HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20091103AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, November 3, 2009
4:30 p.m. -Sister Cities Room
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
ID. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. 711 E. Cooper (City Market), Commercial Design Review
B. Design call up, Code Amendment (continued from 6/16/09)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 16
~A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: November 3, 2009
RE: 711 E. Cooper Ave. (City Market) -Commercial Design
Review
APPLICANT /OWNER:
King Soopers
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mike Smalley, Mitchell Plus
Associates
LOCATION:
711 E. Cooper Avenue
CURRENT ZONING R: USE
The existing building is located in
the Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) zone district. Currently
there is a retail use on site (City
Market).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
remodel the exterior of the
building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the application for Commercial
Design review with conditions.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests approval from the Planning and
Zoning Commission of Commercial Design Review
application for the facade remodel of the existing building
located on711 E. Cooper Ave.
Photo of the
i
Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND: The existing building located at 711 E. Cooper Ave. is currently occupied by
City Market, a grocery store. The applicant would like to remodel the exterior of the building.
To remodel the exterior facades, an applicant is required to meet the policies of the Commercial,
Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. In this application, the
applicant proposes to remodel an existing building that does not currently meet the design
guidelines.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Commercial Design Review -An application for Commercial Design Review, pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.412.050, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a
public heazing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the Commercial
Design Review. The Commission is the final decision-makine bodv
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW:
This application is required to undergo Commercial Design Review because it is a property
within the city that contains a commercial component and changes to the exterior of the building
are proposed. According to the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives
and Guidelines, the subject property is located in the `Commercial Character Area'. This azea is
on the edge of the Commercial Core Historic District. The area is influenced by lodge
development to the south and building heights vary within the character azea. Building materials
are urban in character with a predominance of brick and other masonry. Storefront design is less
characteristic in this area which diminishes the pedestrian experience and there is a less
consistent block face.
It can be difficult for an applicant to incorporate all of the guidelines and objectives into a project
when working with a building with existing non-conforming conditions; however, the Planning
and Zoning Commission should apply the guidelines as appropriate. The Code states that
"Although these standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be
circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be
identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met,
albeit through alternative means."
Existing Conditions
The City Market site is adjacent to Cooper Avenue, Original Street, and Spring Street and takes
up an entire block face. The entrance to the existing building is set back from the property line
along Spring Street and faces a parking lot. A secondary entrance is unused and boarded up
along Cooper Street. The materials on the building include rustic stone veneer, concrete block
and metal. The building has been previously remodeled, as shown by the photo below: Figure 1.
Currently, a variety of wazes are displayed on the perimeter of the building such as seasonal
items 9like pumpkins and Christmas trees) and propane tanks. Also along the perimeter are
phone booths, shopping cart storage, newspaper stands, trash cans, mail boxes and a soft drink
machine (Figure 2). The building was approved in 1981 through Planned Unit Development
review by the city council. At the time of approval, the Public Amenity space requirement was
waived and the parking requirement was reduced.
Page 2 of 6
Figure 1: Historic photo of City Market
The Proposed Remodel
Since submission of the application, the applicant has been working with staff on modifications
to the building based upon staff direction. The latest iteration of the exterior proposes new metal
roofing, new siding composed of brick and concrete block veneer, as well as adding new
windows to the primary facade of the building and the Cooper Avenue facade. Additionally, the
applicant is proposing a cantilevered roof element over the entry and front facade.
The key design objectives of the Commercial Character Area are provided below. The
Commission must find that any new work will help to meet them.
1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District.
Staff Comment: As this project is a remodel and not ademolition/redevelopment little
can be done with regard to building placement, mass and scale of the existing building;
Page 3 of 6
Figure 2: Existing outdoor merchandising
however, the use of brick veneer is complimentary to the brick within the commercial
core.
