually constrained sites, CD-PUD, Limited Development Conservation Parcels,
Historic Register sites)have increased the supply of TDRs. There are 181 TDR certificates available(not
extinguished)and 3 approved but not yet issued for a total supply of 184 TDRs, and approvals have been
granted to land 204 TDRs on receiver sites(this does not account for sites that do not require special
review approval to utilize TDRs). There is a slightly greater demand than supply at this time,but the two
sides remain fairly balanced.
Of the 181 certificates that have not been extinguished, approximately 37 are presumed to be"tagged"for
specific development. In most cases this is the result of development approvals that included rezoning a
portion of a property to Rural/Remote in order to obtain TDRs(Harvey,Craig,Aspen Valley Ranch,
Crown Mountain Ranch, Chaparral). In other cases,the TDRs have been restricted for use on a receiver
site related to the sending site(Wingo Junction Ranch/Roaring Fork Meadows).
Exhibit D provides a comparison of floor area approved via TDRs and growth management competition
in the last eight years.
Exhibit E provides a summary of the development that has occurred or has been approved within the
Rural/Remote zone district.
Exhibit F provides a summary of constrained site TDR approvals.
A map of the sending and receiving sites is attached.
❑ Whether the procedures relating to the implementation of the transfer of development rights are
functioning smoothly and efficiently as possible.
The Community Development Department has a standard procedure for issuing and tracking the issuance
of Transferable Development Rights Certificates. By all indications it is functioning smoothly.
SUMMARY: For all intents and purposes,the TDR provisions of the Land Use Code are functioning
well. Nonetheless, it is an ongoing goal to continue to improve the effectiveness and utility of the
program.
Attachments
A. Current TDR Tally
B. TDR Receiver Site Approvals
C. TDR Receiver Sites by Planning Area
D. Comparison of Floor Area Approved Via TDRs and Growth Management,2001-2011
E. Rural/Remote Parcels that have been developed or approved for development
F. Constrained Site TDR Tally
G. Map of Sending and Receiving Sites
3
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
EXHIBIT A- TDR TALLY (1996— DEC 2012)
❑ Certificates Issued: 352 TDR certificates have been issued by the Community Development Department (3
additional TDRs have been approved, but the Certificates have not been issued).
❑ TDRs Extinguished: 171 TDRs have been "extinguished" (development right has been used on a receiver
site and is no longer in circulation).
O 31 extinguished for new development rights
O 140 extinguished for additional floor area
o TDRs have been extinguished in the following areas: Aspen Highlands, McLain Flats/Starwood, Little
Annie Basin, Red Mountain, Snowmass Creek, Woody Creek, East Aspen, Owl Creek, Sopris
Mountain Ranch, West Buttermilk, Wingo Junction, Watson Divide, East Sopris Creek, Brush Creek
Village, Mountain Valley, Maroon Creek, Castle Creek, Wildcat Vista
❑ Acres Deed Restricted: Approximately 7,938 acres of land have been deed restricted against development
as a result of the severance of 352 development rights.
❑ Receiver Site Approvals: 344 TDRs have been approved to be used on receiver sites (summary of
development applications for TDR receiver sites is attached as Exhibit B)
O 89 TDRs approved for new development rights
O 255 TDRs approved for additional floor area
O 171 TDRs have been extinguished on receiver sites (includes 34 TDRs for which special review
approval is not required)
o Approved but not-yet-built development proposals allow for the use of up to 204 more TDRs on
receiver sites: 146 for additional floor area and 58 for new development rights
o Pending applications would allow for the use of 5 additional TDRs: 1 for a new development right and
4 for additional floor area
❑ Rural/Remote Cabin Approvals: 23 Rural/Remote properties have obtained approval to develop cabins. 11
cabins have been built(so those parcels are no longer eligible to sever TDRs); 1 existing cabin expanded up
to 1,000 square feet; 11 cabins have been approved but not built. (Summary attached as Exhibit E)
❑ Rezonings to Rural/Remote: Roughly 5,196 acres have been rezoned to Rural/Remote since 1996 (via
privately initiated rezonings).
o Balcomb/Stephenson (Thompson Creek area); Chaparral Aspen Remote Parcel; Child Ranch; Craig
Ranch; Crystal Island Ranch; Aspen Valley Ranch; Harvey Ranch; Crown Mountain Ranch; Jerome
Park
O 88 TDR certificates have been issued to date from these rezoned properties
O 10 potential TDRs from Child Ranch and 25 potential TDRs from Harvey Ranch have been
extinguished as part of the conservation easements with Open Space and will not enter the TDR
market
❑ ConstrainedNisually Constrained Sites: The BOCC has approved the issuance of 43 TDRs—40 from
constrained sites and 3 from visually constrained sites (Summary attached as Exhibit F). 40 TDR certificates
have been issued; 3 certificates have not yet been issued.
❑ Limited Development Conservation Parcels: 24 TDRs-Timroth (East Sopris Creek). 12 TDRs- Fender
(East Sopris Creek).
❑ Conservation Development PUD: 9 TDRs—Middle Ranch (West Sopris Creek). 7 TDRs— Nichols (North
Fork of Fryingpan)
❑ Designation to Historic Register: One TDR— Little Annie Mine Site (Greenway). 2 TDRs—Swearingen
Ranch Homestead (Middle Ranch). One TDR—Parker(Emma). 3 TDRs— Emma Farms. 1 TDR—
Bunta/Manning (not issued). Two TDRs—Anthes/Brown (not issued).
❑ Takings Remediation: 5 TDRs—Sawmill Hill parcels.
