Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20090421AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, April 21, 2009 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES ~~l/0(~ f 09~ 0 ~~Z~/B~ ~ 0~~~~~C~gJ IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. 102 Wood Duck Lane, Hallam Lake Bluff Review B. 222 E. Hallam, Map Amendment and associated land use reviews C. Code Amendment - HPC jurisdiction and commercial design call-up VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER: D 6 'p[ A . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commissillon~ FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner !(G/ THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: April 7, 2009. MEETING DATE: April 21, 2009 RE; 102 Wood Duck Lane -Hallam Lake Bluff Review APPLICANT/OWNER: AML Investment II, Andrew Lessman, Partner REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LOCATION: Street Address - 102 Wood Duck Lane; Legal Description -Lots 1-S, Block 2, Aspen Company Subdivision, City and Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number - 2735- 121-30-005 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) zone district containing a single family home under construction. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop a patio with a sunken hot tub and fire pit adjacent to the house under construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff .recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Hallam Lake Bluff Review application with conditions. SUMMARY: The Applicant previously received approval to build a single family dwelling on the site and would like to add a patio overlooking the Hallam Lake Bluff azea. The applicant is requesting approval of a Hallam Lake Bluff Review. P1 Revised 4/14/2009 Page 1 of 7 P2 located in the Hallam Lake Bluff review azea as defined by the Land Use Code. The Hallam Lake Bluff Review shall be considered at a public hearing before the Plannin and Zoning Commission who may approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposal. Please see Exhibit A for staff findings on review standazds and criteria. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The applicant proposes to construct a patio with a sunken hot tub and fire pit adjacent to a new single family dwelling currently under construction. A portion of the patio is located in the Hallam Lake Bluff review area as shown in Figure 1 above in the vicinity map. The review azea is divided into sections, measured from the top of slope. The first section is defined by the top of slope. No development, aside from native vegetative plantings, is permitted below the top of slope. The second section is located within fifteen feet of the top of slope, where development is not permitted to be located above grade. Thirdly, between the fifteen and thirty feet from the top of slope, all development must be less than a height delineated by a line drawn at 45 degrees from the top of slope. In the first section, below the top of slope, the applicant only proposes to plant vegetation to meet the screening requirements below the top.of slope. The applicant is required to screen at least fifty percent of the development as viewed from the reaz slope of the property with native plantings.. In the second section, more native vegetation is proposed to contribute to the screening requirements. The actual development of the' patio is located back from the top of slope by 18.42 feet as shown below in Figure 2 past the 15 feet requirement Io restrict development higher than natural grade. The patio also adheres to the progressive height requirements, measured at forty-five degrees from the top of slope. The applicant's proposal meets the review standazds for the Hallam Lake Bluff review. Figure 2: Proposed North Patio Section Revised 4/14/2009 Page 3 of 7 uo~ NORTH PATIO SECTION: PROPOSED sate: i/a' . i~-m P4 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150. Sta Finding The applicant has not submitted alighting plan with the application for Hallam Lake Bluff review. If the applicant decides to place lighting on the site, it will be reviewed during building permit review. Staff does not ftnd this criterion to be met. 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. Staff Finding The City Engineering Department has requested that the limits of activity be noted on plans and that a drainage plan for the hot tub is provided when the application is submitted for building permit review. Stafffinds this criterion met. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Staff Finding The applicant has provided site sections of the proposed development that show the patio and its features, the top of slope, the setback requirements and the elevations above sea level. Upon review, staff has found that the application meets the requirements for Hallam Lake Bluff review. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 4/14/2009 Page 7 of 7 P5 Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Hallam Lake Bluff Review with the following conditions: 1.. Limits of constmction activity shall be shown on plans submitted for building pemut review to be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Describe how historic drainage patterns and rates will be maintained in the drainage report submitted for building pemut review. Include the method of draining and location of dischazge for the hot tub. The drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer. _ 3. The approved tree permit must be amended to reflect the screening requirements and approved by the City Pazks Department. Section 2: The. Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. - The building pemut application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepazed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground rechazge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-yeaz storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. c. The patio meets the minimum top-of--slope requirement and the forty-five (45) degree progressive height limit as required by Hallam Lake Bluff Review standazds. d. 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. Proposed lighting was not shown on the submitted plans. Section 3: The Applicant's 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 and Pazks Departments. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby ~. ~, P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director'"' J FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner ~~.~ _ RE: 222 East Hallam Street -Removal of SPA, Consolidated PUD, and Rezoning Resolution No.QI ,Series of 2009 MEETING DATE: Apri121, 2009 APPLICANT /OWNER: Joseph A Amato REPRESENTATIVE: Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson Associates LOCATION: 222 East Hallam Street CURRENT ZONING: R-6 (Medium Derisity Residential) zone district and SCUSPA (Service Commercial Industrial) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant requests the removal of the SPA designation, a rezoning of SCI to R-6, and a PUD designation. No new development is proposed as part of this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission find in favor of the application and make a positive recommendation w City Council. am:`- REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The review of an SPA, ` PUD, and re-zoning is a two step review process. Step one Is review by the Planning and Zoning Commission (this public hearing), and step two is fmal review before City Council. The 1 222 E Hallam to Post Office Trail P2 Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Removal of SPA desi ng ation pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.440, Specially Planned Area. (Gifu Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). Rezonin¢ from SCI to R-6 and the elimination of an SPA Overlay pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map (City Council is the fmal review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); • Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD approval to establish dimensional requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (Gifu Counci] is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). BACKGROUND: The property is located at 222 East Hallam. The pazcel is 16,580 squaze feet and. contains single family dwelling with 3,233 squaze feet of floor azea. The parcel is "L-shaped". and contains steep slopes on the reaz of the property. The reaz of the property also contains a trail (herein after referred to as the Post Office Trail) that connects the Post Office/Ciazk's Mazket azea with the Red Brick. The trail crosses through a portion of the property, but does not contain an easement. Attachment D is a map of the property that illustrates where the trail crosses the property, as well as surrounding pazcel information. Steep slopes exist along the base of the "L" and slope from the grassy area to the trail (see Attachment D, and Sheet 1.1 in the Application). The property has split zoning, as illustrated below. 2 P 3' It is believed the location of this split zoning is a result of the origiral townsite boundary. The townsite boundary is located in approximately the same place as the line sepazating the zone districts. The portion of the property zoned SCI is also currently part of Lot 4 of the Trueman SPA that encompasses the Clark's Mazket shopping azea. The original townsite map indicates that a portion of an alley was located on the site. No vacation ordinance has been found for an alley on the property. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing to remove the SPA designation from the property, to rezone the portion of the property. zoned SCI to R-6, and to establish a new PUD on the property. The PUD would establish dimensional requirements and would create an easement on the property for the Post Office Trail and to protect the steep slope on the property. The proposed dimensional requirements aze based on rezoning the entire property to R-6. Any dimensional requirements not listed will be required to conform with the R-6 zone district, as amended from time to time. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Underlying Zone District R-6 Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Dimensional Requirement Requirements Re uirements -6 Minimum Front Yard Principal building: 10 feet . Principal building: 10 feet Setback Accesso buildin : 15 feet Accesso buildin : 15 feet Combined: 15 feet, Combined: 51.45 feet, Minimum Side Yazd Setback minimum of 5 feet on each side yazd ~~~ of 15 feet on each side yard Principal building: l Ofeet 5 feet from top of slope Portion of a principal Minimum Rear Yazd Setback (`82' contour line), or roximately 37 feet from a buildin used solel as a g y pp gazage: Sfeet reaz property line Accesso buildin : 5 feet Single-family: 3,866 sq. ft. Single-family: 3,866 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area Duplex: 4,286 sq. ft. Duplex: 4,286 sq. ft. STAFF COMMENTS: SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA -REMOVAL OF AN SPA DESIGNATION: A Specially Planned Area (SPA) is a process in which a site specific development plan is created which encourages flexibility and innovation in the development of land and promotes objectives outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan by allowing the variation of the underlying zone district's land uses and dimensional requirements for the benefit of the public. The parcel currently contains an SPA and the Applicant has requested that it be removed. To remove an SPA from a property, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must find that the property no longer meets the following standard (emphasis added): Sec. 26.440.030. Designation of Specially Planned Area (SPA). P4 A. Standazds for designation. Any land in the City may be designated Specially Planned be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development. A pazcel of land designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) shall also be designated on the City's Official Zone District Map with the underlying zone district designation which is determined the most appropriate. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development which may be considered during the development review process. Staff believes that the removal of the SPA is appropriate. While the property abuts a Post Office property (zoned SCI with an SPA overlay), the property is accessed off of Hallam Street, a residential street, and does not have a physical or use relationship with the Post Office or other commercial properties located in the Clazk's Mazket azea. 222 E Hallam has a cleaz relationship to West End residential neighborhood given its single family use. Additionally, it is similaz in size to the two existing single family homes that aze located on either side of the property. A majority of the neighborhood contains single family residential uses. Staff does not believe that any public purpose is served by permitting multiple uses on the property. Additionally, staff does not believe any "unique historic, natural, physical or locational chazacteristics" exist that would warrant the SPA designation to remain on the property. Physically, the usable portion of 222 E Hallam is sepazated from the commercial uses in the Clark's Mazket azea by a steep slope. The property has historically been used as a residence, and has never contained commercial uses. Overall, staff believes that the removal of the SPA designation will make the property more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The SPA designation is inconsistent with the land use pattem in the area. REZONING: Rezoning is requested for the portion of the lot currently zoned SCI/SPA. The Applicant proposes rezoning the entire lot to R-6 to make it consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and the existing single-family use on the property as well as on the adjacent pazcels. Staff supports the rezoning, as it will create a more consistent use and development pattem in the azea. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: In order to establish a PUD on a property, a public benefit must be created. In this case, the applicant has agreed to provide an easement on the property to protect the slope and to create a formal easement for the trail that crosses the property. The Post Office Trail is an important connection in the City, and staff believes that a public benefit is created through the establishment of the proposed easement. Staff also believes a public benefit is created by extinguishing the ability for incompatible uses (i.e. commercial uses) to be on the property. The PUD will also establish dimensional requirements for the property. Because of the size of the property (12,435 square feet after slope reduction), the R-6 zone district requires a combined side yazd setback of 51.45 feet. Since the Hallam Street side of the pazcel (where the existing driveway and pedestrian access is located) is only 60 feet long, the effective buildable azea would be approximately 8 feet 6 inches. This is not in keeping with the traditional development 4 P5 pattern in the azea, and would create anon-conforming building. The Applicant proposes establishing side yazd setbacks consistent with the existing building -five (5) feet minimum on each side with a.combined side yazd setback of fifteen (15) feet. Staff believes. that these setbacks aze appropriate, as they aze in chazacter with traditional R-61ots that aze 60 feet in width and aze consistent with the existing building and neighborhood context. Allowable Floor Area will also be established as part of the PUD. The existing lot azea is 16,580 squaze feet. There are significant slopes on the pazcel, resulting in a requirement that the effective lot area be reduced. The "effective lot area" for purposes of calculating Floor Area is 12,435 squaze ,feet. Using the R-6 zone district Floor Area calculations, this results in an allowable floor azea for asingle-family home of 3,866 squaze feet. A portion of the lot appeazs to be an alley on the original townsite map: However, no alley appeazs in the title work and no vacation ordinance has been found for the property. Vacation ordinances have been found for the adjacent property located at 216 East Hallam (also known as the Frost Property). Tn order to ensure the record is cleaz, Staff will be asking City Council to grant an alley vacation for the property. Vacated alleys aze not counted in "effective lot azea" calculations. Because the record is uncleaz, staff does not propose reducing the "effective lot azea" for the portion that may or may not have been an alley. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The Engineering Department, Zoning Officer, Transportation Department, Utilities and the Pazks Department have all reviewed the proposed application .and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Pazks has requested that a conservation easement be granted on the property for all azeas that contain steep slopes. They have also requested than an additional five (5) foot.setback be created from the top of slope to protect the vegetation on the steep slope. These have been included as conditions in the Resolution.. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council for the re-zoning, SPA removal, and the PUD designation. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series 2009, recommending approval of the removal of a Specially Planned Area (SPA), a rezoning, and the creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), for the property located at 222 East Hallam." ~ See Section 26.575.020.0, Lot Area. ".. ,lot azeas shall include only azeas with a slope of less than twenty percent (20%). In addition, half (.50) of lut areas with a slope of twenty to thirty _ .percent (20-30%) may be counted towards floor azea ratio; areas with slopes of greater than thirty percent (30%) shall be excluded. The total reduction in FAK attributable to slope reduction for a given site shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%)" z See Section 26:575.020.0, Lot Area. "...that area within a vacated right-of--way or within an existing or proposed dedicated right-of--way or surface easement " P6 Attachments: Exhibit A -SPA Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit B - Rezoning Review Criteria, Staff Findings E~cI-IIBIT C -. PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings EXHIBIT D - DRC Comments EXHIBIT E -Context map of 222 East Hallam ExHIBIT F -Application E7a-IISIT G -Addendum to Application 6 P7 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVING THE REZONING FROM S/C/I (SERVICE/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) TO R-6 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FOR A PORTION OF LOT 4, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LOTS K AND L OF BLOCK 71, ORIGINAL A5PEN TOWNSITE, LOCATED AT 222 E. HALLAM STREET, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PTIKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL H): 2737-073-14-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Joseph, A Amato, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc, requesting the removal of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) designation, a rezoning, and the creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the property. located north of Lot K & Lot L, Block 71, Original Townsite of Aspen, commonly known as 222 E. Hallam Stteet in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application for compliance with the Review Standazds and has reviewed the subject property and fmds it the be the property described by Pitkin County, Colorado District Court; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer, City Zoning Officer, the Pazks Department, the City Attorney, the Transportation Department, Public Works, and the Aspen Fire Department reviewed the rezoning proposal for 222 East Hallam Street and provided written referral comments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, refen•al comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the removal of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) designation, the rezoning, and the creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on , 2009, upon further public testimony, discussion and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No: _, Series of 2009 by a to (_-~ vote; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, P8 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Rescindine an SPA Desienation Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval rescinding the SPA designation on the property located at 222 East Hallam Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Secfion 2: Rezoning Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of an application to rezone from S/C/I (Service/CommerciaVIndustrial) to R-6 (Medium Density Residential) the property located at 222 East Hallam Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Section 3: PUD Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of an application to establish a PUD on the property located at 222 East Hallam, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The PUD dimensional requirements aze based on the R-6 zone district. Any dimensional requirements not listed below will be required to conform with the R-6 zone district, as amended from time to time. The dimensional requirements aze: R-6 Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Underlying Zone District Dimensional Requirement Requirements Re uirements -6 Minimum Front Yazd Principal building: 10 feet Principal building: 10 feet Setback Accesso buildin : 15 feet Accesso buildin : 15 feet Combined: 15 feet 5 feet on western property Combined: 51.45 feet, Minimum Side Yazd Setback line minimum of 15 feet on 10 feet on eastern property each side yazd line 5 feet from top of slope Principal building: I Ofeet (` 82' contour line), or Portion of a principal Minimum Reaz Yazd Setback approximately 37 feet from building used solely as a reaz property line garage: Sfeet Accesso buildin : 5 feet Single-Family or Duplex: Single-family: 3,866 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area 3,866 sq. ft. Duplex: 4,286 sq. ft. P9 Prior to the recordation of a PUD Agreement, the Applicant' and City shall execute a Conservation Easement for the portion of the property from the Top of Slope (the `82' contour line) to the reaz property line. No building or building projections shall be permitted in the easement. Section 4• ' All material. representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: 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 6• 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 Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this day of , 2009. APPROVED A5 TO FORM: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: LJ Erspamer, Chair Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P10 EXHIBIT A -Chapter 26.440, SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) Review Criteria Sec. 26.440.030.B: Procedure for designation, amendment, rescinding. Any pazcel that meets the standazds established in Subsection 26.440.030.A may be designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) pursuant to review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council pursuant to the procedures established in this Chapter. The boundaries of a pazcel previously designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) may be amended following the same procedures used in designating a pazcel Specially Planned Area (SPA). The removal ofa Specially Planned Area (SPA) designation from a parcel shall follow the same procedures used in designative the parcel Specially Planned Area (SPA) but shall require demonstration ofwhy the land no longer meets-the standards established in Subsection 26.440.030.A. (emphasis added Sec. 26.440.030. Designation of Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. Standazds for designation. Any land in the City may be designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) by the City Council if because of its unique historic natural physical or locational characteristics it would be ofQreat public benefit to the City for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development. A pazcel of land designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) shall also be designated on the City's Official Zone District Map with the underlying zone district designation which is determined the most appropriate. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development which may be considered during the development review process. (emphasis added) Staff Findin¢: The Land Use Code requires that for an existing SPA to be removed from a pazcel, that the pazcel no longer meet the "standazds for designation" outlined in section 26.440.030.A. The property is zoned R-6 and SCI with an SPA overlay and currently contains a single family home. Currently, multiple uses do not exist on the property, and the owner does not wish to establish multiple uses in the future. While the property abuts the Post Office property (zoned SCI with an SPA overlay), the property is accessed off of Hallam Street, a residential street, and does not have a physical or use relationship with the Post Office or other commercial properties located in the Clazk's Market azea. 222 E Hallam has a cleaz relationship to West End residentia] neighborhood given its single family use. Additionally, it is similaz in size to the two existing single family homes that aze located on either side of the property. A majority of the neighborhood contains single family residential uses. Staff does not believe that any public purpose is served by permitting multiple uses on the property. Additionally, staff does not believe any "unique historic, natural, physical or locational characteristics" exist that would warrant the SPA designation to remain on the property. Physically, the usable portion of 222 E Hallam is separated from the commercial uses in the Clazk's Mazket area by a steep slope. The property has historically been used as a residence, and has never contained commercial uses. Exhibit A -Specially Planned Area Review Criteria Page 1 of 4 P11 Staff finds that the SPA' designation at 222 E Hallam does not meet the "standazds for designation" outlined in section 26.440.030.A, and therefore complies with the review criteria to rescind the SPA designation. Sec. 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. General. In the. review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Finding: The removal of the SPA designation will make the property more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The SPA designation is inconsistent with the land use pattern in the azea. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding: The property is currently served by all utilities, including roads. The service level is set up for the existing single family use. The cross town shuttle runs along Hallam, providing easy public transit access for the property. No additional infrastructure is needed to serve this property if it retains its existing single family use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Finding: The pazcel includes steep slopes, some of which aze in excess of 30%. No development exists on this portion of the pazcel and none is proposed. If the SPA is rescinded, the applicant has agreed to create a conservation easement on the pazcel that would include all azeas in the slope. This would protect the existing native vegetation on the slope, and would prevent any future development on the slope. No other natural hazards azd believed to affect the lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding: Exhibit A -Specially Planned Area Review Criteria Page 2 of 4 P12 The applicant proposes a conservation easement on the portion of the property that contains steep slopes and an existing city trail. This easement would be created through the elimination of the SPA designation and the creation of a PUD. The easement provides a mechanism for the existing trail to have a formal, dedicated, easement that would allow the Pazks Department to maintain the trail for public use. Staff finds the application to meet this criterion. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area. Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Rescinding the SPA will meet a number of goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Design Quality section of the AACP states, "Contextual appropriateness transcends `style' alone." This section also states, "Zoning, our primary means of shaping the built environment, must encourage appropriate and lively design." By rescinding the SPA, the allowed uses on the property will be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. This translated into physical design to the extent that any changes to the existing single family home would be required to comply with the Residential Design Standazds. If a commercial use were established on the portion of the pazcel with the SPA designation, that building would not be subject to that review and could be out of chazacter with the residential neighborhood. Additionally, eliminating the SPA designation and creating a PUD will further AACP goals related to trails. The AACP states, "Implicit in the development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is...the fiuther development, management and preservation of our pazks and trails." The existing trail that crosses this property does not have a trial easement. An easement for the trail will be created through the elimination of the SPA and the creation of a PUD. Overall, Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding: The proposal does not require public funds to provide public facilities for the proposed pazcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. Staff Finding: The property contains steep slopes, some of which aze in excess of 20%. As part of the PUD designation, the Applicant proposes establishing dimensional requirements consistent with the slope reduction requirements outlined in the code. Staff fords this criterion tp_be met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Exhibit A -Specially Planned Area Review Criteria Page 3 of 4 P13 Staff FindinP: Not Applicable. The Applicant does not propose any new development on the parcel at this time. B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from those requirements may be allowed based on the standazds of this Section. Variations may be allowed for the following requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yazd, minimum reaz yazd, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot azea, trash access azea, internal floor azea ratio, number of off-street pazking spaces and uses and design standazds of Chapter 26.410 for streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. Staff Findins: There aze no requests to vary the dimensional requirements as part of the SPA. These requests aze made under the PUD request. Staff finds this criteria to not be applicable. Exhibit A -Specially Planned Area Review Criteria Page 4 of 4 P14 EXHIBIT B -Chapter 26.310, AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Review Criteria Sec. 26.310.010. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a means for amending the text of this Title and the Official Zone District map. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships or confer special privileges or rights on any person. Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. 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: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. StafiFinding: The proposed rezoning does not conflict with other portions of the Land Use Code. Rezoning the property from SCUSPA to R-6 will make the property more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The rezoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposal will meet a number of goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Design Quality section of the AACP states, "Contextual appropriateness transcends `style' alone." This section also states, "Zoning, our primary means of shaping the built environment, must encourage appropriate and lively design." By rescinding the SPA, the allowed uses on the property will be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. This translated into physical design to -the extent that any changes to the existing single family home would be required to comply with the Residential Design Standards. If a commercial use were established on the portion of the pazcel with the SPA designation, that building would not be subject to that review and could be out of character with the residential neighborhood. Additionally, the rezoning will further AACP goals related to trails. The AACP states, "Implicit in the development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is...the further development, management and preservation of our pazks and trails." The existing trail that crosses this property does not have a trial easement. An easement for the trail will be created through the elimination of the SPA, the rezoning to R-6, and the creation of a PUD. Overall, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Exhibit B -Rezoning Review Criteria Page I of 3 P15 Staff Finding: The property currently has split zoning - a portion of the property is zoned R-6 and a portion is zoned SCUSPA. The rezoning will make the lot consistent with the use pattern in the West End neighborhood and with the pazcels immediately adjacent to the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The property is currently served by all utilities, including roads. The service level is set up for the existing single family use. The cross town shuttle runs along Hallam, providing easy public transit access for the property. The existing structure, driveway, and pazking will not adversely affect traffic. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilites. StaflFindinP: The property is currently served by all utilities, including toads. The service level is-set up for the existing single family use. The cross town shuttle runs along Hallam, providing easy public transit access for the property. No additional infrastructure is needed to serve this property if it retains its existing single family use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Rezoning the property to R-6 will not create any adverse impacts on the natural environment. The applicant proposes a conservation easement on the portion of the property that contains steep slopes and an existing city trail. This easement would be created through the rezoning and the creation of a PUD. The easement provides a mechanism for the existing trail to have a formal, dedicated, easement that would allow the Pazks Department to maintain the trail for public use. The easement will also protect the existing native vegetation located on the property's sloped hill. Staff fords the application to meet this criterion. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: While the property abuts the Post Office property (zoned SCI with an SPA overlay), the property is accessed off of Hallam Street, a residential street, and does not have a physical or use relationship with the Post Office or other commercial properties located in the Clazk's Exhibit B -Rezoning Review Criteria Page 2 of 3 P16 Mazket azea. 222 E Hallam has a cleaz relationship to West End residential neighborhood given its single family use. Additionally, it is similaz in size to the two existing single family homes that aze located on either side of the property. A majority of the neighborhood contains single family residential uses. The rezoning will make the property more in chazacter with the azea. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning will make the property more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of use pattern and built environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met I. 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 Findin><?: The proposed rezoning does not conflict with the public interest or other portions of the Land Use Code. Rezoning the property from SCUSPA to R-6 will make the property more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing conservation easement to protect an existing city trail that crosses the property and to protect the native vegetation on the pazcel's sloped hill. This will further the public interest by ensuring the existing trail connection from the Clazk's Mazket area to the Red Brick remains intact. Staff finds this criterion to be met Exhibit B -Rezoning Review Criteria Page 3 of 3 P17 EXHIBIT C -Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Review Criteria Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, fiaal, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, fmal, 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 standards 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. Rescinding the SPA will meet a number of goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Design Quality section of the AACP states, "Contextual appropriateness transcends `style' alone." This sectiori also states, "Zoning, our primary means of shaping the built environment, must encourage appropriate and lively design " By rescinding the SPA, the allowed uses on the property will be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. This translated into physical design to the extent that any changes to the existing single family home would be required to comply with the Residential Design Standazds. If a commercial use were established on the portion of the pazcel with the SPA designation, that building would not be subject to that review and could be out of chazacter with the residential neighborhood. Additionally, eliminating the SPA designation and creating a PUD will further AACP goals related to trails. The AACP states, "Implicit in the development and growth of the- other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is...the further development, management and preservation of our pazks and trails." The existing trail that crosses this property does not have a trial easement. An easement for the. trail will be created through the. elimination of the SPA and the creation of a PUD. Overall, Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. No new development is proposed as part of this application. The property is currently zoned R-6 and SCI with an SPA overlay and contains a single family home. While the property abuts the Post Office property (zoned SCI with an SPA overlay), the property is accessed off of Hallam Street, a residential street, and does not have a physical or use relationship with the Post Office or other commercial properties located along Puppy Smith Street. 222 E Hallam has a clear relationship to West End residential neighborhood given its single family use. Additionally, it is similaz in size to the two existing single family homes that aze located on either side of the property. A majority of the neighborhood contains single family residential uses. Retaining the single family use on the property ensures the pazcel remains in chazacter with the existing land use pattern. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development sha[[ not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 1 of ]0 P18 No new development is proposed as part of this application. Rezoning the pazcel to R-6 and creating a PUD that establishes setbacks, Floor Area, and creates an easement for the trail and protects the vegetation of the hill will not adversely affect the future development in 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 does not propose any new development on the pazcel at this time. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in Genera[ 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 based on rezoning the entire property to R-6. Any dimensional requirements not listed will be required to conform with the R-6 zone district, as amended from time to time. 'The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Underlying Zone District R-6 Dimensional Proposed Dimensional Dimensional Requirement Requirements Re uirements -6 Minimum Front Yazd Principal building: 10 feet Principal building: 10 feet Setback Accesso buildin : 15 feet Accesso buildin : 15 feet Combined: 15 feet 5 feet on western property Combined: 51.45 feet, Minimum Side Yard Setback line minimum of 15 feet on 10 feet on eastern property each side yazd line 5 feet from top of slope Principal building: lOfeet (`82' contour line), or Portion of a principal Minimum Rear Yazd Setback approximately 37 feet from building used solely as a reaz property line garage: Sfeet Accesso buildin : 5 feet Single-family: 3,866 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area 3,866 sq. ft. Duplex: 4,286 sq. ft. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 2 of 10 P19 a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land-uses in the surrounding area. The proposed dimensional requirements are consistent with the existing home and the character of the neighborhood. The rezoning adds lot area to the calculatipn of allowed residential floor azea, creating an increase in allowable floor azea of 633 squaze feet. The additional lot azea would also create anon-conforming building in terms of side yard setbacks. Additionally, the applicant proposes creating a 33 foot reaz yard setback to protect the steep slope and existing trail -the resulting setback would be located as the existing top of slope. Pazks Department staff has requested an additional S feet added tb the setback, for a total of 37 feet, to ensure the slope is protected. The proposed dimensional requirements aze compatible with the surrounding neighborhood uses. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Natural or man-made hazards. No known hazards exist on the lot: Staff fords 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. The proposed dimensional requirements, specifically the 37 foot reaz yazd setback, will protect existing vegetation on the steep slope. The conservation easement will ensure there is limited intrusion into the slope. 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. The proposed dimensional requirements aze consistent with the use mix and physical development pattern of the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity ojopen space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. No development is proposed as part of this application. The dimensional requirements aze consistent with the residential nature of the lot and the surrounding neighborhood. Any future development on the property will be required to comply with applicable Residential Design Standazds. The pazcel will be subject to all dimensional requitements in the R-6 zone district that have not been altered as part of the PUD (i.e. open space, site coverage, distance between buildings, etc). Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 3 of ]0 P20 3. The appropriate number ojoff-street parking spaces shall be established based on tke jol[owing 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 d The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. No change to the existing pazking configuration is proposed with this application. Any future development on the pazcel will be required to meet all applicable off street pazking requirements as outlined in the Land Use Code. The cross-town shuttle operates along Hallam, and the property is located within walking distance of many commercial facilities. 