HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20080520AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, May 20, 2008
4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing
SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IH. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. 404 Park Ave. /414 Park Circle (Aspenwalk), Conceptual PUD,
(continued from 4/15), Resolution No. 014-08
B. Code Amendment, landing Transferable Development Rights
on landmarks, Resolution No. 017-08
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIIL ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
Y4
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directo~
RE: Aspen Walk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle) -Conceptual Planned Unit
Development -Resolution No. 14, Series 2008 -Public Hearine
(Continued from April I5, 2008)
MEETING
DATE: May 20, 2008
SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the April 15th hearing and addresses the
changes to the proposal since the last hearing. It contains the following:
• A summary of the issues raised from the last meeting with additional
information provided by Staff and the Applicant;
• Staff recommendation & motion; and
• A revised resolution.
Also attached is the original staff report of April 15, 2008. This memo provides the board
with the development proposal, background and dimensional standards associated with the
development so that you have this information at hand. The tables within the April 15`h
memo have been updated to reflect the changes in the application. The first table of this
new memo begins with the number eight (8) so that table numbers are not duplicated from
the April 15th memo.
SUMMARY AND FIRST READING QUESTIONS:
At the April 15~h public hearing on Aspen Walk, the Planning and Zoning Commission raised a
number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail prior to continuation of the
application.
The Applicant has amended the design of the project and a summary of the changes aze provided
below. Comments from Staff follow in a separate, italicized paragraph when applicable. The
Applicant's representative has provided a memo on the changes in the attached Exhibit "H".
1) Proposed Changes.
• Redesigned Garage Entrv. The garage entry has been relocated further north, away
from the intersection and closer to the shared property line with the Tailings
Condominiums. The reconfiguration provides for fifty-three (53) parking spaces,
twenty-five (25) for the affordable housing units and twenty-eight (28) for the
market rate units.
The Applicant will need to request the off-street parking standard for the affordable
housing units be approved at twenty-frve spaces as part of the dimensional standards
of the Planned Unit development (PUD).
Page 1 of 15
• Lowering of the Overall Heieht. The building height has been lowered by sinking the
building further into the ground. According to the Applicant, the building now
conforms to the thirty-two (32) feet height limit.
With the lowering of the building, the Applicant will need to verify that fifty (50)
percent of each affordable housing unit's net livable area is at or above finished or
natural grade, whichever is higher, on the ftrst floor. The elevations provided do not
appear to meet this design standard. Additionally, partially submerging the ground
floor units decreases the quality of those spaces and may require additional privacy
needs in the form of vegetation to screen the windows.
• Modified North Side of Buildin¢. The Applicant has relocated the pazking gazage
access to the north side of the building and provided an outdoor deck above the
garage entry for use by the affordable housing residents. Due to this new design,
approximately 2/3rds of the building wall is now located further from the commonly
shared property line with the Tailings Condominiums.
The Applicant has made an effort to modify the building design on the north end of
the building based on comments from adjoining neighbors.
• Reduction in Floor Area. In the initial application provided to the Community
Development department, the applicant requested a floor azea ratio (FAR) of 1.56:1
(51,040 sq. ft.). With additional redesign (including greater circulation efficiencies
and lowering of the building) the Applicant is now requesting a FAR of 1.31:1
(43,001 sq. ft.). The allowed FAR based on the proposed density is 1:25:1 or 40,968
sq. ft.
The Applicant is requesting 2,033 square feet in additional floor area. Staff feels the
massing of the building is too monolithic and additional floor area should not be
supported.
• Conformance with Demolition or Replacement of Multi-Family Housing
Requirements. The Applicant has reduced the number of affordable housing amts
proposed by one so the total number of units is now twenty-four (24). With the
reduction in the unit there is also a corresponding reduction in net livable azea
provided for the affordable housing units. Previously, 17,802 sq. ft. of net livable
azea (as outlined in Tables 3 and 4 of the April 15~' memo) was proposed, compazed
to the current 16,127 square feet for a difference of 1,675 squaze feet. The proposed
unit configuration and sizes aze shown in table 8, below.
Page 2 of 16
'T'a},la u• prnnnceri Affnrrlahle Hnusin¢ Units
:~.ttttt 7'~+p~;~ +tumt8rcabf.
Uni#~ ~-- ' iVi;3 of :'~'
8edrooms l3ni£:'
5 .Ft...- Tbtai~5q:
Ft.
studios 3 3 403 1209
studios 2 2 405 810
1 bedroom 3 3 600 1800
1 bedroom 2 2 602 1204
1 bedroom 2 2 603 1206
1 bedroom 2 2 605 1210
2 bedroom 6 12 850 5100
2 bedroom 3 6 856 2568
3 bedroom 1 3 1020 1020
24 35 16,127
Using the information provided in Table 3 of the April 15a' memo, nine (9) units
with fourteen (14) bedrooms will qualify as the required replacement housing for the
existing affordable housing units. The nine (9) new units will house the same number
of employees as the existing eleven (11) units. The net livable azea of the units has
been amended to reflect the unit sizes in Table 8, resulting in a total of 6,059 sq. ft.
of net livable azea being provided to satisfy the replacement requirements for the
existing affordable housing. The remaining fifteen (15) affordable housing units can
be used to satisfy the mitigation requirements for the market rate housing.
The remaining affordable units aze comprised of fifteen (15) units, twenty-one (21)
bedrooms, and 10,068 sq. ft. of net livable azea. As indicated in Table 5 of the April
IS`h memo, the proposed bedroom count of twenty-one (21) bedrooms is less than
the twenty-five (25) bedrooms required to be replaced to meet the one hundred
percent replacement requirements.
The Applicant will need to amend the configuration of the affordable housing to
include four additional bedrooms in order to satisfy the 100% replacement
requirement.
Elevator Shaft Relocation. The architects for the project have relocated the elevator
shafts on the roof top decks. Two of the shafts that were close to the perimeter of the
roof along Park have been relocated further away from the edge of the roof.
The relocation of the elevator shafts should help conceal the shafts from ground
views.
2) View Protection with regard to the Land Use Code. The code provides protection for
specific, designated Mountain View Planes. These views originate primazily within the
downtown commercial core and aze generally towazds Aspen Mountain. The Planned Unit
Development standazds under the site design section, discusses clustering buildings "to
appropriately preserve significant open space and vistas." This design standazd is
appropriately used in a project like Burlingame, where development is clustered so that open
space is preserved and there is minimal impact to existing vistas. In the case of this
application, staff does not believe the PUD standard is applicable to the review.
Page 3 of 16
3) Allowable Floor Area as it Relates to the Multi-Family Residential Zone District. Staff
is still concerned that the scale of the project will overwhelm the neighborhood. By
proposing to merge the two lots into one lazger lot, the potential to redevelop the lot is less
constrained by setbacks, pazking requirements and individual lot mitigation requirements.
Combining the lots allows for a monolithic building, rather than mass that is broken up by
development on two separate lots. Staff finds the massing to be out of chazacter with the
neighborhood.
In a typical scenario where the lots are developed sepazately, the demolition of 404 Pazk
Avenue would require affordable housing mitigation on the lot (at least seven (7) units and
no more than fourteen (14)). Although the Applicant notes that the proposal allows for a
"cost-effective and efficient use of the land," the result of the redevelopment proposal is that
all of the affordable housing, inclusive of the mitigation required for the redevelopment of
the market rate units for 404 Pazk Avenue is located on the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority's (APCHA) lot. In addition to the affordable housing, the APCHA lot is also
being developed with two market rate units on it totaling approximately 4,000 squaze feet.
Table 9, below, notes the density required to achieve certain floor azeas for each lot
individually. It also divides the allowable floor azea by the number of units to provide an
average floor area per unit size. The table illustrates the different types of development that
would result from a typical development scenario where the lots aze developed sepazately.
T~hla Q• ArhiPVahlr Flnnr Arras fnr 404 Park Ave. and 414 Pazk Circle
f~R 404;parkAvenue _ . ~ 414Pa~~Ct'~r~e ,~ a ;~fjc~~"
F~,40~J?'t,
h
~Sfidi~ig "x .<jLotsi~e 17>55t~~sq ft.) ~u . ~(LbtSiie 15,2~4sq~ft.) ~
(L'dt~}ae3 f ~
_
Scale
No. of Floor Average No. of Floor Average No. of Floor Average
Units Area Floor Units Area Floor Units Area Floor
Allowed Area Per Allowed Area Per Allowed Area Per
Unit Unit Unit
0.75:1 >_ 11 13,162 1,595 >_ 10 11,418 1,522 2 21 24,580 1,560
1.25:1 12-23 21,937 1,462-763 11-20 19,030 1,384-761 22-43 40,967 1,489-76
1.5:1 <_ 24 26,325 731 5 21 22,836 724 544 49,161 744
RECOMMENDATION: Staff understands the benefit that affordable housing provides to the
community and the benefit APCHA sees in gaining new (both in construction and inventory)
affordable housing units at no cost to the agency; however, development projects need to be
sensitive to the scale and chazacter of the neighborhood where they are located.