TDR CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE
352 TDR certificates issued by the County
-171 TDRs extinguished (used on receiver sites)
181 TDR certificates theoretically available on the free-market
4
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
EXHIBIT B — REQUESTS/APPROVALS FOR USE OF TDRs ON RECEIVER SITES SINCE 1996
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
1997
Weinglass McLain 1 Additional floor area in Jan, 1998 264327100002 IR-97-2-ES BOCC 96-204
Flats excess of 15,000 sf
1998
Aspen Base 40 20-Development rights for May, 1998(20 devt rights) 273514310001- IR-97-1-CH BOCC 98-79
Highlands Village new lots 6/7/2007(273514316005) 010 IR-97-4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12-
Village 20-Additional floor area 273514316001- ES
(@500 sf/lot) 010 IR-9813A-CH
IR-98-14,15,16,17-CH
IR-98-19,20,21-ES
IR-98-32,33-ES
_ IR-13-05-SW
Ziff Starwood Additional floor area in Have altered plans—are not 264326102001 BOCC 97-64
excess of 15,000 sf(up to 5 building to approved size and
TDRs) do not need any TDRs
1999
Enough claim Little 2 Aggregation of square Apr,2001 291101400007 IR-00-02-SW BOCC 17-2000
Annie footage within IR-00-03-SW
Rural/Remote
Bluhm UGB-Red 1 Additional floor area in Dec, 1999 273707207001 IR-00-07-SW BOCC 16-2000
Mountain excess of 15,000 sf
Bishop Castle Development right Denied by BOCC
Creek (99-22;99-67)
2000
Bankcenter Snowmass 1 Development right May,2000 246734401001 IR-99-53-ES BOCC 98-244
One Creek
Devaney Castle 1-development right Intended as swap parcel for 2909-09(FS BOCC 104-2000
Parcel Creek 1-additional floor area up Ryan Parcel—no longer below Toklat—
Road to 7,500 sf intended parcel not yet
created)
Braun Ranch Woody 6-11 6-development rights 264309101007 BOCC 158-2000
(Chaparral Creek (Parcels 2,4,6,7,8, 10) 264309101008 BOCC 059-2004
Aspen) 5-additional floor area 264309201010
(Parcel 2— 1;Parcel 4— 1; 264309401002
Parcel 6—2;Parcel 10- 1 264310201004
264310201006
5
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2000(cont)
Red Butte McLain 10 Additional floor area up to 1/24/05 (Lot 2) 264335404001 IR-12-01-ES BOCC 96-73,97-198
Ranch Flats 4,000 sf of subgrade space 264335404002 IR-15-01-ES BOCC 080-2009
Subdivision —Lots 1 &2 264335404003
Additional floor area up to 264335404004
3,000 sf of subgrade space 264335404005
—Lots 3,4&5
Stein Lot Split McLain 4 Additional floor area for up 4/4/2007(Lot 1) 264335403001 IR-11-05-SW BOCC 97-24,98-66
Flats to 4,000 sf of subgrade 264335403002 IR-12-05-SW
space per lot
2001
Two Mile Woody 6 Development rights for 3/4/2002 264323401001 IR-98-39-ES(Env 6 on BOCC 109-2001
Ranch(aka Creek additional residences 6/5/2003 264324301002 Parcel 3)
Circle R 8/22/2003 264324401003 IR-98-34-ES(Env 10 on
Ranch) 264324401004 Parcel 4)
IR-98-35-ES(Env 7 on
Parcel 3—permit expired
12/03; 150 sf used on Env
6)
IR-98-38-ES(Env 9 on
Parcel 4)
Erickson/ UGB-Red 11 5-development rights 12/19/2001 273501100003 NEW: BOCC 99-198
Duroux Mountain 6-additional floor area(on 11/18/2002 273501358001 IR-98-24-ES BOCC 059-2001
Subdivision/ 2 lots and 1 parcel) 273501358002 IR-98-25A-ES
PUD 273501358003 IR-98-26A-ES
273501358004 ADDITIONAL:
IR-98-25B-ES
IR-98-26B-ES
Buttermilk UGB-West 2 1-development right 273503402001 BOCC 98-153
Meadows Buttermilk 1-additional floor area up BOCC 232-2000
Subdivision Road to 7,500 sf—both on Lot 1
Lambda Ltd. Little 2 Additional floor area up to 4/8/2002 264310101006 IR-01-01-SW BOCC 215-2000
Woody and in excess of 15,000 sf IR-00-13-SW
Creek
Popcornland East of Obtained GM allotment so 273728300019 HO 009-2001
Aspen won't use TDR(approved
for 1)
Wildwood East of 1 Additional floor area up to 4/23/2004 273728300006 IR-07-02-SW HO 039-2001
6
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Land(aka Aspen 8,250 sf
Parvenir)
1 Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2001 (cont)
Tagert Lakes East of 2 Additional floor area up to 3/21/2002 273734400001 IR-00-17-SW HO 045-2001
Family Trust Aspen 10,750 sf IR-00-16-SW
2002
Harvey UGB- 1 Development right for new 273502405001 BOCC 054-2001
Maroon lot(Lot 1) BOCC 011-2002
Creek
Bankcenter Snowmass Additional floor area up to Utilized GM allotment instead 246734118009 BOCC 22-2002
One Creek 7,500 sf so won't use TDR
Tagert Lakes East of 5 Additional floor area up to 273734301003 BOCC 028-2002
Aspen 15,000 sf to replace BOCC 048-2002
existing residences
Sunshine Owl Creek 2 Additional floor area up to 7/6/2003 273504300008 IR-98-27A-ES BOCC 121-2002
Ranch Road 10,750 sf IR-98-27B-ES
Henry Snowmass 1 Additional floor area 264527300003 HO 18-2002
Creek
Road
Bane Tract 2 Prince 3 Additional floor area up to 246533608002 HO 026-2002
Creek 13,250 sf
Aspen Meyer East of 1 Additional floor area 5/25/2004 273728300005 IR-11-01-SW HO 34-2002
(aka Batista) Aspen
Child/Capitol Capitol 5 New development rights 264519200002 BOCC 190-2002
Creek Ranch Creek
Star Mountain Starwood 4 Additional floor area 8/21/2002 264326104003 IR-00-08-SW N/A
Ranch area IR-07-01-SW
IR-02-02-SW
IR-03-02-SW
Eagle Pines West 1 Additional floor area 8/14/2002 273510202007 IR-00-24-SW N/A
Lot 7 Buttermilk
Droste Ranch Between Development rights for 12 Denied by BOCC—
PUD Owl Creek new lots—up to 15,000 requested up to 60
&Brush square feet of floor area per TDRs
Creek lot
Roads