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 suJrcient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development b. There are not adequate toads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development The property is currently served by all utilities, including roads. The service level is set up for the existing single family use. The cross town shuttle runs along Hallam, providing easy public transit access for the property. No additional infrastructure is contemplated for this property. The applicant does not propose altering the density on the pazcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum aUowab[e 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 jor the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility ojmudjlow, 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. a The proposed development wiU have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 4 of 10 P21 d The design and location of any proposed structure, roam driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. There are no known development hazards located on the property. A conservation easement is proposed for areas that contain steep slopes, which will prohibit any future development on that portion of the site. No development is proposed as part of this application, and therefore no negative impacts to air quality or the water shed exist. The applicant does not propose altering the density on the parcel. Any futwe development on the property will be required to comply with applicable Residential Design Standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. -The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant 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. a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specifu area plan to which the properly is subject. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and S, 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 for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specifted 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 fmds 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 specifu; reference to the past, or contribute to the identity ojthe town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 5 of 10 P22 The Applicant is attempting to protect the pazcel's steep slope and the vegetation that exists on that portion of the property. The applicant is also proposing an easement to formalize the trail that currently runs along the northern portion of the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. No significant open spaces will be lost with this proposal, as the applicant proposes a conservation easement to help preserve the steep slope and existing vegetation on the slope. No new development is proposed as part of this application, so no clustering of structwes is proposed at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. The existing house if oriented towazd Hallam Street. No new development is proposed as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. The existing site allows for emergency and service vehicle access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. The site provides pedestrian and handicapped access, as required by the building code. Any future development will be required to meet all accessibility requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated jor .the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. No new development is proposed for the site. Any future development will be required to meet all drainage requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Not applicable. No non-residential land uses aze proposed for this pazcel. The re-zoning will prohibit non-residential uses from being on the property. D. Landscape Plan. Exhibit C - PUD Review Criteria Page 6 of ]0 P23 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 of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 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. No landscape changes aze proposed as part of this application. 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. The existing slope will be protected by a conservation easement. No development is proposed in the easement azea. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features rs appropriate. The proposed conservation easement will prohibit-any development on the steep slope. Projections into the easement azea will also be prohibited. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. I. 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. No new development is proposed as part of this application. Any future development on the property will be required to comply with applicable Residential Design Standazds. Staff fords this criterion to be 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. No new development is proposed as part of this application. Any future development on the property will be required to comply with applicable building and energy codes. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. No new development is proposed as part of this application. Any future development on the property will be required to comply with applicable city codes. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit C - PUD Review Criteria Page 7 of 10 P24 F. Lighting. 1: The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will 6e Ughted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the fnal PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to ca[[ inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development No new development is proposed as part of this application. The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. 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 deve[opmeny considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape .features of the property, provides visual reliejto the property's built form, and is available [o the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users ojthe 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. Protection of the trail and steep slope will be provided for though an easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 infrastructure 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 Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 8 of ]0 P25 2. Adverse impacts an public infrastructure by the development wiU be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement The property is currently served by all utilities, including roads. The service level is set up for the existing single family use. The cross town shuttle runs along Hallam, providing easy public transit access for the property. No additional infrastructure is contemplated for this property: The applicant does not propose altering the density on the pazcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access, and Circulation. (Only standazds 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. The existing single family house has direct access to Hallam Street. 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 The existing structure, driveway, and paking will not adversely affect traffic. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 jor appropriate improvements and maintenance. The trail that connects the Post Office to the Red brick (i.e. Post Office Trail) currently runs through a portion of the applicant's property, but does not contain an easement. This trail has been in existence for many yeazs. As part of the PUD application, the applicant will dedicate a permanent, public easement for the trail to allow for continued maintenance and public access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specifec plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 9 of 10 P26 The Applicant has agreed to provide an easement for the Post Office trail. The trail current crosses the property, but does not have an easement. Staff fmds 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 intema] streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical There aze 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 rs 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. Not applicable. No phasing is proposed as part of this development. . Exhibit C -PUD Review Criteria Page 10 of 10 ~,chaoi+ p Pz, A.~P.~!! Addendum 4/13/09 Memorandum Date: Mazch 11, 2009 To: Jason Lasser, Planner From; Brian Flyrm, Pazks Department Re: 222 E Hallam, DRC review The Pazks Department is concerned with protecting the integrity of the undisturbed hillside and trail experience. To that affect: 1. Future landscaping of the hillside should be prohibited. New inappropriate plantings will change the feel of the trail and cause additional shading on a highly difficult snow removal azea. Pazks supports a top of slope set back of no less than 5-feet. 2. Staff suggests that the applicant provide the City with a conservation easement for the portion of the property located on the hillside. The conservation easement will protect in perpetuity the values of the hillside, natural and recreational. The language of the easement can include the right for public access across the property via the existing trail. Anew property survey. or plat should show the azea of the conservation boundary and trail. The specific language of the conservation easement will be written, signed and recorded no more than 150 days after the approval of the PUD. P28 Date: February 2009 Project: 222 East Hallam Rezone City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments 1) Engineering Department would request a more detailed survey showing existing easements, major utilities, and a more accurate depiction of existing driveway boundaries. 2) Engineering would request easements for any existing utilities on site. 3) Engineering would request the applicant maintain any existing easements identified on site. 3) The Engineering Department would request the applicant review driveway set backs from the property line during and redevelopment activities on this site. Miscellaneous Construction Management - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: pazking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Detailed plans aze required prior to council -please see engineering department for specific details. ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (~~ THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 1 Y t FROM: Saza Adams, Historic Preservation Planner ~ VV~ RE: Historic Districts code amendment/ HPC purview in the right of way DATE: Apri121, 2009 HPC's purview over changes in the right of ways of Aspen's two historic districts was questioned recently during the proposed improvements to the Main Street corridor. Staff analyzed the Code and the designation ordinances for the Main Street (1976) and Commercial Core Historic Districts (1974) and discovered that not only is the review process for changes to Historic District right of ways confusing and uncleaz, but the defined boundaries of the Historic Districts aze inaccurate. One of the Historic Preservation goals listed in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan is to "work to improve the Historic Preservation Commission review process." The Community Development Director has initiated this code amendment to correct past clerical errors in the ordinances designating the Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts and to clarify review processes for development within the designated Historic District right of ways. The Historic Preservation Commission found that the review criteria were met and unanimously supported the proposed amendment during their regular April 8, 2009 meeting. The Land Use Code does not require a recommendation from the HPC for amendments to the Code; however, , Staff determined that HPC need to provide feedback because the proposed amendments directly involve HPC's jurisdiction. BACKGROUND: As defined in code section 26.415.020, Historic Districts aze "a collection, 1'nk or continuity of buildings structures sites or Historic District concentration, > age > objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development." The first Historic District in the United States was created in Charleston, South Carolina in 1931. Patterns of azchitecture, repetition of historic uses and/or concentration of development are important tangible and understandable pieces of our history that create a sense of place for present and more importantly future generations. The majority of historic districts azound the county have defined boundazies that encompass properties containing buildings that contribute to a sense of place and specific period of significance important to a town's history. The image to the left illustrates the boundaries of Chazleston's historic district, which includes all property, right of ways and public domain within the defined boundazies. RE3VdHDrnemopz~doe Page - 1 - of 3 Aspen's ordinances designating the historic districts describe lots and blocks in the area, but are uncleaz as to how the adjacent public spaces are to be treated. Mapping of the districts over the years has indicated that the blocks and the streets within them aze part of the district but clazification is needed to ensure a cohesive, uninterrupted district that portrays Aspen's history (please see Exhibit B for maps.) Staff met with the following departments to discuss work that is typically done in the right of ways to help figure out appropriate and realistic review processes for different types of development: Pazks, Engineering, Pazking, Streets, Water and Utilities. PROPOSED conE nmENUmteNrs: Staff proposes adoption of code amendments that establish a better process for work that should qualify as exempt, administrative review or HPC review. The following nazrative is to provide P&Z background on the amendments included in the attached resolution. Sections 1 and 2: These sections propose amended language to the existing Ordinances (number 49, series of 1974 and number 60 series of 1976) that designated the Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts. There were a few clerical errors that need to be corrected, and more importantly the boundaries of the district are defined such that they include all areas between the alleyways to the north and south of Main Street for the Main Street Historic District and between Mill Street, Durant Street, Hunter Street and the north alleyway behind Main Street for the Commercial Core Historic District. It was always assumed that the Historic Districts were a contiguous azea with a defined exterior border that included all azeas within, both public and private. This amendment clearly defines the boundaries as illustrated in Exhibit A to the proposed Resolution. Section 3: The proposed amendment to Section 3 proposes to include objects and landscapes among the items that aze under HPC's purview. Section 4: Section 4 proposes development in the right of ways that does not require review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Any work that has no permanent and/or adverse impact on the historic chazacter of the district is exempt; for example: temporary signage, seasonal lighting and regular repairs. Section 5: Administrative approvals aze currently granted through a Certificate of No Negative Effect. Section 5 proposes that any work that will have a minimal impact on the historic district b approved administratively; for example, the installation of some street furniture, solar panels, replacement of ditches or streetscapes that are minimal in nature. Section 6: Section 6 proposes language that would qualify for a minor review at the HPC. This is a one step review process that involves a public hearing. Basically, any work in the right of ways of historic districts of a magnitude that does not meet the criteria for an administrative approval qualifies as a Minor Development review. Section 7: Section 7 proposes that any work that has a significant impact on the historic district, for example a master plan, qualifies for a Major Development review at the HPC, which includes a two step process and public hearings. ROWHDmemopz:doc Page-2-of3 NEXT STEPS: The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. First and Second Readings of the proposed code amendments aze not currently scheduled at Council. REQUEST of THE P & Z: Planning and Zoning is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council regazding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning and Zoning recommend approval of the proposed code amendments. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # OO~b ,Series of 2009 Exhibit A -Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B -Maps of Historic Districts Exhibit C - "What is a Historic District" chapter of the Guide to Nominating Historic Districts, published by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, 2006. ROaKHDmemopz.doc Page-3-of3 RESOLUTION No. IIV~ (Series of 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NUMBERED 49, SERIES OF 1974 AND OR[NDANCE NUMBERED 60 SERIES OF 1976 MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW, AND DETERMIIING THAT THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS-AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICH'AL CODE MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.070-DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTY; 26.415.070.A -EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT; 26.415.070.B - CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT; 26.415.070.0 - CERTIFICAET OF APPROPRIATENESSFOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT; 26.415.070.D - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Duector of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to Ordinance numbered 49, Series of 1974 and Ordinance numbered 60, Series of 1976 related to the boundazies of the Commercial Core and Main Street Historic Districts; and initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the Historic Preservation Commission's (HPCj purview in the right of ways within designated historic districts; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the official zone district map and to amend text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for' approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Duector and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public heazing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance numbered 49, Series of 1974 defined the Commercial Core Historic District as "all of lots 80, 81, 82, 93, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, and the south half of blocks 79, 86 and 92 of the City and Original Townsite of Aspen; and the south half of Block 19 East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen," which did not include the right of ways; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance numbered 60, Series of 1976 defined the Main Street Historic District as "all of those properties abutting (on the north and south) Main Street between Monazch and Seventh Streets, and all of Paepcke Pazk within the City of Aspen, Colorado: which area is more particularly described as lots K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S of blocks 18, 24, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 66, 73; lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and J of Blocks 19, 25, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 74; and all of Block 67 of the Original Aspen Townsite," which did not include the right of ways; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Duector has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the Aspen City Council Ordinance numbered 49 Series of PZ proposed code amendment Page 1 of 12 1974 and Ordinance numbered 60 Series of 1976, and has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.070 - Development Involving Designated Historic Property; 2b.415.070.A - Exempt Development; 26.415.070.B -Certificate of No Negative Effect; 26.415.070.0 - Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development; 26.415.070.D -Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.020- Defmitions, the definition of a historic district is "a collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development," which, in part, necessitates the inclusion of the right of ways within the established boundaries to be a cohesive historic district; and, WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "work to improve the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review process" and to "ensure that the rules and regulations regarding development and historic preservation in our community create projects that are consistent with our broader community goals;" and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to Aspen City Council Ordinance numbered 49 Series of 1974 and Ordinance numbered 60 Series of 1976; and approve amendment to the text of Sections 26.415.070 - Development Involving Designated Historic Property; 26.415.070.A - Exempt Development; 26.415.070.B -Certificate of No Negative Effect; 26.415.070.0 - Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development; 26.415.070.D -Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development as described herein, by a vote; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission fords that this Resolution fiutlters and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard rint and looks like this. Text bein added to the Deleted: Text being removed is red h e=,-,...______~_-_=="-t-==•~_-•-"" withstrikethroughandlookslikethis. code is blue with underline and looks like this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Aspen City Council Ordinance numbered 49, Series of 1474 that defines the boundaries of the Commercial Core Historic District is hereby amended to include the right of ways within the existing outlying historic district boundaries and to correct existing clerical errors. Ordinance 49, Series of 1974. Section 1. PZ proposed code amendment Page 2 of 12 That the following described property located within Pitkin County, Colorado, be and herby is placed within an H, Historic Overlay District and designated an historic site: ee 11 of locks 80 81, 822 93,_ 87, 882 89, 90, 93, 9~ City and Original Townsite of mentioned propertie~~ _ _ ____ _ All as is set forth in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Further that the Official Zoning District Map of the City of A the designation of the above-described areas_as an H, Historic M, N, On Deleted: A 92 of the - -- Deleted: lots llevwa~ ~• Deleted: the south half he above ~~ Deleted: ana ------------------- - Deleted:;andthesouthhalfoflockl9 • East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen D l t d ended by _-_..-•~ -----~ -- e e e :. Deleted: , daua Apt;l7, 1967, as amended Section 2: Aspen City Council Ordinance numbered 60, Series of 1976 that defines the boundaries of the Main Street Historic District is hereby alnended to include the right of ways within the existing outlying historic district boundaries and to correct clerical errors. Ordinance 60, Series of 1976. Section 1. That Main Street between Monarch and Seventh Streets is deterlnined to have historic significance and that Main Street, the sidewalks adjacent thereto and the following described property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, be designated as an H historic Overlay District pursuant to the provisions of Article IX of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code Deleted: e Deleted: ding All of lots K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S of blocks 18, 24, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58, 66, ,. Deleted:. 73 of the Original Aspen Townsite; ands _ _ __ ,,.-~'~ the Original Aspen Townsite, and, ~- Deleted: J ~-: Deleted:. X11 of Block 67 of the Original Aspen_Townsite; and ..-...- - - - -- - -- -~ Deleted: A The side streets between the above-described blocks within one-half block of Main Street: All as is set forth in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Further that the Official Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen is further amended by the desicnation of the above-described areas as an H, Historic Overlay District. Section 3: Section 26.415.070 -Development involving designated historic property, which section describes the procedure for designated historic property, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property. PZ proposed code amendment Page 3 of 12 No bui]ding„_,structure,~temporar,~r structure,,: object,, or ,landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic properly or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. Section 4: Section 26.415.070.A -Exempt development, which section defines development that is exempt from staff or HPC review be amended as follows: Section 26.415.070.A. Exempt development. 1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. 2. Selected activities within a designated historic district right ofway are exempted from the development review procedures including regular repair, cleanine, snow removal, installation of utilities not visible within the historic district, seasonal liEhtine. temnorarv sier-ase, or other such minimally intrusive work ~_ If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the _ _ _ __..._-~- Deleted: a Community Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility. Section 5: Section 26.415.070.B -Certificate of No Negative Effect, which section defimes development that qualifies for administrative review and approval shall be amended as follows: Section 26.415.070.B. Certificate of no negative effect. I . An application for a certificate of no negative effect may be made to the Community Development Director for approval of work that has no adverse effect on the physical appearance or character-defming features of a designated property or historic district. An application for a certificate of no effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth in the following Subsection 26.415.070.B.2: 2. The Community Development Director shall issue a development order based upon a certificate of no negative effect within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a complete application if: a. It is detennined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines; and, PZ proposed code amendment Page 4 of 12 b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the Community Development Director are agreed to by the owner/applicant; and, c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and/or architectural character of the subject property or Historic District in which it is located. 3. An application for a certificate of no negative effect shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Elevations or drawings of the proposed work. c. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. d. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards. 4. The following work shall be considered for a Cei4ificate of No Negative Effect: a. Replacement or repair of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure. b. Replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the building or structure to its historic appearance. c. Installation of awnings or similar attachments provided no significant feature is damaged, removed or obscured by the installation. d. Fencing that has no adverse effect on the historic or architectural character of the property or historic district. e. Mechanical equipment or accessory features that have no impact on ., peieeed: or the character-definin features of the buildin structure or historic district._,,.-~'" g ~- - ~-- f. Signs which have no effect on the character-defining features of the historic property or historic district. g. Alterations to noncontributing buildings within historic districts that have no adverse effect on its historic or architectural character. h. Alterations to no more than two (2) elements of nonprimary facades of a designated building. i. Installation of site improvements, such as walkways, patios, pools or hot tubs, or similar significant features. PZ proposed code amendment Page 5 of 12 district. 5. The development order and associated certificate of no negative effect shall expire and become null and void after three (3) years from the date of issuance by the Community Development Director unless a building permit is issued within that time. 6. In the event that the Community Development Director determines that the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect is not appropriate, the owner clay apply for a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. Section 6: Section 26.415.070.0 -Certificate of appropriateness for minor development, which section defines development that qualifies for a one step review and public hearing before the HPC shall be amended as follows: Section 26.415.070.0. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that •the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes: a. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or b. Alterations to a building facade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or c. Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties or within a historic district such that the cumulative unpact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or PZ proposed code amendment Page 6 of 12 d. Alterations that are made to nonhistoric portions of a designated historic property or historic district that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or e. The erection of street furniture, signs, public art, bus stomas and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the ,. Deleted:. issuance of a certificate of no negative effector .~~~ f. Installation of new safety improvementskto ri;eht of way within the _ __ -~- Deleted: historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property or within a designated historic district involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D. 2. An application for minor development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity. c. An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. d. Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. e. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows: a. The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b. b. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a PZ proposed code amendment Page 7 of 12 recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. c. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. d. The HPC decision shall be fmal unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. Section 7: Section 26.415.070.D -Certificate of appropriateness for major development, which section defines development that qualifies for a two step review (conceptual and final) and two public hearings (conceptual and final) before the HPC shall be amended as follows: Section 26.415.070.D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building facade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and/or c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development. 2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a fmal development plan. If a major development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. 3. Conceptual development plan review. PZ proposed code amendment Page 8 of 12 a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or fmal development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. PZ proposed code amendment Page 9 of l2 (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute fmal approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan. (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing shall be required. (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. Final development plan review. a. An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. PZ proposed code amendment Page 10 of 12 3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. b, The procedures far the review of final development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, band c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. (4) A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. (5) Before an application for a building pernlit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. PZ proposed code amendment Page 11 of 12 Section 8: A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 21~` day of April, 2009, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2009. LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R. True, Special Counsel PZ proposed code amendment Page 12 of 12 Exhibit A Standards of Review Historic Districts Code Amendment Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. 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: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Response: The proposed amendments are not in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title; rather they meet the purpose of Land Use Code Chapter 26.415 Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H" Historic Overlay District, which is to "promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history." Furthermore, the amendment reflects the common practice of review that has been in place for years. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The Historic Preservation chapter of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) states that "we must continue to build on what we have by authentically preserving historic structures and creating thoughtful new buildings that encourage and shape that feeling of historical continuity." Cohesive historic districts that include right of ways and public areas within its boundaries are paramount to a preserving historic continuity and a defined sense of place. One of the policies in the AACP is to "ensure that the rules and regulations regarding development and historic preservation in our community create projects that are consistent with our broader community goals." The AACP seeks to "work to improve the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review process." Clarifying the boundaries of Aspen's two Historic Districts and HPC's purview over certain actions within the Districts will improve the efficiency of the review process and will ensure compatibility of new projects in the right of way with the character defining features of the Districts. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: The proposed amendments are compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses. It will maintain the character defining features of Aspen's Page 1 of 3 Exhibit A Standards of Review Historic Districts Code Amendment Historic District by clarifying the review process for specific additions and alterations within the right of ways of Historic Districts. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Response: No traffic will be generated with the proposed amendments. Road safety within the Historic Districts is imperative for the community to be able to enjoy and experience the period of significance that is preserved along Main Street and in the downtown Core. The proposed code amendment requires a written recommendation from the Colorado Department of Transportation for Major Development applications that involve Highway 82. Further, national safety regulations regarding road safety, accessibility, etc. are not compromised by this code amendment. HPC will be charged to work with other departments to find a compatible solution that meets national standards and historic preservation goals. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Response: The proposed amendment will not • impact public facilities. Relevant departments have been consulted regarding the proposed amendments (i.e. Engineering, Parks, Streets, Water, Utilities, Parking.) F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: The proposed aniendment will not result in significantly adverse impact on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Response: The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in Aspen and seeks to maintain a defined sense of place within the local Historic Districts by clearly outlining the process for alterations and addition within the right of way in Historic Districts. Page 2 of 3 Exhibit A Standards of Review Historic Districts Code Amendment H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject pazcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: The recent Main Street corridor project- brought the question of HPC's purview in the right of ways of Historic Districts to the forefront. Staff analyzed the code and historic district ordinances and discovered that not only was the review process unclear, but the boundaries of the two Historic Districts were inaccurate. I. 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 Response: The proposed amendment supports the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code in that it will "recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City" and it will "retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community." Staff finds that all of the Standards of review are met. Page3of3 Historic Parcels in Downtown Core Feet Legend N - Historic Distric Bounda ~ ~~ ~~~' ~s~~- ry ~~ < < In Historic Parcels ~~,`t;1~1 ~11,t~~ ~~ 250 125 0 250 500 750 1,000 ~r a. W1~At ~s A H-%Stor~c A%str%ct? A historic district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Concentration, Linkage, & Continuity of Features A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship ofits resources, which convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or form an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that includes industrial, residential, or commercial buildings, sites, structures, or objects. Significance A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for historical, architectural, archeological, engineering, or cultural values. Districts are often significant for more than one reason. For example, a business district may be significant for its commercial history as well as its architecture. Types of Features A district can comprise both features that lack individual distinction and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered eligible if all of the components lack individual distinction, provided that the grouping achieves significance as a whole within its historic context. In either case, the majority of the components that add to the district's historic character, even if they are individually undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not contribute to the significance of the district. The number of noncontributing properties a district can contain yet still convey its sense of time and place and historical development depends on how these properties affect the district's integrity. 2 Guide to Nominating Historic Distdcts L,. ..". _... ~'q . } ''~ The most numerous types of National Register historic districts are those for residential and commercial properties. A good way to learn about what constitutes a National Register historic district is to read one or more district nominations. Recently listed districts provide the best examples of current standards for a complete and well-documented nomination. Copies of all National Register district nominations may be obtained from the Office ofArchaeology and Historic Preservation. See the section on Special District Types for information on other National Register district types. Examples of National Register residential and commercial disfricts Residential neighborhoods Year Listed - Park Hill, Denver ..................:-.........;........,..........................,......................... .....2004 - Sherman Street Historic District, Denver ............................................................ .....2004 - Louviers, Louviers ................................................................................................ .....1999 - Reno Park Addition, Arvada .......................................................................... ....1999 - Stocke-Walter Addition, Arvada ..................................................................... ....1999 - Arapahoe Acres, Englewood ............................................................................... .....1998 - Boulder Crescent Place Historic District, Colorado Springs .............................. .....1987 - Sherman Street Historic Residential District, Fort Morgan ................................. .....1987 - West Side Historic District, Longmont ....................................:............................ .....1987 - East Side Historic District, Longmont .................................................................. .....1986 - North Weber Street-Wahsatch Avenue Residential District, Colorado Springs .....1985 - North 7~h St. Historic Residential District, Grand Junction .............................. ....1984 - East Third Avenue Historic Residential District, Durango .............................. ....1984 - Twelfth Street Historic Residential District, Golden ....................................... ....1983 - North End Historic District, Colorado Springs ................................................ ....1982 - San Juan Avenue Historic District, La Junta .................................................. ....1980 - Laurel School Historic District, Fort Collins .................................................... ....1980 - Pitkin Place Historic District, Pueblo .............................................................. ....1978 - Auraria 9'" Street Historic District, Denver ...................................:................. ....1973 Commercial districts - Littleton Main Street, Littleton ..................................................... - Arvada Downtown, Arvada ......................................................... - Monte Vista Downtown Historic District, Monte Vista ............. - -Idaho Springs Downtown Commercial District, Idaho Springs - Salida Downtown Historic District, Salida ............................... - Canon City Downtown Historic District, Carion City ............... - Ouray Historic District, Ouray ................................................. - Old Colorado City Historic Commercial District ...................... - Union Avenue Historic Commercial District, Pueblo ............... - Boulder Downtown Historic District, Boulder .......................... - Durango Main Avenue Historic District Duran o .....................1998 .....................1998 .....................1991 .....................1984 .......:.............1984 .....................1983 .....................1983 .................1982 .................1982 .................1980 .................1980 .................1978 .................1973 , g .......................... A Old Town Historic District, Fort Collins .......................................... - Corazon de Trinidad District, Trinidad ........................................... National Register of Historic Places in Colorado "1 ' - ' Combination districts - Eldora Historic District, Eldora .................................................................... - Gold Hill Historic District, Gold Hill .............................................................. - Redstone Historic District, Redstone .......................................................... - Cokedale Historic District, Cokedale ........................................................... - Victor Downtown Historic District, Victor ..................................................... - Breckenridge Historic District, Breckenridge ............................................... - Lake City Historic District, Lake City ........................................................... (amended and revised in 2005) - Plaza de San Luis de la Culebra Historic District, San Luis ........................ - Morrison Historic District, Morrfson ............................................................. - Crested Butte Historic District, Crested Butte ............................................. - North Fork'Historic District, Jefferson County ............................................. ......1989 ...... 1989 ...... 1989 ......1985 ......1985 ...... 1980 ...... 1978 ....,. 1976 ...... 1976 ......1974 ...... 1974 G. 4 Guide to Nominating Historic Districts Sherman Street Historic District, Denver P25 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 1~~~/~ THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director-/~ ~`' 1 FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing DATE: Apri121, 2009 City Council has the authority to call up certain design related approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) within thirty (30) days of approval. Council reviews the application on the record and makes a finding as to whether the review boazd denied due process, exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Council directed Staff to propose a code amendment that expands the call up review to consider an application. de novo. De novo is a latin term meaning "from the beginning." Some. communities (e.g. Boulder, Telluride) authorize their City .Councils to conduct a content based review of an application pursuant to call up procedures. Expanding Council's purview strengthens the checks and balances for new development; however, it creates a level of uncertainty for the applicant regazding the validity of a development approval granted by the HPC or the P & Z that may be reversed, amended or sent back to the review boazd for further study. The predictability of the land use process may be jeopazdized by adding a content based call up provision and potential extra layer of review. It is important to recognize the qualifications of the review boazds and how different backgrounds represent different community interests and goals. Members of the HPC, a largely design specific review boazd, must have specific credentials to volunteer. Pursuant to Section. 26.220.030.H and I, the HPC is comprised of a least three (3) professionals in preservation related fields and all members shall have a "demonstrated interest, knowledge, or training in fields closely related to historic preservation." Specific qualifications to serve on HPC reflect the complexity of historic preservation applications and the expertise required to interpret design guidelines, designation criteria and historic preservation incentives. The Code amendment is drafted such that Council may review the application de novo and approve the application, remand it back to the reviewing boazd, alter the conditions of approval, deny the application, or continue it to gather more information. On April 8, 2009, the HPC~ reviewed the proposed amendment and unanimously recommended 6 - 0 that if City Council adopts a de novo review, then the application be approved, remanded back to the reviewing- boazd, or continued to gather more information. HPC. did not fmd that Council should- have authority to deny or alter the conditions of approval of an application reviewed by one of their appointed boards. HPC's resolution is attached as Exhibit B. The Standazds of Review for amendments to the Land Use Code aze addressed in Exhibit A. denovomemopz.doc Page - 1 - of 2 P26 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS: Section 1: Section 26.415.120 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of HPC Decisions: This Section proposes to provide call-up notification to City Council after the approval of Conceptual review because the main issues (i.e. mass, scale, height, context, location) aze considered and approved at this time. The call up period of 30 days is consistent with the existing regulations. Part D specifies that the Council review will be de novo. Staff proposes that Council consider the same review process and requirements criteria as the reviewing body when they conduct the "call up" review. Section 2: 26.412.040.8 Appeals, Notice to City Council Call- up of Commercial Design Review Decisions: The proposed amendments mirror Section I, except this section relates to Commercial Design Review decisions by the P & Z and HPC. Section 3: 26.415.070.D.3 HPC Conceptual Development Plan Review: This Section of the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Code outlines proposed requirements for call up after a Conceptual Design is approved. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director can extend the 1 yeaz timeframe for submitting a Final Review application to HPC if there is a delay associated with call up review at Council. Section 4: 26.415.070. D.4 HPC Final Development Plan Review: Staff proposes to delete part b.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Fina] Development approval is granted by HPC. Staff finds that the call up notification is more appropriate after Conceptual approval because the primary aspects of the project aze decided at that level. It seems unfair for an applicant to proceed through Final Review at HPC if the primary features of the project may warrant a de novo review by Council pursuant to the proposed call up provision. NEXT STEPS: The hearings before City Council aze not scheduled yet. REQUEST of THE P & Z: Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council regazding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the changes proposed by HPC and attached as Exhibit B. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # DO ,Series of 2009 Exhibit A -Section 26.310.040 Standazds of Review Exhibit B -HPC Resolution `x, denovomemopz.doc Page-2-oft P27 RESOLUTION No. UQ~ (Series of 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 -APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B -APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY COUNCII, AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4-FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Duector of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council "call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, 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 conditions, or denial by the Community Development Duector and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City. Council and call up; 26.412.040.8 -Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein aze consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.415.120 -Appeals, notice to Ciry Council and call up; 26.412.040.B -Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 -Conceptual Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by a vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 5nds that this Resolution finthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. proposed amendment Page 1 of 7 P28 WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code aze delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standazd print and looks like this. text beine added to the _,-- -- oekted: rent being remrrvea;s:ea - - -- - - .gym mk~~.na ~oo~ ia~ rn~. code is blue with underline and looks like this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1: Section 26.415.120 -Appeals, notice to City Council and Call-Up, which section descnbes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows: 26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call-Up. A. Appeal Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. B. Notice to .City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a Conceptual Development Plan application _,...--- oNetetl: a for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a description in written and ffaphic form of the project with a copv of the approvine document. C. Call-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not be accented by the Ciri and no associated permits hall be issued during the thirty (30) -..--- oe~ecea: _ _ day call-up period. If Ciri Council exercises this call-up provision. no applications for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the Ciri and no associated permits shall" be issued until the Ciri Council takes action as described in subsection 26.415.120.D. If the Ciri Council does not call up the action within the call-up period. fire resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter. oeuered: ~ the roeora evab~ishea ;' befWe the t~C D. Ciry Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council shall. at a public ,. Formatted: Fpm: tmiic meetine. consider the application a novo_ _The_City_Council_may, at_its discretion.;:-'~ , pe~eted: sma dam Lhe aedsim urine consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation •' HPC wleas thaeicefinding tlut thine Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony a5 "'6° a denial of due process W the HPC h86 CXCCeded IIS Jlrtt6aleLlDa W dblldea lR necessary. The Citv Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same / ~^~"~ process and requirements applicable to the reviewine body. The City Council shall take ;' ; . pekted: a such action as ijdeem~,necessary~ includinga but not limited to: _ _ __ ___ __:- - Deh:Rea: ea Deleked: LOICOed}~ 691a Nhlefl® proposed amendment Page 2 of 7 P29 1. Accepting the decision. 2_Reversing or amending the decision. ,- ockted: z ~. -Altering the conditions of approval_----------------------------°---_--- the No. No. 1 5 Continuing the meeting to recuest additional evidence analysis. or testimony as necessary to conclude the call-up review. Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. -Appeals, notice to City Council and Call-Up, which section describes the process for City Council ``call-up" of Commercial Design Review decisions, shall be amended as follows: 26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call-Up. 1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standazds of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. 1. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for C~pnceptual D~siga, the City___ -.-- oe~eted: ~ ' Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council anopportunity - '- neietea: a to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below. 3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the Ci and no associated permits sFhall_be issued-during the thirty-day call-up-period.-_If ..---~ neietm:=~ takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.8.4. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the matter. 4. City Council action on call-up. The City Council shall. at a public meeting. consider the annlication_ a novo. The City Counci] may. at its discretion, consider ___---- wnnaued: rune ItarK Deleted: ~ ~ acva u„~ssnw xr~ m~ rl,~s ~a c~voa a ~~ m~,a~ proposed amendment Page 3 of 7 P30 of the apnlication under the same process and recuirements applicable to the reviewing body. _The City Council shall take such action as i~ deems necessar~~ including but not ---- ----- ------------------------------------- Lmrted to: a. Accenting the decision. b_Reversing or amendine the decision. ,p__-Altering the conditions of approval---------------------------------------------------------------- ~_ Remanding the application to the a~olicable Commission for rehearing, (Ord,No. 13,2007,§1) e. Continuine the meetine to request additional evidence, analysis. or testimony as necessary to conclude the call-uo review. Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 -Conceptual Development Plan Review, which section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: 26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review. a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characterisfics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of prhnary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photogaphs. (S) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photogaphs; models or streetscape elevations. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standazds or a written request for a variance from any standazd that is not being met. proposed amendment Page 4 of 7 Deleted: shall efrvm the decisim of the Commiuioo wleu there u a 5ndmg shat these was a dews] of due process a the Commisum exceeded as jusiadictiav or abssced iO discset~ Delett~: 6 Deleted: ea 'y' Dektedi IO remedy 661d 611118LOe Deleted: b Deleted: c P31 b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and o. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. (4~ A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the Ciri Council in c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.. Fonnitted: Font Not Gold (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the applicant If the applicant chooses to make~_substaptia] amendments_ to the conceptual, design_atter it has been __ ..- oaetM: e ---- - --- - - - - -------------- approved, anew conceptual development plan approval shall be required _...- oek~ed: n~,,;os ------------- pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3 ___- odetea; . (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) yeaz of the date of approval of a conceptual proposed amendment Page 5 of 7 P32 development plan. Failwe to file such an application within this tune period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Communiri Development Director may meant an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the aoolication reauirin¢ additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the aoolicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may; at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, which section describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: _ - FormaC~M: Tabs: 108 pt, LeR + 26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. Not at 16 pt a. An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structwes(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the fmal development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. b. The procedwes for the review of final development plans for major development projects aze as follows: (I) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for fmal development plan approval. ]f-they-are determined. to_be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public bearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pwsuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, band c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the proposed amendment Page 6 of 7 P33 recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions. or continue the application to obffiin additional information necessary' to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Duector shall issue a development order.. can set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. Section 5: Apublic-hearing on the Resolution was held on the 214 day of April, 2009, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hal], Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008. LJ Erspamer, Chairman Attest: Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk Approved as to form: James R True, Special Counsel Deleted: (a). w tewlurim of the IBC ectm will be forwarded to the City Cotmca in aecordame with Sectim 26.415.130 and m permit will be issord for emawcGm of the projeG mtil the thirty (30) dsy "tall uP penod by Qty Cwmed hu ta[pirrd.