The current size of the project creates a monolithic structure that overwhelms the existing
neighborhood. The Aspen Area Community Plan, which promotes the development of affordable
housing discusses the goals for affordable housing development. Under the Housing section, the
intent is to "create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed
throughout existing and new neighborhoods....and respects our overall community concerns, as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan." Further in the Housing section, the Philosophy
part of the section notes that "Each project should endeavor to further that mix (of income ranges
and types of people) and to avoid segregation of economic and social classes by project." The
sub-section also emphasizes that "housing should be compatible with the scale and character of
Page 4 of 16
the community..." as well as "preserve and enhance our sense of community" with regazd to
infill projects. Finally, the Housing section of the AACP notes that "each potential affordable
housing site has an optimum development potential" and "site planning should be driven by the
physical character of the land and character of the neighborhood."
The Applicant has made some revisions to the proposal but staff feels the changes do not result
in a project that fits with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Staff again recommends
the Planning and Zoning Commission require that the applicant make substantial revisions to
their conceptual plans and provide units that are well integrated with the mazket rate
development. With this present current configuration, Staff recommends denial of the proposal if
no additional changes are made.
Specifically, Staff recommends:
• Reducing the floor area of the proposal.
Reducing the mass of the structure by either developing multiple buildings on the site or
breaking up the mass of the structure.
• Provision of 100% of the off-street parking required for the affordable housing units.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue with direction to restudy the Conceptual Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for the Aspen Walk project."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Application (provided previously to the Commission)
EXHIBIT B -Review Criteria and Staff Findings (included in the memo of April 15, 2008 and
May 20`")
EXHIBIT C -Development Review Committee Minutes (included in the memo of April
15, 2008)
EXHIBIT D -Supplemental Memo (included in the memo of April 15, 2008)
ExH[sIT E -Supplemental Renderings (included in the memo of April 15, 2008)
EXHIBIT F -Supplemental Memo dated April 15, 2008 from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
(emailed to P&Z by Clerk's office and provided at April 15, 2008 hearing)
EXHIBIT G -Supplemental Renderings dated May 6, 2008 (provided at April 15, 2008 heazing)
EXHIBIT H -Supplemental Memo dated May 7, 2008 from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
EXHIBIT I-Public comment from Nina Merzbach dated May 15, 2008
EXHIBIT J-Supplemental Renderings dated May 6, 2008
Page 5 of 15
Staff Memo of April 15, 2008
APPLICANT /OWNER:
PFG Aspen Walk, LLC (404 Pazk
Avenue) and Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority (414 Pazk Circle)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates,
Inc.
LOCATION:
Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision and Lot
5, Sunny Pazk Subdivision commonly
known as 404 Pazk Avenue and 414 Park
Circle, respectively.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the residential multi-family
(R/MF) zone district with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) overlay. 404 Park
Ave. contains 17,550 sq. ft. of lot azea
while 414 Pazk Circle contains 15,224
sq. ft of lot area.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to develop a
residential multi-family building
containing at grade and sub-grade
pazking, twenty-€rve four(2324)
affordable housing units and fourteen
(14) free-mazket residential housing units
for a total of thirty-xine-ei ht 3938)
dwelling units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission require the Applicant to
substantially revise the plans prior to continuing
to City Council. A site visit is proposed for noon
on Tuesday, April 15"'.
SUMMARY'
The Applicant requests of the Planning and
Zoning Commission a recommendation of
Page 6 of 16
approval of Conceptual PUD.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to redevelop the site:
• Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the development of a site specific
development flan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (Gifu Council is the final
review authorify after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Conceptual PUD review before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the first step in a four
step review process. Once heard by the Commission, the City Council will review the application
and recommendations of the Commission at a public heazing. This is the second step of
Conceptual PUD review. If approved by City Council, the Applicant may then make an
application for Final PUD review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (step three). City
Council will then consider the Final PUD application as the fourth and final step in the review.
Additional land use approvals necessary for this project, that can be consolidated with the Final
PUD application include, amongst others: Growth Management Review for the Demolition or
Replacement of Multi-family Housing, Growth Management Review for the development of
Affordable Housing, and Subdivision Review.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicants, PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) have requested approval to demolish two existing buildings located at 404 Pazk
Avenue (Lot 3, Sunny Pazk Subdivision) and 414 Pazk Circle (Lot 5, Sunny Pazk Subdivision).
404 Park Avenue is a 17,550 sq. ft. lot that contains fourteen (14) free-mazket residential multi-
family dwelling units in one building. 414 Park Circle is a 15,224 sq. ft. lot containing eleven
(11) deed restricted residential multi-family affordable housing units in one building. Combined,
both lots contain 32,774 squaze feet and twenty-five (25) dwelling units.
The Applicants would like to redevelop the two lots with a new multi-family building containing
twenty-five (25) affordable housing and fourteen (14) free market residential dwelling units for a
total of thirty-nine (39) units. The existing property is located in the Residential Multi-Family
(R/MF) zone district with a PUD Overlay. The site is sloped with a distinct upper and lower
bench demarcated by an existing retaining wall between the two lots; the new building (some of
which is below grade) as shown in Figure 1, is proposed to contain:
1) A completely sub-grade pazking garage for the free-market residential dwelling units.
Vehiculaz access to the property and the gazage will be from Pazk Circle. The gazage
will provide thirty pazking spaces.
2) The next level is above and below grade (gazden level) and contains four free-market
residential units and pazking for the affordable housing units. Twenty-four parking
spaces are provided for the affordable housing units.
3) The third level is above grade on all sides and contains five (5) free market residential
dwelling units and eight (8) affordable housing units.
Page7of16
4) The fourth level contains five (5) free-mazket residential dwelling units and eight (8)
affordable housing units.
5) The fifth level contains nine (9) affordable housing units.
The proposed dimensional requirements are outlined in Table 1, below. Again the current
development includes eleven (11) affordable housing units and fourteen (14) free-mazket
residential units. The redevelopment would replace the original eleven (11) affordable housing
units and provide an additional fourteen (14) new affordable housing units. The redevelopment
would also replace the fourteen (14) free-mazket residential units. Table 1, below, outlines the
proposed dimensional requirements for the project. The highlighted cells aze the proposed
standards that exceed permitted requirements for the underlying zone district.
Page 8 of 16
Minimum Rear 5 Feet 5 Feet
Yard Setback
Maximum Height 3243 Feet 32 Feet (for a parcel density equal to or greater than
one unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot area
32,774/39 38=840 862
Floor Area Ratio '' "^ ~~ ","^" °" " 1.25: 1 or 40,968 sq. ft.
(FAR) 131:1 or 43,001 sq. ft. (for a parcel density equal to or greater than one unit
per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot azea)
Minimum Off-
Street Pazking
53 spaces
Free-Market Residential (14
units.: 3A 28 spaces
Affordable Housing
Residential (25 units): 24 25
maces
1Ce51Uellll'dl-1V1U1LYP 6Illlly VUwluc t'aoLJCaa uauu
Area: Lesser of one space per bedroom or two
spaces per unit
Free-Market Residential (14 units): 5*
Affordable Housing Residential (25 unitsl: 3930*
Notes:
* An applicant is allowed to maintain an existing deficit in pazking when a property is redeveloped;
however, the proposed redevelopment includes fourteen (14) new affordable housing dwelling units that
are required to meet the off-street pazking standards. An in-depth review of the pazking is provided
below.
Demolition or Replacement of Multi-Family Housing:
For approximately twenty-seven years, the City has required a certain amount of affordable
housing to be developed when existing free-market multi-family residential dwelling units are
demolished. The basis for this requirement was the observation that as existing multi-family
units (which had often served as housing for local working residents) were demolished and
replaced, the new units no longer housed local working residents. The latest modification to this
requirement occurred as result of the moratorium in 2006 and became effective in June of 2007
(Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007).
For afree-market residential multi-family project that is demolished, a developer has two
mitigation options. One option is to replace one hundred percent of the units (as well as
bedrooms and net livable area) of the previously existing building as Resident Occupied
affordable housing; the remaining development on the site may be free-mazket as long as there
is no increase in the number of free-market residential units that previously existed. A second
option is to replace fiftypercent of the existing units (as well as bedrooms and net livable area)
of the previously existing building as Category 4 affordable housing; the remaining
development on the site may be free-market as long as there is no increase in the number of
free-market residential units that previously existed. Additional mitigation is required when the
net livable azea is increased from what previously existed. When existing affordable housing is
demolished, the replacement housing is required to house the same number of employees as
were previously housed.
