HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20100119AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, January 19, 2010
1:00 p.m. -Site Visit -Aspen Valley Hospital
4:30 p.m. -Sister Cities Room
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Proposed Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit Code
Amendment
B. 301 W. Hyman -Subdivision and additional land use reviews
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 3
~A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner!~~,
THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Directox, Community
Development Department (~~/
DATE OF MEMO: January 14, 2010
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010
RE: Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code
APPLICANT /OWNER:
John Cooper
REPRESENTATIVE:
Peter Fomell
LOCATION:
Proposed amendment to the text of the
Land Use Code applicable within the City
of Aspen.
PROPOSED LAND USE CODE
AMENDMENT:
Applicant seeks a code amendment that
will allow developers of deed-restricted
affordable housing that is not developed for
the purpose of mitigation to obtain an
official "certificate of credit" that may later
be used, or transferred to another entity and
used, to meet affordable housing mitigation
requirements for some future land use
development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission detennines that this
Amendment to the Land Use Code meets
required standards.
SUMMARY:
Applicant requests that the P&Z determine
that this Amendment to the Land Use Code
meets required standards.
BACKGROUND: Applicant is in a parallel review process that seeks approval to
demolish a residential structure with four (4) existing free market units and replace it with
a new residential structure that contains eight (8) deed-restricted affordable housing units.
While the applicant is not required to build these deed-restricted units for the purpose of
mitigating some other project, he is seeking the ability to sell them in the future as
mitigation "credits" to other entities who desire to use them for affordable housing
mitigation.
P1
The City of Aspen Land Use Code does not currently accommodate this course of action,
and the City does not currently have the ability to establish or otherwise grant such a
"Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit."
P2
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting
the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code - An application for Amendment
to the Text of the Land Use Code, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public heazing, to
determine if the application meets the standazds for an amendment to the Land
Use Code. The City Council is the final decision-making body
STAFF FINDINGS: Many of the standards of review for an amendment to the Land Use
Code do not apply to this proposal. For example, various standards ask whether the
proposal is "compatible with surrounding zone districts;" if it would have an impact on
"traffic generation;" if it would place "demands on public facilities;" or if it would have
"adverse impacts on the natural environment." This proposal to amend the Land Use
Code would not change the existing dimensional requirements of any zone district, nor
would it change any elemerit of the land use review process.
Once a developer has received approval to build deed-restricted affordable housing that is
not required for the purpose of miti ag tion, this code amendment would allow for the
establishment of a "Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit." This credit would account
for the number of Full-Time-Equivalents (FTEs) the new deed-restricted housing would
accommodate, according to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Finally,
the credits would be transferrable to other entities for the purpose of meeting affordable
housing mitigation requirements.
The standards of review that are relevant to this proposed code amendment are 1) If the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, and 2) If it is
consistent with "community character," and 3) Whether it's "in harmony" with the
purpose and intent of the Land Use Code.
Certainly, the production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP,
which states that, "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success
in providing affordable housing." (Goal C, pg 27.) The 2000 AACP also "Encourage(s)
greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Goal E, pg
27.)
A critical question for staff is whether this code amendment would encourage or inhibit
the development of affordable housing. Staff believes the code amendments may
encourage the development or "buy-down" of new affordable housing. It could also
encourage affordable housing to be established before any development-related impacts
are experienced by the community.
The code amendments could have a substantial impact on how mitigation is provided for
the redevelopment of single-family and duplex structures. For many yeazs, most of those
who have demolished, redeveloped and expanded such structures either have chosen to
P3
meet mitigation requirements by paying cash-in-lieu, or building an Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU). There are drawbacks to both of these mitigation options:
• Cash-in-lieu payments do not immediately translate into affordable housing,
meaning the impacts of redevelopment can be felt for years before affordable
housing is created to offset those impacts;
• Building an ADU (usually at the minimum standard of 300 square feet) can result
in local residents renting them, but occupancy is not mandatory. While the
program can result in the positive result of affordable housing spread throughout
town, occupancy rates are not likely much higher than 30%, if that.
If this code amendment is approved, it would create a new option for a property
owner/developer to provide housing mitigation by purchasing a "credit" for affordable
housing that has already been built and occupied.
This ability to sell "credits" as mitigation could also provide a viable financial incentive
for the redevelopment of free market multi-family housing into 100% affordable housing.
This could be a significant step forward with regard to the future of the city's often
dilapidated multi-family housing stock.
The code amendment may also have other impacts. It could encourage large employers
who are interested in providing housing for employees -and also have the potential for
involvement in future land use developments -- to go ahead and acquire affordable
housing before it is mandated through mitigation. This would allow employers to provide
housing for employees right away, and later use the housing as mitigation for some future
project.