2003
Wildwood East of 1 Additional floor area 3/19/12 273729100530 IR-01-09-SW HO 05-2003
Estate Aspen AD 29-2011
7
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Holdings
8
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2003(cont)
Black East of Obtained GM allotment so 273728300009 HO 15-2003
Diamond Aspen won't use TDRs(approved
Holdings for 2)
Wieben Ranch Capitol 5 Additional floor area 264318401001 HO 18-2003
Creek (Parcels 5,6 &7) 264518401002 (approval for 2 TDRs
264318101001 on each of Parcels 5
and 6,and 1 TDR on
Parcel 7—all limited
to 5,500 sf)
Cheff Sopris Mtn 1 Additional floor area to 10/13/2005 246533101006 IR-08-02-SW HO 23-2003
Ranch 8,250
Hillmuth East of Additional floor area to Used GM allotment rather than 273720400012 HO 27-2003
Aspen 8,250 TDR
Polsky East Sopris Additional floor area Denied by BOCC—
Creek requested use of 1
TDR(BOCC 032-
2003)
2004
Cheek UGB-Red 2 Additional floor area in 5/17/2004 273512104004 IR-13-01-SW BOCC 07-2004
Subdivision Mountain excess of 15,000 5/27/2005 IR-00-05-SW
LLC
Mountain East of 1 Additional floor area 11/17/2004 273729100004 IR-16-03-SW BOCC 132-2004
Queen Aspen
Craig Ranch Woody 8 2-new development rights 6/13/13 (Parcel 7) 264315302004 IR-23-06-SW BOCC 144-2004
Creek (Parcels 6&8) 264315302002 BOCC 043-2007
6-additional floor area 264315400009
(Parcels 3,4,5,6,7,8) 264315302003
264314100002
264323300006
Abrams McLain 1 Additional floor area to 4/30/2004 264327400012 IR-00-23-SW HO 03-2004
Flats 8,250
Kopp Woody 2 Additional floor area to 4/27/2006 264321100004 IR-99-48-ES HO 04-2004
Creek 10,750 2/14/2007 IR-98-30-ES
LaRose Watson 1 Additional floor area to 264501300101 HO 19-2004
Divide 8,250
Hecht Owl Creek 1 Additional floor area 6/8/2004 264333301005 IR-00-01-ES N/A(BOCC
approved subdivision)
9
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2005
Circle R Woody 2 Additional floor area for 264324301002 BOCC 008-2005
Ranch Creek Bldg Env 1,6,7 264324401003
Payson Starwood 2 Additional floor area in 3/28/2005 264335401008 IR-01-04-ES BOCC 025-2005
excess of 15,000
Crystal Island Crystal 24 11-development rights 246325100004 BOCC 225-2002
Ranch River (Lots 3E,4E, 1W,4W, 246325100005 BOCC 175-2004
Valley 5W, 11W, 12W, 13W, 246325100006 BOCC 082-2005
15W, 16W, 17W; 246323300005 AD 13-2008(Lots
Obtained GM allotments 246323300006 1W&3W)
for DR for Lots 1E, 9W, 246323300007
low& 14W, so have 246323300008
not counted those 246323300009
toward#of TDRs 246323300010
needed for new DR) 246323300011
246323300014
13-additional floor area
246323300014
(Lots 2E, 1W,2W,3W, 246323300015
4W,5W,6W,7W) 246323300016
246323300017
246323300018
246323300019
246323300020
246323300021
2075 McLain McLain 1 Additional floor area in 6/7/2005 264327400010 IR-00-04-SW BOCC 090-2005
Flats LLC Flats excess of 15,000
Watson Divide Watson 1 Additional floor area in 11/17/2005 264501300012 IR-00-11-CH BOCC 109-2005
Ranch Divide excess of 15,000
Aspen Valley Woody 8-21 8-new development rights 11/1/2007(Parcel 4 DR— 264304201001 IR-29-06-SW BOCC 112-2005
Ranch Creek (Parcels 1-7&9) 2643-054-02-002) 264304302001 BOCC 081-2008
13-additional floor area 264304302002
(Parcels 1-9) 264304302003
264305302001
264305302002
264305402001
264305402002
264308104001
Morrow/ Wingo— 4 3-new development rights 5/3/2006 246721203001 IR-98-18-CH(Lot 1-AFA) BOCC 068-2004
Wingo Hwy 82 (Lots 3,4&5) 246721203003 BOCC 143-2005
Junction near Basalt 1-additional floor area(Lot 246721203004 BOCC 051-2008
10
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Ranch 1) 246721203005
11
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2005(cont) 1
Coates Woody 1 Additional floor area up to 11/25/08 264309300013 IR-07-07-C-ES HO 05-2005
Creek 8,250 BOCC 117-2008
Eubank Woody 1 Additional floor area up to 11/25/08 264309300007 IR-06-07-C-ES HO 05-2005
Creek 8,250 BOCC 117-2008
Nagle Sopris Mtn 1 Additional floor area up to 6/10/2005 246527301001 IR-00-06-SW HO 10-2005
Ranch 8,250
Schiralli Sopris Mtn 4 Additional floor area up to 246533401016 HO 12-2005
Ranch 15,000
Moore McLain 31 Additional floor area—Lot 264327401002 HO 13-2005
Flats B to 8,250&Lot C to 264327401003
10,750
Independence East of Obtained GM allotment so 273728300610 HO 15-2005
Land Aspen won't use TDRs(approved
for 2)
Northstar East of 2 Additional floor area up to 7/10/08 273720400007 IR-03-05-C.SW HO 24-2005
Ranch LLC Aspen 10,750 9/11/08 IR-45-07-SW
Cesery-Taylor Brush 2 Additional floor area up to 7/18/13 264320400009 IR-08-03-SW HO 30-2005
Creek 10,750 IR-20-06-SW
ZGNY East of 2 Additional floor area to 12/4/08 273720100002 IR-00-10-CH HO 42-2005
Aspen 10,750 IR-09-02-ES
Sadie's Little 1 Additional floor area to 3/21/2005 264310102001 IR-98-28-ES N/A
Holdings Woody 8,250
Creek
Duckworth Starwood 2 Additional floor area to 9/6/2005 264335105010 IR-98-22-ES N/A
15,000(per Devt Agr get IR-99-52-ES
5,000/TDR)
Johnson Drive Starwood 1 Additional floor area to 9/30/2005 264335202001 IR-99-54-ES N/A
LLC 8,250
2006 I
Crown UGB 1 Development right(2nd 2/7/2007 273510102001 IR-27-05-SW BOCC 04-2006
residence)
T Lazy 7 Maroon 2 1-New development right 273521400004 BOCC 13-2006
Ranch Creek 1-Additional floor area (replaces BOCC 36-
2002)
Duckworth Starwood 3 Additional floor area in 4/7/2006 264335401008 IR-99-51-ES BOCC 22-2006
excess of 15,000 sf IR-03-04-SW