Page 9 of 15
Affordable housing units required for mitigation aze required to be provided on the lot where the
demolition occurs rather than on a different lot, unless the developer can show that on-site
replacement would be an inappropriate solution. For example, in the past three yeazs there have
been three developments required to meet this program which has generated eight (8) affordable
housing units out of fourteen (14) redeveloped units. The proposal before the Commission is
somewhat different in that two lots aze proposed to be considered one site and the new
affordable housing units provided to satisfy the multi-family replacement requirements (one
hundred percent replacement) aze situated on the affordable housing lot.
Affordable Housin¢:
The proposal presented before the Commission is to demolish the existing eleven (I1) affordable
housing units at 414 Pazk Circle and replace them as well as add fourteen (14) additional
affordable housing units on the site. The additional fourteen (14) units aze the required mitigation
for the demolition of the existing fourteen (14) free-mazket units at 404 Pazk Avenue. Overall,
the proposed twenty-five (25) units will house 46.25 employees as outlined in Table 2, below.
Table 2: Affordable Housine. Emnlovees Housed
(J~~'~'yPe f ~Ii
g
~~
' ,`~xi~ ;ng ~ropnse~i ~ ~bposel
~~? ~ "° ~
i
,
~ '~~ttit§ ~„ Etupld'~aees Y ~ ' AH~3'thit§ ~ ~~mp~op'ees:
~ F
studio 8 10 3 3.75
8 x 1.25) (3 x 1.25)
1 bedroom 0 0 14 24.5
(14 x 1.75)
2 bedroom 3 6.75 8 18
(3 x 2.25 (8 x 2.25)
Totals 11 16.75 25 46.25
Any existing affordable housing is required to be replaced when demolition occurs. The number,
size and type of units can be changed; however, at a minimum the same number of employees
previously housed is required to be housed in the redevelopment. Table 3 shows that the 16.75
employees previously housed in the eleven (11) affordable housing units by the eight studios and
three two-bedroom units will be housed in three studios, one one-bedroom and five two-bedroom
units or a total of nine (9) units. The currently existing 5,624 sq. ft. of net livable area will be
increased by 677 squaze feet. The existing affordable housing units are Category 1, considered
"low-income level" in the Employee Housing Guidelines and will be replaced with a mix of
Category 2 (lower moderate-income level) and Category 4 (middle-income level) units.
Page 10 of 16
Table 3: Replacement Affordable Housing Units for the Existing Affordable Units
a t ~
LW ~~~f ee~c~ntF
'v.. 5
0.
~y
c
-Z"'~ `.€ ~s ~' w Em~+lo,~ee"s
~ k ~~ dot ~ ,o r~
~4v i"'~ 1K} t~'
1 v
'Y• ~f~~
t t .
A ~~¢,® ~
.+
ri}'^ }
~
~
j
1~~~~„Y~~~
M'
d ~g~y
S ` ~V Y~CV ~ ifYY
f l.~
~ ~ ,~
3
~
~U
~
'
~ ~.. ~ ~ ..
d
'""
-' ~' 3 T%
.~ A t
~' t f
.
a45~~'?.
IIvit§ ~ }t* , ' '
'
S
.a
. ~~p
{ a
f
. ~
studio 3 3.75 ~'~1209 3
(3 x 1.2s) 3x499 4~
1 bedroom 1 1.75 600 1
(1 x 600)
2 bedroom s 11.2s 4,474 10
(s x 2.25) 2s@850
~~
Totals 9 16.75 6~6 059 14
Additionally, to demolish, replace, and expand the size of the fourteen (14) free-mazket
residential dwelling units, the Applicants are required to replace one hundred percent (100%) of
the previously existing free-mazket residential units, bedrooms and net livable azea as deed
restricted affordable housing units (proposed at Categories 2 and 4 rather than Resident
Occupied). As submitted, the new affordable housing units will exceed the units (16 vs. 14), and
the net livable area (11,s01 sq. ft. vs. 9,424 sq. ft.) required to be replaced as mitigation due to
the demolition; however, they aze not replacing the required number of bedrooms (19 vs. 25
required). Table 4, below, outlines the chazacteristics of the affordable housing units proposed as
mitigation for the replacement free-mazket units while Table s summarizes the unit count,
bedroom count and net livable azea of the free-mazket residential component of the proposal.
Tahte d• Ren„ired Affnrdahle Housing Mitigation for the Free-Mazket Units
;`:. ,
~ ~ ~ ` l~roposed~AH for
R'rec-MailCet' ~ V ' Emplogees'
TiouseYl fork'i'ee- rl~eil T~~v~l-~el~or
~~ F'r~e-1Glart "` ~)f~edrp~~ v"~~
Eii~ _
' S fi \ rf
i
"
Mitigation `Market Mit~gat-uu
•` i
11~i
iti .k~ r
Miti anon.= ~ ~ ~ ~,• . . =~ ._..
studio 8 2 9 2_s 8 810 9 2
2 x 1.25
1 bedroom -13 8 ~5 14 845 4 820 ~13 8
(3-3 8 x 1.7s) 3@796
3 t~794
. 2@709 60s
~ 2@6A4-603
~ 2@602
32 603-600
2 bedroom 3 4 6:75 9 '~ 3.418 6 8
(3 4 x 2.2s) 3@932 8s6
1 850
3 bedroom 1 3 1~ 3
Totals i~15 29.30 28.5 ~,3~>-10 068 ~3 21
Page 11 of 16
Table 5• Free-Market Residential Component
~`~' >Jal's~t~: ' EaE(ist~g.~ s ~~~ , Pi~bpose ~ Pt•Qpb~~f *~`~'r$p`i~~
~
,
' ~; 'Free= t ~"lYati, b~ Free ~ ~ 7,+ree ` b Nab of ,, , ' 153
~
~~'~
~
~
,
~ "", > ~ fi7ark
e
t m's3
Btitl~'~a ,1#~Iarket Net ~ Ma 'ket~ $e+drot+m~ .
~
~
~)C.t~
~
"~4 '
~
d ~
: ~
*
~+~IIA~~~- r
~r~
r§~ a`b
ie ~mT9i ~v
t . :. Ft
~- ymr~~a~~'~
:
~~'
~.~';
~r
„
-~
3t
*'t ~ Z
'-~~ v{ ;
4 ~
&
tiS ~~h *.-L`
A .
t ~ ,
,
,
i' 4
h
c+;t !rSe ,
reas ~v.M1x.- .x ~
.iSi ~.
studio 4 4 ? 0 0
1 bedroom 2 2 ? 2 2 3,998
2 1,999
2 bedroom 6 12 ? ~ 9 X4-18 „~ 22,038
1 @2-,442_
1 @^~TJ° 2424
1 @'~ 2450
2@'~ 2_,441
2@'~ 2493
2 2465
3 bedroom 1 3 ? 3 3 ~l-5 9 „~ ?y03
2@2-,498 2,405
4992393
31 x
,
4 bedroom 1 4 ? 0 0 0
Totals 14 25 9,424 14 31- 29 33;569-33 239
Notes: *Onl a total net livable azea was rovided for the existin g units.
Parkins:
With regard to the off-street parking, following is a table to explain the pazking requirement for
the project. As mentioned under "Notes" for Table I, an existing deficit is allowed to be
maintained when a property is redeveloped; however, this deficit is only for the previously
existing number of units and any new units aze required to meet the off-street parking standazds
unless granted a variation in the requirement. In a PUD, the minimum off=street pazking
requirement can be established as part of the final PUD. The Applicant proposes a pazking
allowance of 95 pazkin¢ spaces per affordable housing unit or a total of twenty-four (241 spaces
for twenty-five (25) units.
Table 6 outlines the parking requirements of the project. Currently, only ten (10) spaces aze
provided for the eleven (11) affordable housing units and five (5) spaces for the fourteen (14)
free-market residential dwelling units. The twenty-five (25) dwelling units redeveloped on the
site can maintain the original deficit in their parking and provide only a total of fifteen (15)
spaces for the twenty-five (25) units. The additional fourteen (14) affordable housing units in the
proposal require nineteen (19) pazking spaces or when added to the ten spaces required as part
for the redevelopment of the original eleven (11) affordable housing units, a total of twenty-nine
(29) spaces. As Table 6 illustrates, the required off-street pazking for the affordable housing units
is short five (5) parking spaces.