2. Maintain a retail orientation.
Staff Comment: This store is as close to a "big box" retailer as exists in town in the
sense that focus is on internal function without offering much back to the street. The
applicant is proposing windows along both the north (Cooper) and west (Spring) facades
to create a stronger retail orientation. Specifically, the applicant is proposing `transom'
windows above the entry with a few higher placed windows along the west facade, while
developing more windows and some larger display style windows along Cooper Street
(north facade); however, the proposed window mullions appeaz somewhat excessive and
detract from the ability to utilize the windows for display. Staff would like additional
information from the applicant on whether the windows can function for display of
goods with regard to the transparency of the windows and mullion pattern.
Relevant guidelines:
• Guideline 1.40: Window areas along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of
exterior street facade area when facing principal streets
• Guideline 1.41: Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the
character and transparency of the traditional street level retail.
• Guideline 1.42: Design of the first floor storefront should include: basic elements and
proportions of storefront design, depth and strength of modeling, palette of materials
and finishes uses in both the structural framework and the storefront window,
concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience, complimentary
use of signage, and the use of lighting to accentuate visual presence.
3. Promote creative, contemporary design.
Staff Comment.• The palette of materials (brick, concrete and metal) is generally
consistent with the neighborhood. As noted in the guidelines, brick is a predominate
material within the area. Similarly, looking carefully at some difficult transition areas,
such as where the metal "parapet" wraps around the south west corner of the
building, will unify the building to make this remodel more successful. Staff
recommends changes to the existing transition of the roof materials wrapping around the
south and west facades. The cantilevered roof element provides additional facade
detailing while the proposed windows create a more traditional retail element to the
building and transparency.
Relevant guidelines:
• Guideline 1.37: The first floor facade should be designed to concentrate interest in
the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials.
• Guideline 1.46: High quality, durable materials should be employed.
Page 4 of 6
4. Encourage swell-defined street wall.
Staff Comment: As this project is a remodel and not ademolition/redevelopment little
can be done with regard to changing the existing placement of the building.
5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally.
Staff Comment: As an existing building, the height is not proposed to change.
6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street
edge.
Staff Comment: The approved Planned Unit Development did not require the provision of
pedestrian amenity space.
7. Promote variety in the street level experience.
Staff Comment Currently, outdoor merchandising is occurring outside of the building.
Also, along the perimeter aze phone booths, shopping cart storage, propane tanks,
newspaper stands, trash cans, mail boxes and a soft drink vending machine. There is an
opportunity to use the concrete apron in front of the store for outdoor merchandising in a
more attractive and functional arrangement than currently exists. Outdoor
merchandising is already an important part of this market and should be continued and
improved upon. Removal of outdated conveniences (pay phones) should be considered
to improve the street level experience. Further protection of the pedestrian within the
parking lot/entry, perhaps with bollards, should be considered. These improvements need
to be balanced with fire safety/access requirements.
Relevant guideline:
• Guideline 1.51: Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and
enhance the immediate setting of the building and area.
RECOMMENDATION: With the limited remodel that is proposed, Community Development
Department staff believes that the proposal before the Commission is an improvement over the
existing condition of the building. The addition of windows (some of a more traditional
storefront scale) contribute to the streetscape and visual interest, particulazly if the windows
contain well organized displays or artwork that identify this as a market. On the entry fapade,
more gracious entry doors aze proposed, which is an improvement. A cantilevered roof element
will protect people coming in and out from the elements. The palette of materials is appropriate
for the neighborhood.
As noted previously, there is an opportunity to use the concrete apron in front of the store for
outdoor merchandising in a more attractive and functional arrangement than currently exists. The
applicant should continue to work on the functionality of the perimeter of the building, perhaps
incorporating sheltered seating (as people tend to sit on the landscaped wall along Cooper) and
removing outdated conveniences. The fire department has asked that no outdoor merchandising
be further than five feet from the facade in order to maintain access to the building.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request For
Commercial Design Review with the following conditions:
Page 5 of 6
1) Prior to building permit submission, the applicant will provide staff with additional options
where the metal "parapet" wraps around the south west corner of the building. Staff may approve
a final design prior to building submission.