IR-18-05-SW
12
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs I How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2006(cont) i
Harvey Ranch Snowmass 7 6-New development rights 264527202001 BOCC 50-2006
Creek (@ 5,000 sf each—Parcels 264527301001
1,3-7) 264527301002
1-Additional floor area(to 264528401001
expand existing cabins on 264533101001
Parcel 2) 264534201001
264533101002
Kirianoff North 2 New development rights 246721400008 BOCC 193-2002
River BOCC 071-2006
Road
Wagman Lower 1 New development right 246725400004 BOCC 130-2006
River BOCC 034-2008
Road
Fifield West 5 1-New development right 273510203002 BOCC 134-2006
Buttermilk 4-Additional floor area(all BOCC 042-2007
on Lot 2) AD 62-2010
George UGB-Red 1 Development right(Lot 2) 273707211002 BOCC 152-2005
Mtn BOCC 135-2006
Crown Sopris 3 Development rights 2/5/13 (246513300002—Parcel 246513300001 IR-49-06-ES BOCC 139-2006
Mountain Creek (Parcels 1,2&4) 2) 246513300002
Ranch 246513300004
Trentaz LLC McLain 4 1-Development right 264335200007 BOCC 161-2006
(Bear Hollow) Flats 3-Additional floor area BOCC 067-2008
(one lot to 8,250 and one
lot to 10,750
Stage Road UGB-City 12 Additional floor area 4/12/11 (273502303003) 273502303001 IR-05-10-SW CITY ORD 6-2005
PUD of Aspen 273502303002
273502303003
273502303004
273502303005
273502303006
273502303007
273502303008
273502303009
273502303010
273502303011
273502303012
Israel McLain 1 Additional floor area 6/7/2006 264327100003 IR-20-05-SW HO 23-2006
13
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Flats
14
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs I How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2006(cont)
Benson East Aspen 1 Additional floor area to 1/23/2007 273728300007 IR-01-05-C-SW HO 29-2006
8,250 sf
West West 4 Additional floor area to 6/12/09 273510210003 IR-05-03-SW HO 31-2006(replaces
Buttermilk Buttermilk 15,000 sf IR-04-05-SW HO 02-2003)
Pfister Tract 5 IR-05-05-SW
IR-31-05-SW
RFLC Holding Maroon 4 Additional floor area to 3/3/2008 273515300005 IR-06-05-SW HO 37-2006
LLC Creek 15,000 sf IR-07-05-SW
IR-10-02-ES
IR-00-20-SW
SGS-WC LLC Woody 1 Additional floor area to 273515300005 HO 39-2006
Creek 8,250 sf
Dart Family Lower 2 Additional floor area to 246726200002 HO 42-2006
Part. River 8,250 on two lots HO 10-2007
Road
Cottonwood Woody 2 Additional floor area 3/19/2008 264310300017 IR-51-06-C-ES HO 43-2006
Trust Creek IR-99-45-ES
Suivant Le Snowmass 1 Additional floor area to 264511400001 HO 44-2006
Soleil Creek 8,250 sf
Sullan Watson 1 Additional floor area to 3/9/2007 264502100001 IR-03-03-SW HO 45-2006
Divide _ 8,250 sf
9425 Real East Sopris 1 Additional floor area to 6/18/2007 264504200004 IR-04-03-SW HO 48-2006
Estate LLC Creek 8,250 sf
2007
Goodnough McLain 2 Additional floor area to 7/13/2007 264327400004 IR-09-05-SW HO 06-2007
Flats 10,750 12/1/2009 IR-13-06-SW
Pew Woody 1 Additional floor area 5/15/2007 264316200024 IR-13-07-C-SW HO 11-2007
Creek
Stella Polare East Aspen 1 Additional floor area to 6/22/2007 273720400014 IR-02-07-C-SW HO 14-2007
8,250
IKS Imports McLain 4 Additional floor area to 6/8/11 264335200004 IR-08-05-SW HO 15-2007
Flats 15,000 IR-15-05-SW
IR-16-05-SW
_ IR-17-05-SW
Pfeifer McLain 2 Additional floor area 8/9/13 264327400002 IR-11-07-C-ES HO 16-2007
Flats IR-38-07-C-SW
Smith McLain 3 Additional floor area 12/19/07 264322300013 IR-30-05-SW HO 18-2007
Flats IR-06-03-SW
15
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
IR-07-03-SW
16
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs I How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2007(cont)
Caine East Aspen 2 Additional floor area 6/3/2008 273728300001 IR-39-06-C-SW HO 20-2007
IR-18-07-ES
LG Aspen East Aspen Additional floor area from 273720100002 HO 17-2007
10,750 up to 15,000 sf DENIED;BOCC
denied appeal
11/14/07
Gates Brush 1 Additional floor area 4/24/2007 264328202008 IR-14-05-SW N/A
Creek Vlg
Lehrman UGB-Red 2 Additional floor area 10/16/2007 273501300002 IR-27-06-SW N/A
Mountain IR-19-07-C-SW
Bouton UGB-Mtn 1 Additional floor area 9/5/2007 273717307049 IR-37-07-C-SW N/A
Valley
Starwood 94 Starwood 1 Additional floor area 6/1/2007 264335107007 IR-16-07-ES N/A
LLC
2008
Flying Dog Woody 4 1-Development right for 264323100002 BOCC 08-2008
Ranch Creek East Mesa parcel 264323100003
3-Additional floor area-2
East Mesa, 1 North Parcel
COMPASS Woody 45 2-Development rights 264310401001 BOCC 128-2005
Creek 23-Additional floor area 264310401002 BOCC 036-2008
BOCC -2012
Hardy Castle 3 Additional floor area for 10/2/12(Lot 1A) 273514402001 IR-08-08-C-SW BOCC 118-2008
Creek subgrade/garage on Lots 273514402002 BOCC 149-2010
1A2&3 273514402003
W/J Lot 2 McLain 1 Additional floor area 4/4/2008 264322303002 IR-04-07-C-ES HO 02-2008
LLC Flats
GSS Crystal 1 Additional floor area 3/3/2010 264910100021 IR-98-36-ES HO 04-2008
Properties
LLC
Neiman/Burns McLain 2 Additional floor area 264334100010 HO 05-2008
Flats
Hedstrom Castle 1 Additional floor area 290919102001 HO 06-2008
Creek
Stewart(aka McLain 4 Additional floor area 1/14/11 264327400008 IR-10-08-SW HO 07-2008(replace
Aspen Flats IR-11-08-SW HO 32-2005)
Sumner) IR-12-08-SW
IR-13-08-SW
17
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2008(cont)
Crown Owl Creek 1 Additional floor area 12/9/08 273504300008 IR-98-31-ES HO 09-2008