Page 12 of 16
Table (• tiff Ctreet Parking Requirements
-
*~ ~ ~~ ~,
kr
A'1'ford~ble`~o~ng~ ~,r ~~
~ ~ ,
?„
, . ,
Existing No. of Units 11 14
Development S aces Re uired 14 22
(25 units) S aces Provided 10_ 5
Deficit -4 -17
Redevelopment No. of Units ~ 9 14
Proposal Spaces Required 10 5
(35 23 units) (if deficit is (if deficit is
maintained) maintained)
Spaces Provided 10 X9-28
Additional No. of Units 1-4 15 0
Development Spaces Re uired ~i-9 20 NA
Proposal (1415 Spaces Provided -I-4 15 NA
units) Deficit -5 NA
(5110 studios/1
bedrooms,
3 4- 2 bedrooms & 1-
3bedroom
Note: Following is a breakdown of the individual parking requirements of existing and proposed
development:
Existing Free-Market Proposed Free-Mazket Existing Affordable Proposed Affordable
Housin¢ Housin
4-studios = 4 spaces
2-1 bedrooms = 2 spaces 35-studios = 3 5 spaces
6-2 bedrooms = 12 spaces 2-1 bedrooms = 2 spaces 9-1 bedrooms = 9spaces
1-3 bedroom = 2 spaces 7-2 bedrooms = 14 spaces 8-studios = 8 spaces 9-2 bedrooms = ] 8 spaces
1-4 bedroom = 2 soaces 5-3 bedroom = ]0 sQaces 3-2 bedrooms = 6 spaces 1-3 bedroom= 2 spaces
22 spaces 26 spaces 14 spaces 33 34 spaces
STAFF COMMENTS'
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
Both lots currently have a PUD overlay on them. Any development (or redevelopment) is
required to be reviewed and approved prior to development being allowed to commence. The
purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in
the development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a
greater vaziety in the type and character of the development, and a greater compatibility with
existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the
underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services.
Page 13 of 15
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity
to neighborhood and community goals and objectives."
A PUD allows variation in the sites dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and
innovation, but does not allow variation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants aze
requesting to vary the allowable maximum floor azea for the site, the maximum height,
minimtun setbacks and minimum off-street parking spaces for the affordable housing
component of the project. Specifically, the Applicants are requesting the following dimensional
standazds be approved for the project:
1) An Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.56:1 or 51,040 sq. ft. of floor area rather than the
1.25 or 40,968 sq. ft. permitted for an increase of 10,072 sq. fl.
2) A Maximum Height of 43 feet rather than 32 feet for a length of twenty-five feet on a
portion of the building "to accommodate the access point for the sub grade parking."
According to the original application (Exhibit A), the building also varies in height from 30
feet to 32'-1" to 33'-4".
3) A Minimum Setback of zero feet, at this point in time is requested if a land swap with the
city does not occur. Additionally, the Applicant will need to either request a zero feet
setback along the shazed property line between the two lots to accommodate the new
building or through subdivision review, eliminate the common lot line.
4) An Off-Street Parking minimum for the Affordable Housing component of .95 spaces to one
dwelling unit (or a total of twenty-four spaces) to accommodate the proposed pazking.
The intention of a Conceptual review is to discuss the initial threshold issues relating to a large
development proposal, and to evaluate the suitability of a development project on a particular
parcel of land. The review enables P&Z, Council, Staff, and the Public to review proposed land
uses, use mixes, access and infrastructure issues, and other threshold issues at a basic level
before a full fledged development proposal is brought forwazd. By identifying the issues at
Conceptual Review, the Applicant is able to address them as part of the Final PUD Application
when more specificity in unit counts, site design, architecture, and other land use issues (such as
new zoning, growth management, etc.) are addressed. The Conceptual Review also allows for
initial identification of questions and concerns relating to development on any given parcel.
In this case, the Conceptual Review allows P&Z, Council, Staff, and the Public the opportunity
to identify threshold issues relating to appropriate mass and scale, the appropriate amount of
parking, and give the applicant direction on architectural and design characteristics as well as site
planning.
Lots 3 and 5 within the Sunny Pazk Subdivision already include a PUD Overlay, so this
application would amend the PUD to establish dimensional requirements for this proposal. The
dimensional requirements that are requested to be varied from the underlying zoning are the
~ The Applicant is requesting a 619 sq. ft. land swap with the city to accommodate part of Midland Avenue that is
located on 404 Park Avenue (Lot 3). The area the Applicants would gain is located along Park Avenue where the
property line is a concave in shape.
Page 14 of I S
Maximum Allowable Floor Area, Maximum Height, Minimum Setback and Minimum Off-Street
Pazking as noted previously.
Staff is supportive of affordable housing development within Aspen and recognizes the
importance and need for it within the community; however, staff also recognizes that the Aspen
Area Community Plan notes that "housing should be compatible with the scale and chazacter of
the community" as well as "preserve and enhance our sense of cormunity" with infill projects. It
also states under the Housing section of the AACP that "each potential affordable housing site
has an optimum development potential" and "site planning should be driven by the physical
chazacter of the land and chazacter of the neighborhood." Finally, "Housing policy should
emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community, not just units."
Development projects, in particular affordable housing, need to be sensitive to the scale and
chazacter of the neighborhood that it is to be located within. Housing needs to be livable, not just
developed with a maximum number of units. Although Staff does recognize the mission of the
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority and the benefit it sees in adding fourteen additional
units to their inventory and redeveloping eleven of their units at no cost to the organization, the
overall impacts to the neighborhood should not be ignored.
Staff does have serious concerns about this PUD proposal. Currently, there is very little off-street
pazking available in the neighborhood. With each affordable housing. unit being provided less
than one space per unit, overflow can be expected to impact the existing on-street pazking
currently available. The scale and massing of the proposed structure does not fit with the context
of the neighborhood. Staff believes the requested dimensional variations aze not appropriate in
the setting of the neighborhood.
With the increase in site coverage and density of the project, there will be limited usable yard for
the residents. The Applicants, to increase the functionality and usability of the site, should
consider additional opportunities for all of the residents to have access to outdoor living (whether
from balconies and decks or rooftops). Finally, the azchitecture proposed (heavy timber with
stone) could be in any mountain community and has the feel of a lodge rather than a
neighborhood residential project. Aspen's "design history ranges from Victorian to Bauhaus,
from 50's "ski instructor" to postmodern, to contemporazy." Staff believes that although the
neighborhood is somewhat eclectic in its style, the new building should reflect the type of project
it is (residential) and develop opportunities to fit better with the surrounding context.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District and the Pazks
Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been
included as conditions of approval when appropriate.
Page 15 of 15
RESOLUTION N0. ~ 1-,-
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR ASPEN WALK, COMMONLY DESCRHiED AS 404 PARK
AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRHIED AS LOT 3 AND 5, SUNNY
PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID:
2737-074-04-705
2737-0741-04-701
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority represented by Stan
Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD); and,
WHEREAS, an application was submitted to consider both lots as one site to be
redeveloped with amulti-family structure containing twenty-five (25) affordable housing units
and fourteen (14) mazket rate dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the application requested that the PUD's dimensional standazds meet the
underlying zone district standazds of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district with the
exception of Maximum Height, Maximum Allowable Floor Area, Minimum Setback and
Minimum Off-Street Pazking; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, and Pazks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD
approval may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public
hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and
relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a regulaz meeting on April 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the
public heazing to May 20, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the
public hearing on Aspen Walk, reviewed the proposed changes of the project and design which
included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and twenty-four (24) affordable housing units
and recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application
by a _to L-~ vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
Page ] of 4
WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval, if granted by City Council, shall only grant the
ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD and the proposed development is further subject
to Final PUD review as well as additional relevant land use review approval pursuant to the
Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standazds for
Conceptual PUD have been met, as long as certain conditions aze implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the
project known as Aspen Walk, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below.
Section 1•
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the fmdings of the
Commission, allowing for the development of amulti-family structure containing twenty-
four (24) affordable housing units and fourteen (14) mazket rate units. Additionally, the
Final PUD may be submitted with the following dimensional standazds as requested in the
application:
• The Maximum Allowable Floor Area shall be no greater than 43,001 sq. ft. or a
Floor Area Ratio of 1.31:1.
• The Maximum Allowable Height shall be no greater than 32 (excepting elevator
shfts) feet as outlined in the application.
• The Minimum Off-Street Pazking standazd for the affordable housing units shall be
25 spaces for the 25 units.
• The Minimum Alternative Front Yard Setback shall be 0 feet as outlined in the
application.
2. The Final PUD application shall include:
a. An application for Final PUD application and the proposed development is further
subject to Final PUD review as well as associated land use review approvals pursuant
to the Municipal Code. Apre-application conference with a member of the Community
Development Department is required prior to submitting an application.
b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD
Section 2: Buildine
The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building
permit is submitted. Clazification and code compliance on the shazed property line, exiting from
the basement garage, exiting from the mazket rate units, existing from each story, elevator
openings, accessible pazking spaces, accessible entries, and the 2003 Efficient Building Program
is required.
Section 3: Eneineering
Page 2 of 4
Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21
and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department.
Resolution of the proposed land swap (approximately 618 sq. ft. of public right of way for a
certain amount of private property) shall be resolved prior to Final PUD application. Storm water
drainage fees may be applicable to this development proposal.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
Conceptual Design unit count appeazs correct based on the requirements of the Land Use Code.
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
Section 8: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regazd to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be awaze of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs.