2) Prior to building permit submission, the applicant will provide a management plan for the
perimeter of the building to be approved by staff. Further study of what features can be removed
from the perimeter of the building, plans for permanent display of wares, further protection for
the pedestrian, and maintenance of fire access shall be addressed.
3) Prior to building permit submission, the applicant will confirm that the larger windows can
display wares or artwork representative of the products available within the store and the window
mullion pattern will be amended to compliment the display of wares.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend
approval for the request, they may use this motion "I move to make a recommendation to approve
the request, with conditions, for the commercial design review for 711 E. Copper Avenue."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Staff findings
Exhibit B - Application
Page 6 of 6
Resolution No. _
(SERIES OF 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REMODELLING THE FAtyADE OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 711 EAST
COOPER AVENUE (CITY MARKET), CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS A THROUGH I, BLOCK
106, TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN.
Parcel Identification Number - 273718242001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Mitchell Plus Associates, on behalf of King Soopers, requesting Commercial
Design Review approval to remodel the facades of the building located at 711 E. Copper
Avenue (City Market); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application as
presented because it meets the applicable policies of the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic
District Objectives and Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application 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, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards associated
with the request; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission grants approval of the
Commercial Design Review request with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this
Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Commercial Design
Review to permit the remodel of the facade of the building located at 711 E. Cooper
Avenue conditioned on the following:
Page 1 of 3
A. Prior to building permit submission, the applicant will provide staff with additional
options where the metal "parapet" wraps around the south west corner of the building.
Staff may approve a final design prior to building submission.
B. Prior to building permit submission, the applicant will provide a management plan for
the perimeter of the building to be approved by staff. Further study of what features can
be removed from the perimeter of the building, plans for permanent display of wares,
further protection for the pedestrian, and maintenance of fire access shall be addressed.
C. Prior to building permit submission, the applicant will confirm that the larger windows
can display wares or artwork representative of the products available within the store and
the window mullion pattern will be amended to compliment the display of wares.
D. Bus service along Cooper and Spring cannot be impacted during construction.
Section 2:
All outdoor lighting shall be downcast and meet the requirements of the City of Aspen
Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting.
Section 3:
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, 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 4:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
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 by a _ to _ vote.
Attest:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk LJ Erspamer, Chair
Page 2 of 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM
James R. True, Special Counsel
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Approved Elevations (without conditions incorporated)
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
26.412.050 Review Criteria for Commercial Design Review
An application for Commercial Design Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or
denied by to the Planning and Zoning Commission, based on the following criteria:
A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards or any deviation from the Standards provides a more appealing pattern
of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the
purpose of the particulaz standazd. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from
the standazds. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not
required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standazds.
Staff Comments
Section 26.412.060 -Commercial Design Standards
A. Public Amenity Space -This does not apply in this case. The applicant was
not required to provide amenity space with the approval of this building.
B. Utility, Delivery and Trash Service Provision -This does not apply in this
case. The existing services are adequate and will not be altered as a result of this
application. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the
proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design
standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the farrade of the building may be
required to comply with this Section.
Staff Comments
Please see the section above. This building !s not being converted to a commercial use.
It is currently a commercial use. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate
Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines
that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall
determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standazds and guidelines.
Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may
be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives
might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the
guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means.
Staff Comments
With the limped remodel that is proposed, Community Development Department staff
believes that the proposal before the Commission is an improvement over the existing
condition of the building. The addition of windows (some of a more traditional storefront
scale) contribute to the streetscape and visual interest, particularly if the windows
contain well organized displays or artwork that identify this as a market. On the entry
fafade, more gracious entry doors are proposed, which is an improvement. A
cantilevered roof element will protect people coming in and out. The palette of materials
is appropriate for the neighborhood
As noted previously, there is an opportunity to use the concrete apron in front of the store
for outdoor merchandising in a more attractive and functional arrangement than
currently exists. The applicant should continue to work on the functionality of the
perimeter of the building, perhaps incorporating sheltered seating (as people tend to sit
on the landscaped wall along Cooper) and removing outdated conveniences. The fire
department has asked that no outdoor merchandising be further than ,rve feet from the
faFade in order to maintain access to the building.