Carney East of 1 Additional floor area to 273728300008 HO 14-2004
Aspen 8,250 HO 12-2008
Aspeneyes Castle 3 Additional floor area to 8/5/09 290918301002 IR-41-07-SW HO 11-2008
Creek 13,250 IR-42-08-SW
PT Ranch/ Castle 3 Additional floor area to 6/1/09 273523403002 IR-32-05-SW HO 13-2008
Barn LLC Creek 13,250 IR-28-06-SW
IR-40-07-SW
Kirshon UGB-Red 1 Additional floor area 2/5/2008 273501404008 IR-28-05-SW N/A
Mtn
Furlotti UGB— 1 Additional floor area 6/26/2008 273512305001 IR-62-07-SW N/A
Toby Ln
Terral UGB— 1 Additional floor area 7/3/2008 273503300024 IR-39-07-SW N/A
Aspen Oak
2009
McLain Flats McLain 2 Additional floor area 264326300004 HO 01-2009
Holdings Flats
Montgomery East Aspen 2 Additional floor area 273720100529 HO 03-2009;
HO 03-2012
Launer B Conundru 2 Additional floor area 273535400006 HO-04-2009
m
SNL Aspen East Aspen 1 Additional floor area to 3/8/10 273728302002 IR-00-14-SW HO 06-2009
Leaf LLC 15,000(existing approx
13,000)
Skokos East Aspen 1 Additional floor area(from 2/3/2010 273728300020 IR-05-07-C-ES BOCC 35-2009
10,750 to 13,250 sf)
Brush Creek Brush 264332100001 BOCC denied request
Ranch Creek to use TDRs for
(Droste) additional floor area
on 10 lots in LIR
zone 8/26/09
Jaleston White Star 1 Additional floor area 3/5/2009 264315301001 IR-06-08-SW N/A
18
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2010
Bond McLain 3 Additional floor area 264327400005 HO 01-2010(replaces
Flats HO 49-2006)
CR Properties Lower 1 Additional floor area 7/20/10 246736102001 1R-03-09-SW HO 04-2010
LLC River Rd
Celestial Land Maroon 273521400004 HO 05-2010
Creek DENIED use of 3
additional TDRs to
15,000(previously
approved to use 2
TDRs to 8,250)
Asp Properties Castle 3 Additional floor area to 11/13/13 290918301001 IR-20-07-SW HO 05-2010(replaces
Creek 15,000 IR-21-07-SW HO 19-2007)
2011
Rancho Owl Creek 1 Additional floor area 3/3/11 264333401004 IR-43-07-SW N/A
Caliente LLC Ranch
Cobo Lot C McLain 4 Additional floor area 10/15/12 264327401003 IR-04-09-SW HO 01-2011
Flats IR-05-09-SW
IR-06-09-SW
IR-07-09-SW
1720 McLain McLain 2 Additional floor area 264327400004 HO 02-2011
Flats Road Flats
Bond Trust Wildcat 1 Additional floor area 8/16/11 264536100003 IR-19-05-SW HO 04-2011
Vista
K2 Family Owl Creek 4 Additional floor area 1/28/13 264334300004 IR-01-11-H-SW HO 05-2011
Trust IR-02-11-H-SW
IR-03-11-H-SW
IR-06-11-SW
LNS Holding East Aspen 1 Additional floor area 273728301008 HO 06-2011
LLC
Sinclair Owl Creek 2 Additional floor area 7/12/12 273505300007 IR 09 11 SW HO 09-2011
IR-10-11-SWreissued
8/27/13
2012
Elf Owl LLC Owl Creek 2 Additional floor area 4/4/12 273504401007 IR-07-11-SW N/A
IR-08-11-SW
979 Aspen UGB-Red 2 Additional floor area 4/5/12 273706307001 IR-47-07-SW N/A
LLC Mountain IR-48-07-SW
19
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
Location #TDRs How are TDRs to be Date Extinguished? Parcel ID# TDR Certificate# Approval#
approved used? (if extinguished)
2012(cont)
River UGB- 1 Additional floor area 8/6/12 273717308001 IR-16-09-H-SW N/A
Sanctuary East Aspen
LLC
HOL LLC Capitol 1 Additional floor area 2/12/13 264603401006 IR-10-03-SW HO 05-2012
Creek
Stringer Trust Castle 1 Additional floor area 12/11/12 291102100003 IR-46-07-SW HO 06-2012
Creek
Charlie Snowmass 1 Additional floor area 11/20/12 264511100001 IR-09-03-SW BOCC 59-2012
Mountain LLC Creek
Alexander UGB 273512400005/ BOCC 068-2012
273513200001 DENIED use of 3
TDRs
2013
Starwood 55 Starwood 1 Additional floor area 7/18/13 264335105003 IR-98-29-ES N/A
LLC
Five Rules UGB 2 Additional floor area 7/15/13 273728300018 IR-09-07-C-ES N/A
Holdings IR-10-07-C-ES
Property 1 Ltd
Aspen Gray UGB 2 Additional floor area 6/6/13 273503302001 IR-24-07-SW N/A
LLC IR-25-07-SW
148 Placer UGB 4 Additional floor area 10/4/13 273707275002 IR-52-07-SW N/A
Lane LLC IR-53-07-SW
IR-54-07-SW
IR-55-07-SW
GSS McLain McLain 1 Additional floor area 8/22/13 264327100004 IR-07-08-C-SW HO 02-2013
Flats LLC Flats
Celestial Land Maroon 2 Additional floor area 273521400004 HO 04-2013
Company Creek ON APPEAL
Schlosser McLain 1 Additional floor area 10/3/13 264327400006 IR-01-13-H-SW HO 06-2013
Flats
Skirball Capitol 1 Additional floor area 264504404022 HO 07-2013
_ Creek
White Star McLain 1 Additional floor area 264322303005 HO 08-2013
Capitol Mgmt Flats
Pending
Catto Little 5 1-development right 264310100002 BOCC 223-2002
Woody 4-additional floor area on 264310100008 Det/Final Plat
Creek each of 4 lots application pending
20
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
EXHIBIT C
APPROVED TDR RECEIVER SITES AND TDRS EXTINGUISHED SINCE 1996 BY PLANNING AREA
Caucus/ Approved Receiver Sites TDRs Extinguished
Planning Area
Development Right' Additional Floor Area Development Right Additional Floor Area2
UGB 28 42 24 23
Independence 25 17
Maroon/Castle 2 25 15
Owl Creek 1 17 15
Woody Creek 26 101 5 56
Brush Creek 3 2
Snowmass Canyon 3 6 3
Snowmass/Capitol 12 12 1 2
Emma/Basalt 6 7 1 4
Crystal 11 17 1
Frying Pan
TOTAL 89 255 31 140
Prior to the adoption of the new Land Use Code in 2006, TDRs could be used for development rights in the Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB) or the Rural
Area. The 2006 Code only permits TDRs to be used for development rights in the UGB; approvals for TDRs for development rights in the Rural Area were
granted under the prior Code.