Section 9: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10• School Lands Dedication and Imuact Fees
The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of
building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 11: Parks
A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. Final
layout of the plantings within the public right-of--way require Pazk Department approval and
shall meet the comments from the Parks Department during the Development Review Committee
meeting.
Section 12:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Page 3 of 4
Section 13:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regulaz meeting on May_, 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim True, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
LJ Erspamer, Chair
Page 4 of 4
~-
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standazds shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standazds and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan are met,
but that the Applicant does not go faz enough in meeting some elements of the AACP.
The proposed development contributes to the overall goals of the comprehensive plan
by locating development within the Urban Growth Boundary, improves transit
options by installing sidewalks, is located neaz public transit, and adds affordable
housing units to the City's inventory; however, a deeper review of the AACP notes a
philosophy that, at this time, the project does not achieve.
Development of Affordable Housing is an important component of the AACP and is
contained within its own focus section within the AACP. In addition to Housing, a
number of other topics: Managing Growth; Transportation; Economic Sustainability;
Pazks, Open Space & the Environment; Historic Preservation; Design Quality; and
Arts, Culture and Education aze highlighted by their own focus sections.
Under the Housing section, the intent is to "create an affordable housing environment
that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new
neighborhoods....and respects our overall community concerns, as expressed in the
Aspen Area Community Plan." Further in the Housing section, the Philosophy part of
the section notes that "Each project should endeavor to further that mix (of income
ranges and types of people) and to avoid segregation of economic and social classes
by project." The sub-section also emphasizes that "housing should be compatible with
the scale and character of the community..." as well as "preserve and enhance our
sense of community" with regard to infill projects. Finally, the Housing section of the
AACP notes that "each potential affordable housing site has an optimum
development potential" and "site planning should be driven by the physical chazacter
of the land and chazacter of the neighborhood."
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 11
The Applicant is providing 100% of the required Affordable Housing for the demolition
and replacement of the existing fourteen free-market residential units (with the exception
of the required bedroom count), which is an important step in helping the community
meet the Affordable Housing goals outlined in the AACP; however, the scale of the
proposed project is out of context with the neighborhood.
Overall, Staff does not find this guideline to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
[and uses in the surrounding area.
The proposed development is out of scale with the chazacter of the area. The
neighborhood consists of a variety of single-family and multi-family homes, and while
the proposal is for multi-family units, the monolithic scale of the project (since the lots
aze combined) is not in character with the neighborhood. This neighborhood is comprised
of lots that have individual structures on them which do not tend to overwhelm the
neighborhood. Staff does not find this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of
the azea. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Not Applicable. The Applicant will be required to make a Growth Management
Application as part of the Final PUD. Under the current proposal, the application will
require growth management approval for the demolition of the existing multi-family
dwelling units and the development of affordable housing.
B. Establishment ojDimensional Requirements:
The ftna[ PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for a[[
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040,
above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a
PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements aze listed below:
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 11
__
Minimum Lot
17,550 sq. ft. 15,224 s . ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
Size 32,774 s . ft.
Minimum Lot +/- 91 Feet 60 Feet
Width
Minimum Lot N/A No requirement for multi-family dwellings
Area/Dwellin
Minimum Front 5 Feet 5 Feet
Yazd Setback
Minimum 0 Feet 3.33 Feet
Alternative Front (Corner lots aze required to provide one front yazd
Yard Setback meeting the minimum setback and one at 1/3 the
re uired front azd setback
Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet
Yard Setback
Minimum Reaz 5 Feet 5 Feet
Yard Setback
Maximum Height 43 Feet: 32 Feet (for a pazcel density equal to or greater than
one unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of ]ot azea
32,774/35 =936.4)
Floor Area Ratio 1.56:1 or 51,040 sq. ft. 1.25: 1 or 40,968 sq. ft.
(FAR) (for a pazcel density equal to or greater than one unit
per 1,500 sq. ft. of ]ot azea)
Off-
Mi
i 53 spaces Residential -Multi-Familyoutside Aspen Infill
mum
n
Street Pazking Free-Mazket Residential (14 Area: Lesser of one space per bedroom or two
units : 30 spaces spaces per unit
Affordable Housing ' Free-Mazket Residential (14 units): 5*
Residential (25 units): 24 Affordable Housin>; Residential (25 units): 29*
s aces. ,
Notes:
* An applicant is allowed to maintain an existing deficit in parking when a property is redeveloped;
however, the proposed redevelopment includes fourteen (14) new affordable housing dwelling units that
aze required to meet the off-street pazking standazds.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
The existing property has minimal set back requirements from the property
lines. A five (5) foot setback is required and should be maintained. These aze
minimal setbacks for the existing development pattern. The height variation is
Exhibit B - PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of I 1
substantial for an area comprised of mostly 1.5 to 2.5 story buildings. The
increase in floor azea requested appeazs to be out of scale with the surrounding
existing development. Finally, the deficit in parking, as outlined in the memo,
will add to an already congested neighborhood.
b. Natural or man-made hazards.
No known hazards exist on the lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already
been impacted by development. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
Staff recognizes that there is limited existing on-street pazking in the
neighborhood. Staff believes that under-parking the affordable housing
component of the project will intensify the on-street pazking issues as
spillover will occur. Staff does not find this criterion met at this time.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity
of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of
the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Limited undeveloped space is currently proposed on-site. Staff recommends the
Applicant look at ways to opportunities for open space. Further, Staff encourages the
Applicant to examine different site planning techniques to break up the mass and
height of the building. Staff does not find this criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non-residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 11
d The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff recognizes that there aze currently off-street pazking constraints in the
neighborhood. Although transit and walking is an option, pazking of vehicles
needs to be realistically accommodated. Staff does not believe that the current
amount of pazking for the affordable housing component is enough. Staff does
not support the current pazking proposal.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if.•
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Adequate public facilities exist and will be upgraded at the owner's expense. Staff
finds this criterion to be not applicable.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudJlow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
At this time, Staff does not find that and significant natural hazazds on the site that
would necessitate a density reduction. For the most part, the proposed development
is located in azeas of the site that currently contains development. Staff does not
believe the proposal will involve a pemicious impact on the site's natural watershed.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists
a signiftcant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns
and with the site's physical constraints.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 11
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identifted
in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes jor individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher
or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as,
on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions
of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the
maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are
required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
While the Applicant proposes establishing the FAR for the project, no increase in the
maximum density is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of
the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
There are no significant natural or manmade feahues on the site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
The two sites are currently proposed to be redeveloped as one and the development
would increase footprint on the ground; however there aze no significant view planes,
or open spaces adjacent to the property that should be considered as part of the
redevelopment.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban
or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement
of vehicular and pedestrian movement
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 11
The proposed building is generally oriented towazds the public streets. The building
provides a number of decks along the street to contribute towazds visual interest;
however, entries aze somewhat discreet and could be developed to create a greater
street presence.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that
additional detailed drawings will be required to show fire department access to the
lower pazking azeas. Further, all structures will be required to include fire sprinkler
systems, and fire alarm systems. Staff finds this criterion to be met at a conceptual
level.
S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable
requirements. This has been included as a condition in the Resolution. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be
handled with some drainage improvements (drywells) to maintain historic runoff.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic junctions associated with the use.
Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features ojthe subject property. The proposed development shall comply with
the jol[owing:
The Applicant provided a draft landscaping plan as part of the original Conceptual
application. An updated version will be provided as part of the Final PUD Application.
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
The Applicant has provided some conceptual landscaping on the site plan in the
original application and with some of the perspectives. A number of new plantings
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 11
are proposed. A final landscape plan will be submitted as part of the Final PUD
application, which will ensure landscaping is consistent with adjacent land. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
There aze no significant and man-made features that require preservation. Staff finds
this criterion to not be applicable.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will
ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a
character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale
and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
The azchitecture proposed (heavy timber with stone) could be in any mountain
community and has the feel of a lodge rather than a neighborhood residential project.
Aspen's "design history ranges from Victorian to Bauhaus, from 50's "ski instructor" to
postmodern, to contemporary." Staff believes the azchitecture should reflect the type of
project it is (residential) and opportunities to fit better with the surrounding context. Staff
believes the architecture should go further in relating to ttte residential feel of the
neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of
non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
The proposed site plan utilizes photovoltaic power but additional information on natural
heating and cooling is not discussed.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
The Applicant must submit a detailed plan for snow removal and storage as part of the
final application. Staff finds this criterion to not be addressed in the application but will
be required to be addressed at final application.
F. Lighting.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 11
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general
aesthetic concerns.
2. Al[ exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting
of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. Amore detailed plan
will be provided as part of the Final PUD.
C. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria
shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of
the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available
to the mutual benefit of the various [and uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit
owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial,
or industrial development.