In addition to adding language in the form of a new chapter to establish, transfer and
extinguish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, three parallel code amendments
are suggested in the Crrow[h Management Quota System chapter. One makes it possible
for the owner of free market multi-family housing to replace it with 100% deed-restricted
affordable housing-only, an option that is not currently addressed in the land use code.
The second allows for those demolishing and redeveloping asingle-family home or
duplex to buy affordable housing credits. Finally, the third change recognizes that
affordable housing, not required for mitigation, is eligible to receive an affordable
housing credit.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends in favor of these code amendments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to
recommend approval for the request, they may use this motion, "I find that these code
amendments meet the required standards of review for an Amendment to the Text of the
Land Use Code."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -Existing code language
Exhibit B -Proposed code language
P4
Exhibit C -Staff findings
P5
RESOLUTION N0. _,
(SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Ajaz Apartments LLC, represented Peter Fornell, requesting an Amendment to the
Text of the Land Use Code.; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to the City Council for Amendment to the Text of the Land Use
Code, Section 26.470.070(4+5); and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended in favor of the
proposed Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2010, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. ~ Series of 2010, by a
vote, finding that the proposed Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code
meets required standards of review; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code 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 Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Amendment to
the Text of the Land Use Code meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and
that the Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Code is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the 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 PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page I of 8
P6
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby finds that the proposed Amendment
to the Land Use Code meets the required standazds of review.
Section 2• Amendment to Section 26.470.070(4), Affordable Housine, of the Land
Use Code
The changes in Section 2 add a new subsection that recognizes the allowance to receive a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Therefore, Section 26.470.070 (4), Affordable
Housing, is amended as follows:
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the' Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority shall"be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City
limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council,
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full
unit, acash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission
upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the
mitigation requirement is one (I) or more units, acash-in-lieu payment shall require City
Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may
be provided through a mix of these methods.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable azea is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The' owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited
to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The
City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 2 of 8
P7
units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the
lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be
subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
e. Affordable Housing Credit. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but are developed or acquired and deed restricted after ---, 2010 (date
amendment is effective), are eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit. The rules and regulations for establishing and extinguishing a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit are provided in Chapter 26.540, Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit.
Section 3• Amendment to Section 26.470.070 (51(1) requirements for combining,
demolishing converting or redeveloping free-market multi-family housing units, of
the Land Use Code
The changes in Section 3 add a new subsection that recognizes the allowance to receive a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit if the property is developed with 100 percent
affordable housing. Therefore, Section 26.470.070 (5)(1), Affordable Housing, is amended
as follows:
Requirements for combining demolishing converting or redeveloping free-
mazket multi-family housing units: Only one (I) of the following two (2) options
is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a
free-market multi-family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of
the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of
density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed
development shall be allowed.
a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-
mazket multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct
replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of
the number of units, bedrooms and net livable azea demolished. The
replacement units shall be deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable
housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower
category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to
Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section.
When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining
development on the site may be free-market residential development with no
additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no
increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-
market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be
reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market
residential units within amulti-family or mixed-use development.
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 3 of 8
P8
b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market
multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent
(100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as
described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable
housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units,
bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be
deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall
be approved pursuant to Pazagraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing.
When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development
on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional
affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3,
Expansion of free-mazket residential units within amulti-family or mixed-use
project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units
on the parcel. Free-mazket units in excess of the total number originally on
the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2, New free-
market residential units within amulti-family or mixed-use project.
c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-
percent of the free-mazket multi-family housing units are demolished and are
solely replaced with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site,
including any additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4,
Affordable Housing; all of the units in the, redevelopment aze eligible for an
affordable housing credit, pursuant to Section 26.470.070(4)e., Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit. Any unused development right shall be restricted
to the future development of additional affordable housing, which would also
be eligible for an affordable housing credit.
Section 4: Amendment to Section 26.470.060 (21(c), affordable housing
requirements for sin>ae-family and duplex development, of the Land Use Code
The language in Section 4 permits affordable housing for asingle-family or duplex dwelling
to be mitigated through a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. Therefore, Therefore,
Section 26.470.060 (2)(c), Affordable Housing, is amended as follows:
c. Affordable housing requirements for the types ofsingle-family and duplex development
described above shall be as follows:
Single family. In order to qualify for asingle-family approval, the applicant shall have
five (6) options:
1)Providing anabove-grade, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a carriage
house pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses;
2) Providing an accessory dwelling unit, or a carriage house, authorized through special
Resolution No ,Series 2010
Page 4 of 8
P9
review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
4) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
5) Recording aresident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling
unit being constructed; or
6) Providing the required full-time equivalents (FTEs) through the extinguishment of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, as amended.