Includes 20 receiver sites that did not require special review approval to receive TDRs (i.e. UGB, Starwood, Owl Creek Ranch)—these sites are not
included in the "Approved Receiver Sites—Additional Floor Area" column.
21
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
EXHIBIT D
FLOOR AREA APPROVED VIA TDRS AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION 2001-2012
[UGB = Urban Growth Boundary; RA= Rural Area]
TDRS1 GM Cometition2
New Development Additional Floor New Development Rights4- Additional Floor Areas-SF
Rights-SF (#of Area3-SF (#of SF (#of properties) (#of properties)
properties) properties)
2001 60,000 (6 RA; 6 30,000 (3 RA; 4 UGB) 17,250 (1 Crystal); 25,000 (2 39,965 (7 RA)
UGB) RA)
2002 30,000 (5 RA; 1 30,000 (5 RA) 0 40,000 (9 RA)
UGB)
2003 0 17,500 (5 RA) 25,000 (5 RA) 27,500 (6 RA6)
2004 11,500 (2 Rural Area) 32,500 (10 RA; 1 10,000 (2 Crystal) 19,600 (5 RA)
UGB)
2005 126,500 (22 RA) 132,500 (35 RA) 10,000 (2 Crystal) 14,200 (3 RA)
2006 97,750 (15 RA; 2 105,000 (16 RA; 12 2,250 (3 R/R in RA) 17,500 (5 RA)
UGB) UGB)
2007 0 37,500 (7 RA) 17,250 (3 RA); 9,350 sf(1 5,714 (2 RA)
UGB)
2008 17,250 (3 RA') 65,000 (15 RA) 5,750 (1 RA) 8,984 (1 RA)
2009 0 20,000 (5 RA) 9,100 (2 RA) 0
2010 0 17,500 (3 RA) 5,750 sf(1 RA) 2,194 (1 UGB)
2011 0 35,000 (6 RA) 0
2012 0 7,500 (3 RA) 1,000 (1 RA)
2013 0 25,000 (3 RA) 0 2,500 (1 RA)
TOTAL 343,000 555,000 136,700 178,1578
SF (62 properties-53 (132 properties- 115 (22 properties-22 RA; 1 (398 properties-38 RA; 1
RA; 9 UGB) RA; 17 UGB) UGB) UGB)9
1 For purposes of the TDR portion of the table,"Rural Area"includes Crystal and Fryingpan Areas.
2 Growth Management competition for Additional Floor Area in the UGB only applicable after July 2006.
3 Does not include properties for which special review approval is not required to use TDRs for additional floor area
4 63,750 sf available annually(23,000 sf UGB; 10,000 sf Crystal;5,750 sf Fryingpan;25,000 sf remainder of Rural Area)
5 39,000 sf available annually(10,000 sf UGB;4,000 sf Crystal;0 sf Fryingpan;25,000 sf remainder of Rural Area)
6 2"repeats"from 2001
'Approvals under pre-2006 Code which allowed TDRs for new development rights in Rural Area
8
11,000 excluded for`repeat"allotments in 2003
9 2 properties excluded for"repeat"allotments in 2003
22
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
EXHIBIT E
RURAL/REMOTE PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED (OR APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT)
AND ARE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO SEVER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Year Approved Location Approved? Built? PID
1996
Haas Little Annie 1,000 sf cabin built 291112100005
Greenway Intersection of Midnight 1,000 sf cabin built 273536400078
Mine & Little Annie Roads
1998
Top of Little Annie Intersection of Midnight 1,000 sf cabin built 273536400062
Mine & Little Annie Roads
1999
Zurcher Richmond Ridge 1,000 sf cabin built 290917200014
2000
Katie's Claim Intersection of Midnight 1,000 sf cabin built 273536400060
Mine & Little Annie Roads
Enough Claim Little Annie Road 2,000 sf cabin built 291101400007
(through aggregation)
2001
Kopp Lenado- Larkspur Road 1,000 sf cabin built 264115200005
Tschappat Fryingpan - Miller Creek 1,000 sf cabin built 247126400035
Castle Creek Investors Little Annie 1,000 sf cabin built 273536400001
Castle Creek Investors Richmond Ridge Approved; not built 273731300050
Woody Creek Ventures Chaparral Aspen Remote Approved for 3 cabins; one 264303201010
Parcel 1,000 sf cabin built (built)
264303201001
264303201005
2002
Alaska Lode—Stony Davis Richmond Ridge Expanded existing cabin 290906300001
2006
Concord Claim Cooper Creek(above 1,000 sf cabin built 299918100001
Ashcroft)
2007
Finkle Richmond Ridge Approved; not built 273731300049
Woody Creek Ventures Chaparral Aspen Remote GM allotments granted for 264303201006
Parcel 3 cabins; not built 264303201007
264303201008
2008
Greenway Little Annie Approved; not built 291101100052
2009
Mandich Cooper Creek (above Approved; not built 299917100003
Ashcroft)
Matthews Hurricane Road Approved 2nd deed 291112100019
restricted 562 sf cabin; not
built
2011
Bunta/Manning Little Annie Road Approved; not built 291101100051
TOTAL 23— 11 cabins built;1
expanded; 11
approved/unbuilt
23
EXHIBIT A
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
EXHIBIT F
CONSTRAINED SITE TDR TALLY
OWNER NAME LOCATION #TDRS BOCC REASON
GRANTED APPROVAL
DATE
Goldsmith Crystal —Avalanche 2 5/11/05 Wildlife—winter range,
Creek winter concentration area,
production area
Gibson Crystal —Avalanche 1 5/11/05 Access, riparian, slopes
Creek
ZTS Construction Crystal River Park (3 lots) 3 9/14/05 Slopes, avalanche, debris
flow, rockfall, severe wildfire
Morrow Wingo Junction 3* 9/28/05 Slopes, floodplain, severe
wildfire, visual
Aspen Mass Highway 82/Brush Creek 3 3/22/06 Visual
Vaughn Crystal River Park 1 6/14/06 Slopes, debris flow, rockfall,
severe wildfire, mapped
potential avalanche
Lot 11 Sopris Creek Section 36 2 9/27/06 Slopes, elk production area,
LLC (Gina) migration corridor
Red Oak Trust Woody Creek 1 9/27/06 Slopes, severe wildfire,
visual
Tabackin Brush Creek Village 2 11/1/06 Slopes, severe wildfire,
visual
Crowley Fryingpan 12 12/6/06 Wildlife—severe winter
range, migration corridor,
scenic/rural character
Rooney Crystal River Park 1 5/23/07 Slopes, rockfall, small lot _
Grosjean/Spencer Section 36 2** 6/27/07 Slopes, elk production area,
migration pattern, goshawk
nest, wetlands, proximity to
public lands
Majestic Peaks Pointe Section 36 2 7/11/07 Elk migration corridor,
(Woodward) proximity to public lands
Nelsen Redstone Ranch Acres 1 7/11/07 Slopes, severe wildfire,
access
McBurney Crystal River Park 1 7/25/07 Slopes, rockfall, setbacks
from spring
Harvey Shield 0 Terrace 2 2/13/08 Slopes, severe wildfire,
visual
Poulaki/Koukla Redstone 2 10/22/08 Rockfall, floodplain/riparian
Spizzirri East Aspen 1** 11/19/08 Visual, proximity to public
lands/trail
Walter Crystal 1 12/16/09 Slopes, rockfall, alluvial fan,
visual, wildlife
TOTAL 43
* Morrow TDRs limited to use on Wingo Junction Ranch Subdivision lots across Highway 82
** Not issued
The BOCC has denied two requests for constrained TDRs: 1 TDR for a parcel on Lime Creek up the
Fryingpan (F Pan LLP) and 1 TDR for a parcel above Shale Bluffs (Heineman).