There are no common spaces proposed as part of this application.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's injrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with
the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and
determined there is adequate service for this development. This will be addressed in
greater detail at Final PUD.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 1 t
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated
by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
At this time no adverse impacts are anticipated. This will be addressed in greater
detail at Final PUD.
3. Oversized utilities, public jaci[ities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
This criterion will be addressed at Final PUD when a finalized site plan and
associated materials aze available for City Departments to review.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian
way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff believes that all structures and uses have appropriate access to a public street.
The application proposes to install sidewalks along the property. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement
do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed
development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to
accommodate the development.
Staff believes the level of parking for the provided for the affordable housing will
create overflow into the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff does find this criterion
met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public
trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
The proposed development will not require any trail easements. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 10 of 11
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and 6icyc[e paths, and
transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
The Applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks along the property but there aze no
specific trails or paths that aze required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
There aze no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions jor the PUD, or for
lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical
There are no gates or guazd posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is
proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
No phasing is proposed as part of this development.
Exhibit B -PUD Review Criteria
Page 11 of 1 I
-~
~'~ ~x~h~~ `~~.~%
r~ ~A':
'~ STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESiNc
`~,,~ landscape architecture. planning. resort design
'.\'y
`-tip? .~ yu North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 8z6v [. 97o/9z5'z3z3 f.g7o/9zo-r6z8
' `} _
Info®scaplanning.com wwwscaplanning.com
7 May 2008
Jennifer Phelan, AICP
Depufy Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen. CO 81611
Re: Revisions to Aspen Walk Project Submfftal for P8Z Review
Dear Jennifer.
We are pleased to provide you with revised plans for Aspen Walk, which we
believe are responsive to concerns expressed by Planning 8, Zoning Commission
members and some abutters. This letter is intended to be submitted to the
Planning & Zoning Commission, and details some of the changes. Please bear
in mind the at this conceptual submittal level, some minor changes may
continue to occur as the affordable housing unit mix is optimized and as
building code cons(derations are further reviewed. Here are the key changes:
The sub grade garage has been redesigned and the entrance re-located.
The entrance to the garage has been moved further north along Park Circle to
the properly line abutting the Tailings Condominium. This has allowed a full
redesign of the parking garage, which provides 53 vehicle spaces including
one space for all affordable housing unils and considerably more storage for all
residential units. Re-locating the garage entry at a further dislance from the
Park Avenue, Gibson, and Park Circle intersection will also minimize any
potential congestion issues.
2. The building has been set back horn the adjacent property on the north.
Because of the relocation of the garage entry, the building has been pulled
back approximately 20 feet from the adjacent Tailings Condominium at the
front portion of the structure. This will open up views from the abutting property
and create a greater sense of openness.
3. The building has been lowered approximately 4 feet at the north property
line and throughout the project.
Redesign of the parking garage has permitted a general lowering of the
building, particularly at the north elevation, where it has been lowered
approximately four feet. Relocation of the parking garage entry has eliminated
the one area of non-conformance with the height restrictions. The building is
now completely conforming to the height requirements of the zone district, and
Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP
7 May 2008
Page 2 of 3
considerably lower where comment had been made regarding the impact on
the Tailings condominium.
4. There has been a general reduction in the requested floor area and the
floor area rglio.
Owing to the lowering of the building and some internal redesign for greater
efficiencies, the overall floor area has been reduced to 43,001 SF from the initial
requested floor area of 51,040 SF. This reduction of overall floor area brings the
building quite close to the permitted 40,968 SF permitted in the zone district for
projects of this density. We believe that the small additional increment of floor
area being requested is consistent with a project providing such a substantial
benefit in affordable housing. The floor area ratio is currently 1.31:1 and we
would note that the RMF zone district does permit a floor area of 1.5:1 for an
even denser project, while the applicable floor area ratio Is 1.25:1 for a project
of This more appropriate density.
i. Certain design elements have been modified to create a lighter, less
massive appearance.
The elevator shafts accessing the roof deck of the building have been
relocated to a less visible location more to the rear of the building and have
been changed to use lighter, thinner materials. The stone base of the building
has been lightened to create a lighter appearance. The building has been
divided into three sections stepping down with the grade, as opposed to two
sections stepping down in the earlier design. Roof balustrades have been
made more transparent and lowered where they appear at the edge of the
building, creating a lower overall appearance. Any higher screening for roof
decks has been set further into the roof area.
6. A recreation deck has been added for the affordable housing.
Covering the entry to the garage, a recreation deck has been added to the
first level above grade on the north and east elevation. This deck will be
accessible as a common area for the affordable housing units.
7. The affordable housing unit mix has been redesigned to be completely
conforming to currenf codes.
Staff had noted a discrepancy In the number of bedrooms provided in the
affordable housing unit mix, as not fully meeting the required mitigation. The
intention of this project Is to fully meet the required 100% mitigation for the
replacement of the existing 14 free market units at 404 Park Avenue and the
replacement of affordable housing at 414 Park Circle. Two code sections have
somewhat different requirements for this replacement. For the existing 14 free
market units, 100h of the unit count, bedrooms, and floor area are being
replaced. This requires 14 units, 25 bedrooms, and 9,190 SF of replacement
housing. For the replacement of the 11 affordable housing units, an employee
housing equivalent for 16.75 employees is required. We believe that the current
'~
~,.
9`~:
Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP
7 May 2008
Page 3 of 3
proposed mix meets both these requirements, and will continue to review the
housing mix with staff and our joint venture partner, the Aspen-Pitkin County
Housing Authority to ensure that fhe mix meets all requirements and provides an
optimal mix of unit types and categories. The current category average is well
below Category 3.
We believe that these improvements represent a considerable enhancement
of a project which already provided considerable community benefits, and
look forward to presenting the revisions ai the P&Z continued hearing
scheduled for 20 May 2008. Please let me know if I can provide any additional
material for your review.
Ve truly y1//o////u/r~t1((\s~_,~\\~111rr
J~\/ ll. ~. \./~n
Stan Clawson, AICP, ASLA
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Cc: Tom McCabe, Executive Director, APCHA
Project Owners
~~nsT ` l/
Jennifer Phelan
From: nina@ninja-design.com
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:22 AM
To: Jennifer Phelan- - ---- - _ _ _ _
Subject: letter & attachement for P&Z mtg 5-20-08
Attachments: Nina-Roofline-Composite_07_10.5T-mq.pdf
May 15, 2008
Dear Planning and Zoning of Aspen,
Aspenwalk, the proposed development at 404/414 Park Circle, has taken several attempts at
seducing the neighbors of Park Circle, as well as the P&Z members. we feel that, at the
Tailings, the developers have not been truthful about the full impact of their future
development to their neighbors.
This project is not only out of scale with the neighborhood, but it is wrong in terms of
height, scale and mass. The developers have been comparing this building to that of
Centennial?s. When Centennial was built, nearly 25 years ago, it was a development in
reference only to itself and to Hunter Creek. Both properties at the time, were insular and
groundbreaking in their scale and mission of providing the shere number of employee units to
the Aspen employee housing force. However, it is not fair to compare Centennial to this
neighborhood of Park Circle/Avenue, since it is an established Aspen residential neighborhood
of smaller condo buildings and single family homes.
We, at The Tailings, find it ironic that when the City of Aspen develops property in this
Park Ave/Circle neighborhood it is in scale to the neighborhood character as well as
sensitive to the density impacts; ie. Snyder Park, Williams Ranch, Midland Park. These
aforementioned City developments have adequately provided for parking, and density
suitability within their neighborhood environments. Snyder Park, has built 25 units on nearly
4 acres. It has an open space perimeter which ensures its view plane of Aspen Mountain. Quite
forward thinking of Aspen?s Planning Department at the time, don?t you think? Midland Park
has a portion of the Aspen Walk?s site, enduring that an open space be maintained there.
The developers, Aspenwalk, along with the Aspen Housing Authority, have proposed a
development that exceeds all limits allowed within city limits, 39 units 51,000 square feet
of living spaces, 65 bedrooms on a mere 3/4 of an acre. The Variances asked for by the
developers would grossly exceed building standards in Aspen, let alone our quaint
neighborhood. The Aspenwalk development does not need to have affordable housing units which
exceed free market square footage, such as 940 square feet for a two bedroom unit. These
could easily be scaled back a good 25 percent. The 10,000 square foot variance should not be
approved. The additional ten feet of height variances should not be approved. This
development is already far over what is appropriate for the neighborhood. In essence, the new
building does not need to eclipse the view from the Tailings and go so close to the property
line. The new building could easily replace all current employee housing as well fit neatly
into the neighborhood?s character.
No variances on height or square footage should even be considered in this neighborhood.
Another real issue is that the new Aspen walk development is built so near to the property
lines of the Tailing?s building that is severely impedes our quality of life. Personally, If
I had known that a builing would be built so close to our building, none of us would have
invested our life savings into such a venture.