Duplex. In order to qualify for a duplex approval, the applicant shall have seven (7)
options:
1) Providing one (1) free-market dwelling unit and one (1) deed-restricted resident
occupied(RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet;
2) Providing either two (2) above-grade, detached accessory dwelling units or carriage
houses (or one [1] of each), or one (1)above-grade, detached ADU or carriage house
with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant to
Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing either two (2) accessory dwelling units or carriage houses (or one [1] of
each) or one (1) ADU ot• carriage house with a minimum of six hundred (600) net
livable square feet authorized through special review to be attached and/or partially or
fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
4) Providing anoff--site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance with
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
5) Providing two (2) deed-restricted resident-occupied (RO) dwelling units;
6) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or
7) Providing the required full-time equivalents (FTEs) through the extinguishment of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended.
Resolution No ,Series 2010
Page 5 of 8
P10
Section 5: Creating a new chapter: 26.540, Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit, of the Land Use Code
The language in Section 5 adds a new chapter of the land use code permitting certificates of
Affordable Housing Credit. Therefore, Chapter 26.540, Certificate of Affordable Housing, is
adopted as follows:
Chapter 26.540
CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
Sections:
26.540.010 Purpose
26.540.020 Authority
26.540.030 Application and fees
26.540.040 Procedures for establishing a certificate of affordable housing credit.
26.540.050 Authority of the certificate
26.540.060 Transferability of the certificate, contents of the grantor certificate
and grantee certificate
26.540.070 Extinguishment of the certificate.
26.540.010 Purpose.
Establishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Ctedit provides another option for
meeting housing mitigation requirements. In particular, this mitigation method would
mean that affordable housing would be certified for occupancy at the time the mitigation
requirement is met, and before any development-related impacts are experienced by the
community.
26.540.020 Authority.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized at a public hearing, meeting the
noticing requirements of Section 26.304.060 E, Public Notice, to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a certificate of affordable
housing credit in the form of a resolution.
26.540.030 Application and fees.
All applications shall include the information required under Chapter 26.304, Common
Development Review Procedures. In addition, all applications shall also include the
following information.
A. Net Livable Area. The net livable square footage of each unit
B. Area Reductions. If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net
minimum livable square footage requirements are requested according to Aspen/Pitltin
County Housing Authority Guidelines.
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 6 of 8
P11
C. Income Category. The proposed income category of each unit.
D. FTEs. The number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) housed by the units.
26.540.040 Procedures for establishing a Certificate. of Affordable Housing
Credit.
A. Content and recording of the certificate. Once the reviewing board approves the
creation of affordable housing credits, a certificate can be established by the property
owner when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the affordable housing units. The
property owner shall provide proof of both the resolution approving the creation of the
affordable housing credits and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to the
Community Develgpment Department prior to the administiative issuance of a certificate
by the Community Development Director. The content of the Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit shall include the following information.
1. Certificate number. A number on the certificate in chronological order of their
issuance.
2. Property description. A parcel identification number, legal address and the
street address.
3. FTEs. The number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) housed by the units.
4. Income category. The certificate shall note the income category the FTEs can
mitigate; a maximum of category 4.
B. Release of the certificate. Prior to release of a certificate by the Community
Development Director, a letter acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the certificate
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
26.540.050 Authority of the certificate
The certificate may be utilized in whole or in part, including fractions of no less than .I
of an FTE, to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with other
applicable sections of this Title.
26.540.060 Transferability of the certificate, contents of the grantor certificate
and grantee certificate
A. Transferability. ACertificate of Affordable Housing Credit is legally transferable in
whole or in part in the form of FTEs, including fractions of FTEs.
B. Reissuance of certificate(s). When all or part of a certificate is transferred to a
recipient, the grantor certificate shall either be fully voided or amended to reflect the
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 7 of 8
P12
lesser number of FTEs remaining on the certificate, by following the procedures outlined
in subsection 26.540.040 A, Content and recording of the certificate, above.
26.540.070 Extinguishment of the certificate.
condition that extinguishes all or part of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, if
applicable. An exhibit to be recorded with the ordinance or resolution shall include a
copy the certificate.
A. Commission/Council Approval. Upon approval of a land use application by City
Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System the approving ordinance or resolution shall contain a
B. Administrative Approval. Upon administrative approval of a land use application
pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Growth Management Quota System, the resulting
Development Order shall include a condition that extinguishes all or part of a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit.
Section 6:
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 7:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th
day of January, 2010.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
COMMISSION:
Stan Gibbs, Chair
Resolution No ~ Series 2010
Page 8 of 8
P13
Exhibit A
Existing Code Language, Section 26.470.070 Minor Planning and Zoning
Commission Applications; Section 26.470.060 Administrative Applications
The following is the existing code language in the Growth Management Quota System
chapter of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, in Section 26.470.070 Minor Planning and
Zoning Commission Applications, including subsection 4. Affordable housing, and 5.