Guidelines addressed in this application include:
• Guideline 1.40.• Window areas along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of
exterior street facade area when facing principal streets
• Guideline 1.41: Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the
character and transparency of the traditional street level retail.
• Guideline 1.42: Design of the first floor storefront should include: basic elements and
proportions of storefront design, depth and strength of modeling, palette of materials
and finishes uses in both the structural framework and the storefront window,
concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience,
complimentary use of signage, and the use of lighting to accentuate visual presence.
• Guideline 1.37: The first floor facade should be designed to concentrate Interest in
the street level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials.
• Guideline 1.46: High quality, durable materials should be employed.
Y
rv
4 4
A 8
4 4~
n S
F _
Y
~ 4
g
V
F _
4 44
h O
~'Q,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: November 3, 2009
The public hearing was scheduled on April 21, 2009 and continued by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to June 16, 2009. Planning and Zoning recommended that Staff allow
ample time to discuss the proposed code amendment, and in turn continued the hearing to
November 3, 2009. Attached are the staff memo and the resolution from April 21, 2009.
denovomemopzmemo 11 _03_09.doc
Page - 1 - of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: ,Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing
DATE: April 21, 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 board 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 regarding 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
board for further study. The predictability of the land use process may be jeopardized 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
lazgely design specific review board, 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 board, or continued to gather more information. HPC did not find 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 Standards of Review for amendments to the Land Use Code are addressed in Exhibit A.
denovomemopz.doc
Page - ] - of 2
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) are 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 year 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
6.4 that requires call up notification to Council after Final 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 are 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 heazings before City Council are not scheduled yet.
REQUesT of THE P & Z: Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation
to the City Council regarding 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 # ,Series of 2009
Exhibit A -Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
Exhibit B -HPC Resolution
denovomemopz.doc
Page-2-oft
RESOLUTION No.
(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
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 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.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 are consistent with [he Aspen
Area Community Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of
design styles and to maintain and enhance [he 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 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 vote; and,
WHEREAS, [he 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,
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 1 of 8
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers 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 code is red 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 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 (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 Ddevelopment Plan- -application
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 graphic form of the project with a cony of the approving
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 accepted by the City and no associated permits c~+rshall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call-up period. if City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications
for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated
permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call-up 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
mcetin~. consider the application ~~ *~° ~°~~~~ °°*°~'~°~°a ~°~ ~° ~''°'-1Dr'.de novo. The Formatted: Font: Iralic
City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established
by the Fistoric Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 2 of 8
evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the
a~alication under the same process and requirements applicable to the reviewing body.
.~ ".. .. ,i,~ u~r r,.,.. ~ ooaoa ;,,- : ;..a:,.,:,,., „ „r,..~oa :.~ ,t:~„~e.:,,.,. The City
Council shall take such action as it deemsed necessary _ ,
including, but not limited to:
1, Accepting the decision.
?. Reversing or amending the decision.
? ~. Altering the conditions of approval.
3-1. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, $ 10)
3. Continuing the mccting to request 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 standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. ~'~'otice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for Ctonceptual Uelesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
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, an~~lications for Final Desi~.n shall not he accepted b~~ the
Cin and no associated permits ea+rshall be issued during the thirty-day call-up period. If
City Council does not call
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 3 of 8
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 application~fe ra>vo '- Formatted: Font: traffic
The City
Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
Historic Preservation Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, or
!',,.,, ..,:~.. ,,,., .,i~..~ .l. pro c...,l:..,. r6..a rho~o ae..:..1 ,.F a rho
The City Council shall
take such action as its deemsed necessary '^ -°~~°~', °~~~' ~~ ••, including but not
limited to:
a. Accepting. the decision.
h. Reversing or amendin<~ the decision.
bc. Altering the conditions of approval.
sd. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing. (Ord. No.