Nearly 15 years ago, I was desparate to stay in Aspen. I had already established a growing
business in Aspen and the only missing link was housing. I had already struggled to stay
afloat in Aspen for nearly six years at that point. I applied for numerous Affordable housing
1
lotteries. The best of my lottery result was second. The worst was one hundred seventeen.
This was in the West Hopkins Affordable Housing Project. I do fully understand the importance
of Affordable Housing in Aspen. I understand the Aspen Community Plan. I however, do not
agree that the Aspen Walk?s proposal as such complies with any part of this plan.
Since, I had been in town since 1987 and had not bought a unit in town. I tried to buy
employee housing. There was not enough stock at the time, I fell victim to this statistic. I
then saved like mad.
Three years later, after five attempts at employee housing, I bought my Tailings unit in
1996.It was ?free market? and I was very proud that I was ableto achieve this within the
Aspen market. I find it severely ironic that now my biggest asset will be significantly
impacted by the building being built directly in front of our property, 39 units, 25 of which
are affordable housing In the last 14 years, my serenity has-been provided by the view of
Aspen Mountain and Shadow Mountain, as well as the suitable set-back of the neighboring
building. Could the new building not take advantage of the natural slope of thes ite? By
repositioning the bulk of the building, much of the Tailing?s view could be preserved. A
greater set back, as well as the building being rebuilt two story at the Northside, then
going tree stories as the grade drops down. This would be appreciated by the Tailings
neighbors greatly. As you can plainly witness in the ?Before and After? attachment and
poster, the view from the Tailings is completed eclipsed by the new building next door. This
is not only not necessary, it is a great burden for our homeowners was it drastically impedes
our property values and qualtity of life.
The other neighbors on Park Circle (ie, 407, 415, 425 mainly) have a set back ?naturally?
provide by Park Circle, the road. At the Tailings, being directly affected to the North, with
no road to divide us, we are most severely impacted by the monstrosity of Aspenwalk?s scale,
height and massing.
This development has already given the ?free Market? Southeast and South side of the property
much needed open space. On the Tailing?s, North side of the property, the ?employee Housing
Wing? has been dumped. It is lot line to lot line. It is separated to the Free Market Wing in
an obvious class distinction sort of way. To the South, there is room to breathe, views, and
plenty of parking. On the Northern end of the property; there are height variances asked for
so that it can be over-built, squeezed in density, over-built for the neighborhood.
There will not be enough parking spaces for these units. Only one space per two bedroom unit.
This is a joke. There is already a serious lack of parking spaces in the neighborhood. The
Hunter Creek Bus already screams down the Park Circle hill, careening into parked cars at the
corner. Then the only entrance to this development will put an additional 65+ cars onto this
dangerous corner? This is not only poor city planning, it is reckless endangerment for the
neighbors attempting to drive safely in this area.
In essence, this proposed development is wrong for the site, out of scale for the
neighborhood and should not be approved as such. Please take into consideration its neighbors
directly affected to the Northside, The Tailings. We are real people whose only real assets,
are our condos, which will be forever eclipsed by the unnecessary monstrosity being built
next door. The city needs its employees to be housed in town, yet it does not need to grant
variances and green lights to developers who grossly impact an existing neighborhood?s charm
and character.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this important issue.
Nina Merzbach
424 Park Circle, Townhouse 2, Aspen, CO. 81611.
2
View As Seen from The Tailings Building
Current view from the Tailings Building towards Aspen Mountain.
View from the Tailings Building AFTER Aspen Walk has been built.
ys.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Code Amendment, Municipal Code Section 26.535, Transferable
Development Rights (TDR)
DATE: May 20, 2008
SUMMARY: The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners
of landmark property since 1987. In 2003, Transferrable Development Rights (TDR's)
were adopted as a means to take development pressure off of historically designated
homes by moving the square footage to non-landmazk residences where the expansion
would have less impact.
This concept was modified in 2007, when commercial areas became potential landing
sites as well. In this case, landing a TDR allows the purchaser to exceed newly
established maximum multi-family unit sizes by 500 squaze feet of net livable azea
(interior azea minus certain exclusions for storage, mechanical, etc.) For example, in the
Commercial Core, amulti-family unit capped at 2,000 squaze feet of net livable space
may be designed to 2,500 squaze feet of net livable, with the landing of a TDR. Because
this form of TDR does not increase overall floor area ratio (FAR), but provides more
flexibility for one programmatic element of the building, Community Development
believes it allows the mazket for TDR's to be more broad, which increases their monetary
value and their worth as a historic preservation incentive.
At the time of the 2007 amendment noted above, Staff had intended to allow that TDR's
being applied to unit size expansion could be landed on designated properties. That
provision was unintentionally overlooked and is being brought forward for consideration
now.
The following code amendment proposes to allow a TDR to be landed on a designated
property, solely for the purpose of increasing the maximum multi-family unit size, not the
overall FAR limit for the property. TDR's allow unit sizes to increase from 2,000 to
2,500 squaze feet in the CC, C-1, and MU zone districts and 1,500 to 2,000 squaze feet in
the NC, CL, and L zone districts. In RMF and RMFA, a unit may increase from 2,000 to
2,500 squaze feet within the Infill azea, and 2,500 to 3,000 square feet in outlying
neighborhoods.
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE l
REVIEW PROCESS: According to Section 26.310.020, in order to amend the Code,
there must be a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and a public heazing and affirmative vote by City Council. The review
criteria for code amendments aze located at Section 26.310.040 and aze addressed by Staff
in Exhibit A to this memo.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS
Staff proposes amendments to existing language within the Municipal Code as follows.
New language is underlined and removed language is s#ielceir.
Amend Section 26.535.010 Purpose to read as follows:
26.535.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmazks,
those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and
Structures, within the City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and
convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a
different and-$en-histerie ProPertY within the City of Aspen. The program enables
standazd market forces, and the demand for residential Floor Area, to accomplish a
community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment.
Amend Section 26.535.030Applicabi[ity and Prohibitions to read as follows:
Section 26.535.030 Applicability and Prohibitions.
This chapter shall apply to properties eligible for issuance of a Historic TDR
Certificate, known as Sending Sites, and properties eligible for the extinguishment of a
Historic TDR Certificate, known as Receiving Sites. City of Aspen Historic TDR
Certificates may only be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen, as hereinafter
indicated, or in unincorporated Pitkin County, if and as may be permitted by the Pitkin
County land Use Code. Pitkin County TDRs are not eligible for extinguishment within
the City of Aspen.
Sending Sites shall include all properties within the City of Aspen designated as a
Historic Landmazk, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk
Sites and Structures, in which the development of asingle-family or duplex home is a
permitted use, according to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such
development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Sending Sites may also be
established through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter
26.445.
Sending sites shall remain eligible for all benefits, bonuses, etc. allowed properties
designate a Historic Landmark after establishment of transferable development rights,
pursuant to Chapter 26.415.
Receiving Sites shall include all properties in the City of Aspen permitted additional
development rights for extinguishment of a Historic TDR is Chapter 26.710, Zone
Districts ~ a~ a' "'°'~ u~ ~' r~+~• A property
, e + r r +
designated as a Historic Landmark may only be a receiving site if the purpose of the
TDR is to exceed the multi-family unit size established in certain zone districts that
allow for an increase in size through the use of a TDR A property may also be
designated as a Receiving Site through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan,
pursuant to Chapter 26.445.
The allowable development extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate varies depending
upon the zone district of the Receiving Site and the use of the land. Chapter 26.710, Zone
Districts, describes the development allowance for each Historic TDR Certificate
extinguished.
A Historic TDR Certificate may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of
Title shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document.
Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re-issue the certificate acknowledging
the new owner. Re-issuance shall not require re-adoption of an ordinance.
The mazket for Historic TDR Certificates is unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or
guazantee the monetary value of a Historic TDR Certificate.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not
inconsistent with this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe-keeping,
distribution, recordation, control, and extinguishments.
Amend Section 26.535.080 Review Criteria for Extinguishment of a Htstortc
Transferable Development Right to read as follows:
26.535.080 Review Criteria for Extinguishment of a Historic Transferable
Development Right.
Historic TDR Certificates may be extinguished to accommodate additional development
~~ r a ~ Q;t"" °-a e*~•-~•---~° if the community Development Director
finds the following standards have been met:
A. The Receiving Site is not restricted by a prescribed Floor Area limitation or the
restricting document permits the extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificates for
additional development rights.
B. The Receiving Site ' '' ~ "' " * -•°--~ ,.r u:
is eligible to receive an increase in development rights as
specified in Chapter 26.710, according to the zone district and the land Use, or as
otherwise specified in a Final PUD Plan for the property. A property designated as a
Historic Landmark may only be a receivins site if the purpose of the TDR is to
exceed the multi-famil unit size established in certain zone districts that allow
for an increase in size through the use of a TDR.
C. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the Receiver Site,
as established by this Title, have been obtained.
D. The applicant has submitted the requisite authentic Historic TDR Certificate(s) for
redemption.
E. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the
Receiver Site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, and the additional
development can be accommodated on the Receiver Site in conformance with all
the other relevant requirements.
F. Prior to, and a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development
requiring the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certicate(s), the applicant shall
assign and deliver the authentic certificate(s) to the City of Aspen whereupon the
certificate(s) shall be marked "extinguished."
G. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the
extinguishment of the TDR Certificate(s) and increasing the available development
rights of the Receiver Site. The applicant may wish to record this document with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate
an absolute total Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the
al]owable Floor Area, according to the zone district and land use of the Receiver
Site at the time of building permit submission. The Receiver Site shall remain
subject to amendments to the allowable Floor Area and eligible for certain Floor
Area Incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the confirmation
letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
H. The development allowed on the Receiver Site by extinguishment of Historic TDR
Certificate(s) shall be that allowed in Chapter 26.710, according to the zone district
and the land use, or as otherwise specified in a Final PUD Plan for the receiver Site
and shall not permit the creation of anon-conforming use or structure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the
Municipal Code complies with the applicable review criteria and should be approved.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution #., Series of 2008,
recommending that Council approve amendments to the Municipal code related to
Transferable Development Rights.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Amendments to the Land Use Code -Staff Findings
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE 4
EXF[IBIT A
Amendments to the Land Use Code
Section 26 310 040 -Standards for Review of an Amendment to the Text of Title 26: In
reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone
district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
STAFF FINDING' Does it Com 1 ? YES
Staff is unawaze of any conflicting portions of the Title.
•Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING' Does it Com 1 ? YES
Staff finds that ,the amendment supports the Historic Preservation element of the
AACP, which includes the goals of making improvements to the historic
preservation process and protecting all buildings of historic significance.
Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood chazacteristics.
STAFF FINDING' Does it Com 1 ~ YES
The code amendments have no direct affect on land uses.
The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING' DDeS ]t Com I ~ YES
Tlie code amendments have no effect on traffic generation and road safety.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, pazks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
STAFF FINDING' Does it Com 1 ? YES
There will be no additional affect on infrastructure as a result of this code
amendment.
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
STAFF FINDING: Does it Com ] ? YES
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT t'AGE ~
This code amendment has no direct impacts on the natural environment, however,
preservation can have less negative effect on the natural environment than new
construction.
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
STAFF FINDING' Does it Com 1 ~ YES
Aspen's physical character is in great part defined by the community's historic
resources. Ensuring that Aspen has an effective historic preservation process and
good benefits for property owners will allow us to be more successful in protecting
this character which is vitally important to the economy and livability of town.
Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING' Does it Com 1 ? NOT APPLICABLE
Historic Preservation is an increasingly difficult task in Aspen because of high
property values. It is clear that the City must provide a workable historic
preservation program and benefits, which is addressed through these code
amendments.
Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and
whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
STAFF FINDING' Does it Com 1 ~ YES
Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not be in conflict with the public
interest and, in fact, will help to protect the public interest by preserving historic
structures for everyone to enjoy
LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT PAGE b
Resolution No. ~~
(Series of 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCILADOPTAMENDMENTS TO
THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.535,
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department re-
commends the following amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to the following Chapter and Section of
the Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code:
SECTION 26.$35, TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of
the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with condi-
tions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zon-
ing Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing
and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the
proposed amendments, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
^ Text being removed is bold red and strikethrough. T ` `'°'°° -°-"°°°'"^°'`°
Klee-N-is:
Text being added is bold green and underline. Text beine added looks like
this.
Text which is not highlighted is not affected.
WHEREAS, the Plarning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consid-
erthe proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on May 20, 2008, took
and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development
Director and recommended, by a x-x vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to
the land use code by amending the text of the above note Chapters and Sections of the Land
Use Code, as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Resolutioa ~ Series 2008
Page 1 of 4
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.535.010 Purpose, to add and
delete the following:
26.535.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmazks, those
properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures, within the
City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a sepazate devel-
opment right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a different and-uen-Mister-ie prop-
erty within the City of Aspen. The program enables standard mazket forces, and the demand
for residential Floor Area, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as
reflected in its built environment.
Section 2:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.535.030 Applicability and
Prohibitions, to add and delete the following:
Section 26.535.030 Applicability and Prohibitions.
This chapter shall apply to properties eligible for issuance of a Historic TDR Certificate,
known as Sending Sites, and properties eligible for the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Cer-
tificate, known as Receiving Sites. City of Aspen Historic TDR Certificates may only be used
within the city limits of the City of Aspen, as hereinafter indicated, or in unincorporated Pitkin
County, if and as may be permitted by the Pitkin County land Use Code. Pitkin County TDRs
aze not eligible for extinguishment within the City of Aspen.
Sending Sites shall include all properties within the City of Aspen designated as a Historic
Landmazk, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and
Structures, in which the development of asingle-family or duplex home is a permitted use,
according to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a con-
ditional use shall not be eligible. Sending Sites may also be established through adoption of a
Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445.
Sending sites shall remain eligible for all benefits, bonuses, etc. allowed properties designate a
Historic Landmark after establishment ofttansferable development rights, pursuant to Chapter
26.415.
Receiving Sites shall include all properties in the City of Aspen permitted additional develop-
ment rights for extinguishment of a Historic TDR is Chapter 26.7] 0, Zone Districts; nefin-
~ a• -~-~ ae^~ ^-,^~^a ^ ^ u~^* . A property designated as a Histor-
J b
is Landmark may only be a receiving site if the purpose of the TDR is to exceed the mul-
ti-family unit size established in certain zone districts that allow for an increase in size
through the use of a TDR. A property may also be designated as a Receiving Site through
adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445.
Resolution ' ,Series 2008
~ Page 2 of 4
The allowable development extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate varies depending
upon the zone district of the Receiving Site and the use of the land. Chapter 26.710, Zone Dis-
tricts, describes the development allowance for each Historic TDR Certificate extinguished.
A Historic TDR Certificate may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of Title
shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon
transfer, the new owner may request the City re-issue the certificate acknowledging the new
owner. Re-issuance shall not require re-adoption of an ordinance.
The mazket for Historic TDR Certificates is unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or
guazantee the monetary value of a Historic TDR Certificate.
The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not inconsistent
with this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe-keeping, distribution, recordation,
control, and extinguishments.
Section 3:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.535.080 Review Criteria for
Extinguishment of a Historic Transferable Development Right, to add and delete the follow-
ing:
26.535.080 Review Criteria for Extinguishment of a Historic Transferable Development
Right.
Historic TDR Certificates maybe extinguished to accommodate additional development ef-a
• r ,, ~ e •......,.. a c._....... _.... if the community Development Director finds the fol-
lowing standards have been met:
A. The Receiving Site is not restricted by a prescribed Floor Area limitation or the re-
stricting document permits the extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificates for addi-
tional development rights.
B. The Receiving Sites-r~'~-`--• "' " ' r u`~k,._:n r ....a.....-~.
is eligible to receive an increase in development rights as
specified in Chapter 26.710, according to the zone district and the land Use, or as oth-
erwise specified in a Final PUD Plan for the property. A property designated as a
Historic Landmark may only be a receivinH site if the purpose of the TDR is to
exceed the multi-family unit size established in certain zone districts that allow
for an increase in size through the use of a TDR.
C. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the Receiver Site, as
established by this Title, have been obtained.
D. The applicant has submitted the requisite authentic Historic TDR Certificate(s) for re-
demption.
Resolution ~-6eries 2008
~ Page 3 of 4
E. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the Re-
ceiverSite, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, and the additional devel-
opmentcan be accommodated on the Receiver Site in conformance with all the other
relevant requirements.
F. Prior to, and a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development requiring
the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certicate(s), the applicant shall assign and de-
liverthe authentic certificate(s) to the City of Aspen whereupon the certificate(s) shall
be mazked "extinguished."
G. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the extinguish-
ment ofthe TDR Certificate(s) and increasing the available development rights of the
Receiver Site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total Floor
Area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable Floor Area, ac-
cording to the zone district and land use of the Receiver Site at the time of building
permit submission. The Receiver Site shall remain subject to amendments to the al-
lowableFloor Area and eligible for certain Floor Area Incentives and/or exemptions as
may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from
time to time. The form of the confirmation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attor-
ney.
H. The development allowed on the Receiver Site by extinguishment of Historic TDR
Certificate(s) shall be that allowed in Chapter 26.710, according to the zone district
and the land use, or as otherwise specified in a Final PUD Plan for the receiver Site
and shall not permit the creation.of anon-conforming use or structure.
Section 4:
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 ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any rea-
sonheld invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on May 20, 2008.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Resolution ~eries 2008
Page 4 of 4