Demolition or redevelopment ofmulti-family housing.
26.470.070 Minor Planning and Zoning Commission Applications
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:.
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City
limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council,
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full
unit, acash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission
upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the
mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, acash-in-lieu payment shall require City
Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may
be provided through a mix of these methods.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited
to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The
P14
City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental
units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the
lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County or other similaz governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be
subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods
have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable
by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort
environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roazing Fork Valley,
there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident
housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the
displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work
force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident
housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will
continue to decrease.
Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in
Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these
goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the
number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State
Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of
working residents from the City's neighborhoods.
The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working
residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within
and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing.
Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and
tourist accommodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to
assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist-based
economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt
limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing
in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private
sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing
shortfall from occurring..
The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall
be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of
demolition.):
1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market
multifamily housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be
met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping afree-market multi-
family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a
P15
critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units)
between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed.
a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market
multifamily housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing
consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of units, bedrooms
and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed-restricted as
resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a
lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to
Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section.
When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on
the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable
housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market
residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally
on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-
market residential units within amulti-family ormixed-use development.
b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi-family
housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent. (100%) of the number of
previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as described above, the applicant shall be
required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of
the number of units, bedrooms and the net livable azea demolished. The replacement
units shall be deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. P,n applicant may choose to provide mitigation
units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing.
When this fifty-percent standazd is accomplished, the remaining development on the site
may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing
mitigation is provided pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion offree-market
residential units within amulti-family or mixed-use project, and there is no increase in
the number of free-market residential units on the pazcel. Free-market units in excess of
the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.080.2, New free-market residential units within amulti-family ormixed-use
project.
26.470.060 Administrative Applications
2. Single-family and duplex dwelling units. The following types of development of
single-family or duplex structures shall require the provision of affordable housing in one
(1) of the methods described in Subparagraph c:
P16
a. The development of a new single-family, multiple detached residential units when
permitted in the zone district or a duplex dwelling on a vacant lot in one (1) of the
following conditions:
^ A vacant lot created by a lot split, pursuant to Subsection 26.480.060.0.
• A vacant lot created by an historic lot split, pursuant to Paragraph 26.480.030.A.4,
whenthe subject lot does not itself contain an historic resource.
• A vacant lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to
November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Subsection
26.480.020.E, Aspen Townsite lots.
These new residential units shall be deducted from the development ceiling levels
established pursuant to Section 26.470.030, but shall not be deducted from the respective
annual development allotments for residential development.
b. The replacement after demolition of an existing single-family, multiple detached
residential units when permitted in the zone district or a duplex dwelling, regardless of
when the lot was subdivided or legally described. These redeveloped units shall not
require a growth management allocation and shall not be deducted from the respective
annual development allotments or development ceiling levels established pursuant to
Section 26.470.030.
c. Affordable housing requirements for the types of single-family and duplex
development described above shall be as follows:
Single family. In order to qualify for asingle-family approval, the applicant shall have
five (5) options:
1)Providing anabove-grade, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a carriage
house pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses;
2) Providing an accessory dwelling unit, or a carriage house, authorized through special
review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing anoff-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
4) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or
5) Recording aresident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling
unit being constructed.
Duplex. In order to qualify for a duplex approval, the applicant shall have six (6) options:
P17
1) Providing one (1) free-market dwelling unit and one (1) deed-restricted resident
occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor azea of one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet;
2) Providing either two (2) above-grade, detached accessory dwelling units or carriage
houses (or one [1] of each), or one (1) above-grade, detached ADU or carriage house
with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant to
Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing either two (2) accessory dwelling units or can~iage houses (or one [l] of
each) or one (I) ADU or carriage house with a minimum of six hundred (600) net livable
square feet authorized through special review to be attached and/or partially or
fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
4) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
5) Providing two (2) deed-restricted resident-occupied (RO) dwelling units; or
6) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
P19
City encourages affordable housing units required far lodge development to be rental
units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-teen viability of the
lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be
subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
e. Affordable Housing Credit. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but are developed or acquired and deed restricted after ---, 201 D (date
amendment is effective), are eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit. The rules and regulations for establishing and extinguishing a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit are provided in Chapter 26.540, Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit.
P20
5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods
have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable
by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort
environment and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley,
there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident
housing for tourist and second-home use. Such redevelopment results in the
displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work
force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident
housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will
continue to decrease.
Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in
Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these
goals will serve to promote a socially aild economically balanced community, limit the
number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State
Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of
working residents from the City's neighborhoods.
The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working
residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within
and adjacent to the City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing.
Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and
tourist accorninodations and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to
assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and the City's tourist-based
economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt
limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of existing multi-family housing
in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to ensure that the private
sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to prevent a housing
shortfall from occurring.
The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall
be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Conunission based on compliance with the following requirements (see definition of
dernolitiof~.):
Requirements for combining, demolishin6, converting or redeveloping free-
market multi-family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options
is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a
free-market multi-fanlily residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of
the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of
density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed
development shall be allowed.
P21
a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-
market multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct
replacement housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of
the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The
replacement units shall be deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable
housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkirl County Housing
Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower
category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant. to
Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section.
When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining
development on the site may be free-market residential development with no
additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no
increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-
market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be
reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market
residential units within amulti-family or mixed-use development.
b. Fifty-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market
multi-family housing and replacement of less than one hundred percent
(100%) of the number of previous units, bedrooms or net livable area as
described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable
housing consisting of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the number of units,
bedrooms and the net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be
deed-restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the guidelines of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall
be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing.
When this fifty-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development
on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional
affordable housing mitigation is provided'pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.3,
Expansion offree-market residential units within amulti-family or mixed-use
project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units
on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on
the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.080.2, New free-
market residential units within amulti-family or mixed-use project.
c. One-hundred percent affordable housing replacement. When one-hundred-
percent of the free-market multi family housing units are demolished and are
solely replaced with deed-restricted affordable housing units on a site,
including any additional dwelling units, pursuant to Section 26.=170.070.=1,
Affordable Housing; all of the units in the redevelopment are eligible for an
affordable housing credit, pursuant to Section 26.-170.070(-1)e., Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit. Any unused development right shall be -•estricted
P22
to the future development of additional affordable housing, which would also
be eligible for an affordable housing credit.
26.470.060 Administrative Applications
2. Single-family and duplex dwelling units. The following types of development of
single-family or duplex structures shall require the provision of affordable housing in one
(1) of the methods described in Subparagraph c:
a. The development of a new single-family, multiple detached residential units when
permitted in the zone district or a duplex dwelling on a vacant lot in one (1) of the
following conditions:
^ A vacant lot created by a lot split, pursuant to Subsection 26.480.060.0.
^ A vacant lot created by an historic lot split, pursuant to Paragraph 26.480.030.A.4,
when
the subject lot does not itself contain an historic resource.
A vacant lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to
November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Subsection
26.480.020.E, Aspen Townsite lots.
These new residential units shall be deducted from the development ceiling levels
established pursuant to Section 26.470.030, but shall not be deducted from the respective
annualdevelopment allotments for residential development.
b. The replacement after demolition of an existing single-family, multiple detached
residential units when permitted in the zone district or a duplex dwelling, regardless of
when the lot was subdivided or legally described. These redeveloped units shall not
require a growth management allocation and shall not be deducted from the respective
aruiual development allotments or development ceiling levels established pursuant to
Section 26.470.030.
c. Affordable housing requirements for the types of single-family and duplex
development described above shall be as follows:
Siii~le fat?illy. In order to qualify for asingle-family approval, the applicant shall have
.srx (~ options:
1) Providing an above-grade, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a carriage
house pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses;
2) Providing an accessory dwelling unit, or a carriage house, authorized through special
review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance with
P23
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
4) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
5) Recording aresident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling
unit being constructed; or
6) Providing the required full-time equivalents (FTEs) through the extinguishment of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, as amended.
Dccplex. In order to qualify for a duplex approval, the applicant shall have seven (~
options:
1) Providing one (1) free-market dwelling unit and one (1) deed-restricted resident
occupied(RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet;
2) Providing either two (2) above-grade, detached accessory dwelling units or carriage
houses (or one (1 ] of each), or one (1) above-grade, detached ADU or carriage house
with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet,'pursuant to
Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing either two (2) accessory dwelling units or carriage houses (or one [1] of
each) or one (1) ADU or caniage house with a minimwn of six hundred (600) net livable
square feet authorized through special review to be attached and/or partially or fully
subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
4) Providing an off-site affordable housing unit witi~in the Aspen Infill Area accepted by
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed-restricted in accordance with the
Aspet~/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
5) Providing two (2) deed-restricted resident-occupied (RO) dwelling units;
6) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; ol•
7) Providing the required full-tune equivalents (FTEs) through the extinguishment of a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, according to Aspe~~/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines, as amended
P24
Chapter 26.540
CERTIFICATE OFAFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
Sections:
26.540.010 Purpose
26.540.020 Authority
26.540.030 Application artd fees
26.540.040 Procedures for establisliirrg a certifrcate of affordable housing credit.
26.540.050 Autl:ority of the certifrcate
26.540.060 Transferability of t/te certifrcate, contents of the grantor certificate
and gran:tee certifrcate
26.540.070 E.xtinguis/tntent of the certifrcate.
26.540.010 Purpose.
Establishing a Certificate of Affordable Hotrsirrg Credit provides another option for
meeting housing mitigation requirements. In particular, this mitigation method would
mean that affordable housing would be certified for occupancy at the time the mitigation
requirement is rnet; and before any development-related impacts are experienced by the
community.