13, 2007, §1)
e. Continuing the meetim~ to request additional evidence. analysis. or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up 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
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.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 4 of 8
(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 final development plan approval. 1f 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.
(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.
~) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in _
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - appeals, notice to City Council, and _. ~ Formatted: Font: Not Bold
call-up. No aaplications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
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.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 5 of 8
(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 ,'~rar~~r~ approval shall be
requiredpursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.>.:
(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.
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:
26.415.070.D.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.
f ----- Formatted: Tab stops: 1.5", Left + Not at
0.25"
(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 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.
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 6 of 8
b. The procedures for 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.
! ~ 1 A 1 4' H . LI Dl' ,-~:.,., .II ~., C,..-,..,.,70.1 rl,o f 'r„ T'~,~ ..,a
86C~ra '~M C r' 7G A 1 C 1 2(1 .,.7 :• :I1 l,o oa F
n
(34) Before an application for a building permit 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.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 21St day of April, 2009, at 4:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (l5) days
prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
signatures on following page
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 7 of 8
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
PZ Resolution #
proposed de novo amendment
Page 8 of 8
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 finds 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 finds 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.
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 character in the City.
Staff Response: n/a.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel 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 harmony 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 are approved by the HPC or P & Z may
create unpredictability within the review process, which may be in conflict with the
public interest.
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 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
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 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.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 are 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 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; 26.412.040.8 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 -Conceptual Development
Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 - Fina] 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 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers 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. "r°~' "°~~° ~°w•~•~°'' ~°
Text being added to the code is blue with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 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 (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 Ddevelopment Plan application
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. \otification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the pro,iect ~~ith a eoRy of the approving
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, applicati~~n_fi~rJ final Development Plan Review shall not
he accepted by the City and no associated permits ea+rshall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call-up period._ If City Council exercises this call-up provision, no applications
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
meeting, consider the application .c1e novo. The
City Council may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 8
Formatted: Font: Italic -~
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
,a ,i,~ ~_ror ~,.,.. , ,a°a :..a:^.:,,., „ .,ti.,~°a :.~ a:~,...°.:,,., The City
Council shall take such action as its deemsed necessary •^ -°•••°a•~ °~:a °~~~~°~~^-~
including, but not limited to:
1. Aeceptin« the decision.
42. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 7
[part]; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 10)
3~. Continuing the mectin~~ to request 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 standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals.
2. ;Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for C'eonceptual Dflesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
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, applirrtions for Final Design shall not he accepted by the
C'in~and_no associated permits c-a+t-shall be issued during the thirty-day call-up period. If
the City Council does not call
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
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 application_clr novo. Formatted: Font: Italic
may, at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
a. :accenting the decision
ebd. Remanding the application to the applicable Commission for rehearing.
(Ord. No. 13, 2007, § 1)
ce. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis, or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call-up 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
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.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 8
The City Council shall
take such action as its deemsed necessary ,including but not
limited to:
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
(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 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 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.
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - appeals, notice to City Council, and _.- -~ wrmacted: Font: Not sold
call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
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.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
(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 ]t~r+rw-approval shall be
required. pursuant to Section 26.41 ~.070.D.3.-
(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.
~Ik icant. 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:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review. Formatted: Tab stops: is^, LeR + Not at
0.25"
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.
(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.
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page6of8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
b. The procedures for 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 shill 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.
....~~..s:.... ,.F ~>,o .. e..~ ....ta •L.e •1.: s„ !1!1\ .~..., X4..,11 ...^ ..e ,...1 1... !`:r..
r,....,,.•1 1,.,~ a .oa
(~4) Before an application for a building permit 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.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 8`I' day of April, 2009, at 5:00
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 8th day of April, 2009.
Michael Hoffman, Chairman
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 8
HPC resolution with adopted changes
EXHIBIT B
Attest:
Kathy Strickland City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
HPC resolution with adopted changes
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 8