24
Agenda
• Review findings from the 6 month
evaluation of the program
• Discuss implications
• Review Working Agreements
• Recommendations and next steps
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 1
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 1
Quick Review of Original Data Collection Process
Staff
Interviews
MBTI
Document Board
Review
Styles
Findings
MBTI
Observation Staff
Styles
Adizes Board
Lifecycle Interviews
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 2
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 2
Review of Timeline
Collect Analyze Socialize Plan & Implement Review
Action
• Develop survey • Assemble • Data Debrief • Board confirms • Follow on • Re-survey OST
• Survey Staff& • Report and Preliminary Action coaching with Board and staff
Board Action Planning Plan/Board OST director using success
with OST Team working metrics
agreements for • Follow on
• Data Debrief overall Program coaching with • Evaluate, debrief
with OST Board Sustainability OST Board chair in Board and
Staff Retreat
• Create metrics • ED confirms • 60 day check in
for evaluating new structure, with staff and • Follow on
progress hiring plan Board: June 20 planning to
address gaps
• Completed • Completed
• Staff Retreat • May-October, • EoM, Nov., 2013
March 18th • April 18th , 2013 2013
• Board Retreat. • In process
April 4th • Completed • Completed
• Completed
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 3
OST Program Six Month Evaluation
OST Board Interview Synthesis Q 5 (from original interviews)
What are the one or two things that would make the OST Board a
more effective governing board?
• Shorter meetings
• Everyone prepared
• Work at policy level, not operational
• Better coordination with ED on agenda items
• Stay on the agenda
• Better messaging with the media
• Briefer minutes so we can quickly access decision points
• Tool box of criteria, metrics to measure progress on tasks
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 4
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 4
OST Board Interview Synthesis Q 9 (from original interviews)
What would you like to accomplish during the Board's Retreat?
Team Development
• Improve our Board management skills
• Help Dale address his development areas
• Understand each Board member's strengths/development
areas
Sustainability of the Program
• Enhance the sustainability our organization
• Continue to enhance/protect our landscape
• Meet our mission without burning out staff/Board
• Seamless transition to next phase of the program's growth
• Ease the workload of the Board and staff
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 5
OST Program Six Month Evaluation
5
OST Staff Interview Synthesis Q 10 (from original interviews)
10. What is the single most important thing that would help the OST
team become more effective now and over the next 3 years?
• Better ways to manage workload
• It's a really good team; hire great people, but burn them out
• Need to have more fun and focus on celebrating what's been
accomplished instead of rushing to next crisis
• Focus on more efficient operations and structure
• Overcome inability to extract data, report efficiently
• Instill better accountability throughout the team
• Much better public information/education system
• Help to evolve the OST Board's management practices so they play
a more high level role
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 6
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 6
Recommendations (from April presentation)
• Work the the Board/staff to identify areas where lower value work is being unintentionally generated and
significantly reduce time spent on those items
• EG: Narrative style Board minutes vs Outline style minutes and all staff attendance to all Board
meetings
• Restructure the OST program such that more stability and consistency are provided in Land Management,
while still allowing a nimble and reactive approach to Acquisitions
• Provide ongoing development and support to the ED and Board chair to ensure that changes are
implemented and sustainability for all contributors is improved
• Experiment with one formal Acquisitions meeting/month and one Land Management meeting/month.
Structure the agenda for both meetings to end after 4 hours. Agree to support a more structured
facilitation approach that allows the meetings to end on time.
• Develop Working Agreements with the Board to help manage:
• Focus and efficiency of the meetings
• Preparedness for Board meetings
• Strategic vs. Operational focus
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 7
OST Program Six Month Evaluation
7
Success Metrics from April Presentation
By November 30th, 2013
• The OST Board will report that their meetings are more focused, efficient and productive,
supporting them in having a more sustainable work/life balance while still effectively
accomplishing the goals of the program.
• The OST Board will report that they are making good progress in focusing more time on policy
and less time on operations.
• The OST Staff will report that interactions with the OST Board are more efficient allowing them
more time to contribute to the highest value work of the program.
• The OST staff will report that they are receiving more consistent and focused management
support, which responds to their concerns/questions in a timely manner.
• The OST ED will report that a data management plan/proposal has been approved by the Board
and will be implemented in 2014.
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 8
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 8
12/2013 Board Survey Results
• N=4
• What is the level of improvement in the focus, efficiency, and productivity of the OST Board
meetings, creating a more sustainable work/life balance for Board members while still effectively
accomplishing the goals of the program?
• Please choose one: None, A little, Some, or A lot
• 75% chose "some"
• 25% chose "a lot"
Comments:
• The change has improved our effectiveness/time use
• While the meetings do move along better, not sure if we are providing enough oversight to staff
• The once a month Stewardship meetings are going well
• Lindsey and Gary have performed in an exemplary manner, producing the best piece of work in
20 years
• Staff has responded to the extra time by delivering more professional results and thus increasing
Board's confidence in the changes
• Status: Green
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 9
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 9
12/2013 Board Survey Results
• N=4
• What is the level of improvement you have seen in the Board's ability to focus more on policy
and less on operations?