26.540.020 Authority.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized at a public hearing, meeting the
noticing requirements of Section 26.30-1.060 E, Parblic Notice, to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a certifrcate of affordable
housing credit in the form of a resolution.
26.540.030 Application and fees.
All applications shall include the information required under Chapter 26.30.1, Common
Development Review Procedures. In additio~r, all applications shall nlso include the
following ir~fornration.
A. Nei Livable Area. The net livable square footage of each unit
B. Area Reductions. If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net
minimum livable square footage reyuirerrrents are requested according to Aspen/Pitkirr
County Housing Authority Guidelines.
C. Income Category. The proposed income category of each unit.
D. FTEs. The number off rll-time equivalents (FTEs) housed by the units.
P25
26.540.040 Procedures for establishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit.
A. Content and recording of the certifrcate. Once the reviewing hoard approves the
creation of affordable housing credits, a certificate cart be established by the property
owner when a certificate of occupancy is issued for the affordable housing units. The
property owner shall provide proof of both the resolution approving the creation of the
affordable housing credits and the issuance of a certifrcate of occupancy to the
Community Development Department prior to the administrative issuance of a certifrcate
by the Community Development Director. The content of the Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit shall include the following information.
1. Certificate number. A number on the certifrcate in chronological order of their
issuance.
2. Property description. A parcel identification number, legal address and the
street address.
3. FTEs. The number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) housed by the ur2its.
4. Income category. The certificate shall note the income category the FTEs can
mitigate; a maximum of category 4.
B. Release of the certifrcate. Prior to release of a certificate by the Community
Development Director, a letter acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the certifrcate
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
26.540.050 Authority of the certificate
The certificate may be utilized in whole or in part, including fractions of no less than .I
of an FTE, to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with
other applicable sections of this Title.
26.540.060 Transferability of the certificate, contents of the grantor certificate artd
grantee certifrcate
A. Transferability. A certifrcate of Affordable Housing Credit is legally transferable iii
whole or in part in the form of FTEs, including fractions of FTEs.
B. Reissuance of certificate(s). When all or part of a certifrcate is transferred to a
recipient, the grantor certifrcate shall either be fully voided or amended to reflect the
lessee number of FTEs remaining on the certificate, by following the procedures outlined
in subsection l6. ~-10.040 A, Content and recording of the certifrcate, above.
P26
26.540.070 ExtinguisJiment of the certificate.
A. Commission/Council Approvah Upon approval of a land use application by City
Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System, the approving ordinance or resolution shall contain a
condition that extinguishes all or part of a Certifreate of Affordable Housing Credit, if
applicable. An exhibit to be recorded with the ordinance or resolution shall include a
copy the certificate.
B. Administrative Approval. Upon administrative approval of a land use application
pursuant to Section 16.470.060, Growth Management Quota System, the resulting
Development Order shall include a condition tlzat extinguishes all or part of a Certifrcate
of Affordable Housing Credit.
P27
Exhibit C
Amendment to Code Text, Review Criteria & Staff Findings
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 Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The
proposed amendment allows for the development of affordable housing that might not
otherwise be built. The amendment allows an entity to receive a "Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit" for building affordable housing that is not required for
mitigation, and subsequently allows the same or some other entity to use the certificate
for mitigation purposes. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following
statements in the 2000 AACP:
"The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in
providing affordable housing." (Goal C, pg 27)
• "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable
housing." (Goal E, pg 27)
Certainly, the production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP,
which states that, "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success
in providing affordable housing." (Goal C, pg 27.) The 2000 AACP also "Encourage(s)
greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Goal E, pg
27)
A critical question for staff is whether this code amendment would encourage or inhibit
the development of affordable housing. Staff believes the code amendments may
encourage the development of new affordable housing, and just as importantly, it could
encourage affordable housing to be built before any development-related impacts are
experienced by the community.