~ Deleted: s proposed amendment Page 7 of 7 P34 Exhibit A Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. 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: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the Municipal Code. It will provide another layer of checks and balances to the development review process by authorizing Council to call up and review applications de novo. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The proposed amendment provides Council with more flexibility regazding future development applications and their compliance with review criteria and community goals. However, Staff fmds that the proposed amendment is not completely consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan which states that "we must allow change without restrictive rules dictating a level of conformity that stifles community creativity. The excessive body of regulations must not keep expanding and many should be reconsidered." The AACP suggests that "rather than creating new rules community members should creatively solve problems." Staff fmds that the proposed amendment may potentially introduce unpredictability for land use applicants, but it may also provide the community with a more balanced application at the conclusion of the entire process. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: n/a.. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Response: n/a.. E. 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 Response: n/a. P35 F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: n/a. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community chazacter in the City. Staff Response: n/a. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject pazcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: n/a. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether. it is in hazmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Response: The purpose of the code amendment is to improve the checks and balances system for new development by authorizing Council to call up and review a __ project de novo. It will increase the probability that an application meets the review criteria in the Code and complies with the goals of the community. On the other hand, expanding Council's purview over projects that aze approved by the HPC or P & Z may create unpredictability within the review process, which may be in conflict with the public interest. P36 HPC resolution with adopted changes EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION No. 13 (Series of 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CTTY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 -APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.B -APPEALS, NOTICE TO CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D.3 -CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.D.4-FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council "call-up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, 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 conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public heazing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS; the Community Development Drector has recommended denial of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B -Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein aze consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heazing on April 8, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.415.120 -Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.B - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 -Conceptual Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, as described herein, by a 6 - 0 vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 1 of 7 P37 HPC resolution with adopted changes EXIIIBTI' B WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission 5nds that this Resolution furdrers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being added to the :.. - xieted: Tm xms ~~~ u ra code is blue with underline and looks like this. ""`s "'~`~°~'~ ~~~` lure w~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMIvIISSION as follows: Section 1: Section 26.415.120 -Appeals, notice to City Council and Call-Up, which section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Historic Preservation Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows: 26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call-Up. A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (3D0) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with wnditions or disapproving a Conceptual DEVelopment_Plan application __..-~- Deleted: a for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of,a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a description in written and eraphic form of the proiect with a copv of the approvine document. C. Cal!-up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not be accepted by the Citv and no associated permits Shall be issued during_the thirty (30) _ ...-- Deleted: day call-up period. If Ciri Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications for Final Develonment Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated Hermits shall be issued until the Citv Counci] takes action as described in subsection 26 415 120 D If the Ciri Council does not call up the action within the call-uH period. the resolution of HPC shall be the final decision on the matter. D. City Council action on appeal or call-up. The City Council. shall. at a public meetlnlt. consider the application a novo. The_City_Council mav. at its discretion, _,...- DeletM:wd~~a~,~,n~ta consider evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation '' _ °efa°"s`~ Commission or supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as ~^ei~~ w^r. traffic necessary The Ciri Council shall conduct its review of the anHlication under the same HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 2 of 7 P38 HPC resolution with adopted changes EXIIIBIT B such action as 1. Acceptine the decision. Council shall take Deletsl: dm- affam the deasioa of the HPC tmku tame u a 5ndmg that there was a amid of due pmcesc tr the HPC has excxded ita jmiedicfim a abused its diccceGOa No. 1 Deleted: ed DCIeteA: to comedy said unarim Deleted: 2 . Reversieg the decicim.9 Deleted: 2 Deleted: 3.. Almrivg the conditloas of Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. -Appeals, notice to City Council and Call-Up, which section describes the process for City Council "call-up" of Commercial Design Review decisions, shall be amended as follows: 26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call-Up. 1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Duector, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standazds of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. Dekted:a Deleted: 3 Dektetl: 5 2. Notice to City Council Following the adoption of a resblution approving or apptoving with conditions a development application for 1Cpnceptual Design, the_City _ ,..--- celetea: Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity ~ Deleted: a to avail itself of the call-up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving - document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below. 3. Call-up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council may order call-up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently, aDnlica6ons for Final Design shall not be acceoted by the Ciri and no associated permits s~ hall be issued_during_the_thirty-day, call-up_period.__ If__ _.--- celetca: ~a takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the matter. 4. City Council action on call-up. 1'he City Council shall, at a public meetine. consider the application a novo._,T7te City Council mav. at its discretion, consider _ _..--- wmwtted: wnt: traffic - -------- ---------------- - evidence included in the record established by the Historic Preservation Commission or ~ ~ '- Deleted: mtla teeord emablishea Plannine and Zonine Commission, as aDDlicable, or supplement the record with before me nm~mag and zotuug Coumcisdm rr Hirtmi= Prteervatim additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The Ciri Council shall conduct its review commiad=v4ss.pphmble. HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 3 of 7 HPC resolution with adopted changes EXHIBIT B P39 yKThe City Council shall take such action. as. i~ deems necessary,. inclu_ _ but not _ ._. - Deleted: shell effum me ae<;doo efine Ited YA: - ~_.-. Cc®miesi®udeee dine u e Sudmg maz mate was a deoiel of due Roa%e or tlw ' Commission exwded itajurisdictw or a. Acceotine the decision. ', ehmea v. d~m< :~•, •. ~ Remandin the a hcation to the a livable Commission for rehearin Ord. No ~ ~~~ ` 13, 2007, § 1) I,,~. Deleted: m remedy said simetiov r Continuine the meetine to request additional evidence. analvsis. or testimony as _ ;,,,, ' Udeted: h.. aevasmg m emending me necessary to conclude the call-up review. •'~ aC°°O° ~ Deleted: b ,,1 DekhM: c.. Altering me cooditimu of ~,,i~ DNetM: c Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 -Conceptual Development Plan Review, which Dew; a section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans : e by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: 26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review. a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site chazacteristics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to' be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at ]east one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standazds or a written request for a variance from any standazd that is not being met. b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 4 of 7 P 4 ~ HPC resolution with adopted changes EXI~IT B (1) The Community Development Duector shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they aze determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public heazing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the heazing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Pazagraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepaze a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project- and a recommendation m continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the heazing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. (41 A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwazded to the Citv Council in City and no associated nennits shall be issued until the Citv Council takes action as described in said section. c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: Formattetl: Fon[: Not Bold (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute fmal approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the prepazation of an application for a fmal development plan. (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regazds to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the fma] development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to make, substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been - oeierod: a approved, a new conceptual development plan ~ro~al shall be required, _ ,_.- oeN:cea: n pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3„ pew; . (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a fmal development plan shall be submitted within one (1) yeaz of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 5 of 7 HPC resolution with adopted changes P 4 ~ EXFIIBIT B The Cornmuniri Develonment Director may gent an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the aoolication reauirin¢ additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant aone-time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 -Final Development Plan Review, which section describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows: -- Formatted: Tabs: 106 pt, Left + 26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. ~ Not at to ut a. An application for a fmal development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. (3) An accurate representation o£ all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4)'A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the fmal development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects aze as follows: (1) The Community Development Duector shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they aze determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Pazagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, band c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 6 of 7 P42 HPC resolution with adopted changes EXHIBIT B report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Duector shall issue a development order. Before an_application_for a building permit can be submitted, a_fmal set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. Section 5: A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 8's day of April, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, 5fteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8th day of April, 2009. Michael Hoffman, Chairman Attest: Kathy Strickland City Clerk Approved as to form: James R True, Special Counsel HPC resolution with adopted changes Exhibit B Page 7 of 7 Deleted: (4). A resolution of the }{pC action wia be fotarmded to the Ciry Council in accordance with section 26.4]5.130 and no permit w;a h issued for Eovstruction of the project uvbl the thitry (30) dry "csa up' period by Ciry Deleted:5