• Please choose one: None, A little, Some, or A lot
• 25% chose "a little"
• 50% chose "some"
• 25% chose "a lot"
• Comments:
• We are starting to understand this change in focus
• The Board should play a more directive role in setting policy, instead of accepting staff's
interpretations of what they want to do
• Need to spend more time on policy discussions
• Status: Green
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 10
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 10
12/2013 Board Survey Results
• N=4
• What is the level of improvement you have seen in Dale's ability to focus the Board on the most
critical strategic issues and give and receive helpful feedback?
• Please choose one: None, A little, Some, or A lot
• 25% chose "a little"
• 50% chose "some"
• 25% chose "a lot"
• Comments:
• Dale has selected two terrific new hires
• He has tremendous vision and dedication
• We work well together
• Status: Green
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 11
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 11
12/2013 Board Survey Results
• N=4
• How well is the Board following through on the Working Agreements?
• Comments:
• Pretty well, not as much "in the weeds"
• Several people were could not recall what the Working Agreements covered, suggesting that a
review would be helpful
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 12
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 12
12/2013 Board Survey Results
• N=4
• What is the most important outcome of the initiative, from your point of view?
• Comments:
• Better meeting management procedures have resulted in greater confidence in our positions,
especially on tough negotiations
• We have better alignment on the program goals
• The time spent re-evaluating the program has enhanced our effectiveness
• The new format has worked really well
• Concern about potential for inadequate oversight from Board to staff
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 13
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 13
12/2013 Board Survey Results
• N=4
• What still needs to be improved?
• Comments:
• PM tracking needs improvement
• Re-evaluate Dale's role-too broad
• Lessened interest from BoCC in the program?
• Unfinished business not progressed
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 14
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 14
12/2013 Staff Survey Results
• N=6
• What is the level of improvement you have seen in staff's interactions with the OST Board in terms of
being more efficient, such that you now have more time to focus on the highest value work of the OST
program?
Please choose one: None, A little, Some or A lot.
• 1/6th: Some
• 5/6ths: A lot
• Comments:
• Having more time between meetings allows us to get more work done
• Improved staff productivity and morale
• Having an Operations meeting once a month is more efficient for everyone
• Status: Green
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 15
OST Program Six Month Evaluation
15
12/2013 Staff Survey Results
• N=5
• What is the level of improvement you have seen in Dale's ability to provide timely support and more
focused management support, either directly or indirectly through the Deputy Director for Land
Stewardship?
• Please choose one: None, A little, Some or A lot.
• 2/5ths: None/A little
• 3/5ths: Some
• Status: ella : Still in progress
• This goal needs more discussion with staff to progress further
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 16
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 16
12/2013 Staff Survey Results
• What's the most important outcome of the initiative, from your point of view?
• Comments:
• More time to focus on individual work
• Improved staff morale
• Board's growing ability to delegate to staff
• Better staff utilization in terms of attendance to Board meetings
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 17
OST Program Six Month Evaluation
17
12/2013 Staff Survey Results
• What still needs to be improved?
• Comments:
• Dale has been out of the office too much, need him on site more often
• Both managers need to consistently follow through on responding staff requests in a timely
manner
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 18
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 18
Recommendations
Board
• The structural changes in the program seem to have had an overall very positive impact. No
further recommendations here.
• The Board should do a formal review the Working Agreements once or twice a year to make sure
they are continuing to provide guidance and support alignment on how to work together
effectively.
• The Working Agreements should also guide the Chair in how they focus the meeting.
• They should also be used when onboarding new Board members.
Staff
• Staff feedback on the new structure and ways of working with the Board seems very positive, as
well. No further recommendations.
• Some internal issues with management structure still need further exploration and will be
addressed in follow up meetings this month and reported back by EoM JAN.
Exhibit B: 01/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes Slide 19
OST Program Six Month Evaluation 19
EXHIBIT C
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
January 9, 2014
Adopted Working Agreements for the OST Board and Staff
1. New Directives; The Board has occasionally generated new directives based on Board
comments, with no mechanism for the staff to vet the idea or analyze how it might affect
existing message, priorities, or workload. Hence, unless some exigency or emergency
requires immediate action, potential directives that are outside what is contemplated in the
meeting agenda will be referred to staff for continued discussion at a following meeting.
Why: Allows staff to vet new ideas from the perspective of existing workloads and
priorities.
2. New Directives; When the Board desires to change or add a directive, or the manner of
implementation of an existing directive, the Board Chair will also ask for staff comments on
the feasibility and workload impact.
Why: Same as above
3. Press-wise etiquette: Trustees will seek to vet potential ideas or criticisms with staff prior
to public meetings, and will be mindful of potential negative quotes when the Board is in
public
session.
Why: May help to avoid quotes taken out of context and minimize damage control.
4. Preparation: The Board agrees to be fully prepared for each meeting, reading the packets
ahead of time so they are ready to participate when the meeting begins.
Why: Saves time, increases efficiency of meetings, respects the time of those who are
prepared.
5. Policy focus: The Board agrees to actively work towards a higher level, more policy based
focus and avoid getting too far into the operations of the program, instead delegating this
focus to
staff.
Why: Efficiency of Board and staff time, reducing length of meetings, empowering staff
6. Single point directives: Board and staff agree to funnel all new directives/inputs through the
ED and avoid placing other staff in the position of wondering if this is an individual request or a
Board directive.
Why: staff get confused about who is requesting what, conflicting directives from the
Board.
7. We agree to make decisions by consensus when possible and to respect the majority position of
the Board when consensus does not exist. Trustees also agree that if they are not able to
EXHIBIT C
1/09/2014 OSTB Regular Session Minutes
attend a meeting,they will defer to decisions made in their absence.
Why: Importance of providing a unified front once a decision is made
8. We agree that Board meetings are a priority. Every effort will be made to attend all regular
meetings, meet on time, keep meetings on schedule, complete discussions, and bring issues
to closure when possible.
Why: Importance of efficiency in continuing to move the work forward
9. We respect that each Trustee may wish to express their opinions outside Board meetings to
the media or in other public forums. We agree to distinguish our personal views from those
of the Board, and to be mindful that our association with the program may be assumed by the
general public.
Why: Importance of clarity regarding the Board's actions versus those of members.
PROCEDURAL AGREEMENTS
We agree to make time to meet as agreed.
We agree to encourage an inclusive public processes
We agree to forward communications through the ED.
We agree to request open discussion items through the ED.
We agree to review working agreements semi—annually and will be part of a new Trustee's
integration.