The code amendments could have a substantial impact on how mitigation is provided for
the redevelopment ofsingle-family and duplex structures. For many years, those who
redevelop such structures either have chosen to pay cash-in-lieu, or have built an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
P28
There are drawbacks to both of these mitigation options:
• Cash-in-lieu payments do not immediately translate into affordable housing,
meaning the impacts of redevelopment can be felt for years before a housing unit
is created to offset those impacts;
• Building an ADU (usually at the minimum standard of 300 square feet) can result
in local residents renting them, but occupancy is not mandatory. While the
program can result in the positive result of affordable housing spread out through
town, occupancy rates aze not likely much higher than 30%, if that.
If this code amendment is approved, it would create a new option to purchase a "credit"
for affordable housing that has already been built and occupied -either rented or owned.
This ability to sell "credits" as mitigation could also provide a viable financial incentive
for the redevelopment of free market multi-family housing into 100% affordable housing.
The code amendment may also have impacts on a larger scale, rather than just as a new
mitigation option for those redeveloping single-family homes and duplexes. It could
encourage lazge employers who are interested in providing housing for employees -and
also have the potential for involvement in future land use developments -- to go ahead
and acquire affordable housing before it is mandated through mitigation. This would
allow employers to provide housing for employees right away, and later use the housing
as mitigation for some future project.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would apply under the AH-PUD Zone District,
but have no impact on the allowable dimensions of future affordable housing projects.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding: The amendment itself does not generate additional development.
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 Finding: The amendment itself does not generate additional development.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding: The amendment itself does not generate additional development
P29
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Finding: This amendment could result in new affordable housing that may not
otherwise be built. Sufficient Affordable Housing inventory is an important part of the
community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding: No applicable.
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 Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The
proposed amendment allows for the development of affordable housing that might not
otherwise be built prior to development impacts. The amendment allows an entity to
receive a "Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit" For building affordable housing that
is not required for mitigation, and subsequently allows the same or some other entity to
later use the certificate for mitigation purposes.
:>X X+X :CsX XOX XaX XaX ;COX XO.x xOx xax-xOx xax x=x xex xOx xOx xax xOx xOx xax xaY
O
i
'- z
F.
v
\~ w
Y ~
U
a
Q
~ \\\ H
4F
'~ V
w
F
ti w
U
o
yl Q
C
v~
,n
-~
i
`F o
A
G O.
w pa.
' v
°-
' ~ ^
U ,
c ~
U q - c,
.
, v
'
ro .] ~ [ O
Z <
` u C p
F
d ~ U ~ U ~ ~
iq Z
a .V u .C
i ~ M
O 4
~ ~ o, o: ~ o
. b a
' ~
2 ~' '~
q F .~ . r
Qd G E ~ Ur
.
w
cC o ~ C 3
. ~ ~
ti
F ~'
~
.a ti
a o
~
`
F
U ro
y ~ .vv. a
0
m
w ~ O O
U'
~ 5
F
c.
~+
~M
W
~
'b
v W V
C`
v
w v v N C
~ ~
G a
~
U
~ p
H
v,.
~ N ~
v
+. .b
U .~
3 ~- V
N
C
w a ..
.
v ~ :~y .
w a U ~
o Ze ~
x
w
w y
~
d.
>
~,
U
-~~' ~s ~
M
~
~
~ N
~ i y ~
4 v
~
U tt
H
o
f~
Z Y. .4 b ~ V
~ ° °' ° T v
a
O
U
~
~ "
°~ .a.,
r ~
x< ~ w
_ k ~
w ~.
z-
" 'vC
~ '
~,
^ m
,~ v
..
~~ ~
o
w -[ .
U
w .F. ~
z `~ u ~ ~ ~ ~
'
' `~ E 3 E
~ v
F w
~ w ~
~°; h
~ o
E ~
~ .v, 3 i.
~
:w ~
'Q ~i N W b ~ c~
a
.r ~ ~
a-
e v ~ v v c v
v
U O ~
`d
8 ~
~ s ~
Y ~
Z
F
O 7
~ ~
v ~ o 0
~
w
G w
~
~ o
~
n ~ U
w a
F O
o.
m.
(`n
un.a .~a
~
~ ;
z
~
o ~ a
Q
:
U
~ .
U
v
C a
[
~ c
ti
~
.
a F C
- G .
~ ^
O -
a~ v o
w d 4 -o ~ c
a w O ~
n,
~ a
w
c`~
o ^
° ~
~ o
~ e ~
~ v
a
Q e a
fV
~
y_
O
~ ~
4
u C
vT1 Y U
'
a U
-C j
f-1 O
U b 4 y 4
o~ o
Q W ~[ Q ' o
v a
y z -v o v ~ cL E U
~
o
F F y ~
Q ~
L yay
a v
m ~c . :
w v
r-~ . ;
W `•'
o
ro
~l
~~
~~
w
O
U T7
~~
U
{{~~C -~
°'
O Q
O
0
F
'~
m
v
0
5
3
v
u
__"c
c
.~
~°.
H
i =
J (D
Z ~
QQ~
U ~
~ _
.a v
u-
<i
w
u i
`
[--~ Q
m O
O . ~
~
w
v U
a
m> O o
L' r
~ F
R. Q ~ Z
vHi U
b
0
0
U
C
n.
U
~.
b
7
U w~
o
m
0
N
m
N
M
W
A
h
~
~
~ F `
~ Z
. y
7
V
_ C O
N ^
E"' 2 .. _
K H
Y O _
Z _ O
o N
i __ a ' a C
N w N
i
u F. 6]
C zo = ~~
_ w ~ Zd'~
C z ~ Z ~1 = W
z '''~'' - Q Q ~ O .:
r
- a~- ~-
4 ~ ~ _ _
C
W ~.
v C.
~Oy ~
_ _. ? U ~ ~.
F U
z
,' ~:
~ _ o Q
>,
v ~
m
C
_ .4
y
~+ .Zi
~~\ C
w Gy
(~ w
- '\ ~ ~ - -
u
_ ao
"O
v
'" _ 3
C, - a
., ~r
' _ _ v! ~ ~
F4 ~
~ ~~
3 ~ O
C Q
v pdy
w U 7 G
O ~ O
Z ~ c~ ~ ~~
~ i~
W ~ g w~ c
~ m O o r
~-~ -. Jo w H [ o
~ v .r ¢ Q Y
~¢' Q H ~ ~ U
~ - _
~„~_
~A.
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE OF MEMO
MEETING DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner
~v
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Community
Development Department
January 14, 2010
January 19, 2010
301 W. Hyman -Amendment to Zone District Map,
Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS for Affordable Housing
APPLICANT /OWNER: Establishing deed-restricted housing requires a
John Cooper Growth Management review for affordable
housing.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Peter Fornell
LOCATION:
301 W. Hyman Ave.
CURRENT ZONING & USE
R-15. Four (4) free mazket
residential units on a 3,600 s.f. lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Applicant seeks to demolish
existing free mazket 4-plex and
replace it with a new and lazger
structure containing eight (8) deed-
restricted affordable housing units.
Applicant is requesting an
Amendment to the Zone District
Map to rezone the property from R-
15 to AH/PUD, which requires a
Final PUD Development Plan.
Establishing eight (8) new
residential units requires approval
as a subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the P&Z remand the
application back to the applicant to modify the
azchitecture and continue the public hearing.
SUMMARY:
Applicant requests that the P&Z determines the
Amendment to the Zone District Map meets
standards of review; recommends City Council
approval of a Final PUD and subdivision; and
approves Growth Management for Affordable
Housing.
301 W. Hyman
P1
. ,,.
_. ,,~, -
P2
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting
the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
Amendment to the Zone District Map (Rezoning] - An application for
Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public heazing, to
determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone
District Map. The City Council is the final decision-making body.
Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD - An application for Consolidated
Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2,
requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend
approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the PUD. The City Council
is the final decision-making body.
• Subdivision - An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.480.040(C)1, requites the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public
hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the
Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision-making body.
Growth Management: Affordable Housing - An application for Growth
Management: Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.070(4), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing,
to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final decision-making body.
2
The subject parcel at 301 W. Hyman is indicated by the arrow at left. Note the city ice rink just to
the east of the subject parcel.
P3
BACKGROUND: Of the four (4) sepazate land use reviews applicable to this proposal,
this memo will focus first on the proposed Amendment to the Zone District Mau and
approval of a Final PUD Development Plan. Applicant is asking to rezone 301 W.
Hyman from R-IS to AH/PUD. The AH/PUD Zone District establishes dimensional
requirements through the adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan.
Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple dwelling units.
Although the P&Z must review Subdivision criteria in this case and recommend approval
or denial, the standards of review for rezoning and PUD taken together aze more stringent
and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. Growth Manaeement for Affordable
Housin requires compliance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
guidelines, and addresses issues regarding whether units are for sale or rent.
The rest of the memo will examine each land use review sepazately, focusing on key
elements of the proposal, and the most relevant standazds of review. Complete staff
findings for each standazd of review can be found in the exhibits.
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRLCT MAP [REZONING): The two most
relevant standazds of review for rezoning in this case aze: whether this rezoning is
consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, and whether it's compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and
neighborhood chazacteristics. The staff memo will focus on these two key issues, while a
list of all criteria and staff findings can be found in Exhibit C.
Consistency with the 20000 AACP. There is no doubt that the production of affordable
housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. More specifically, the AACP asks "The public
and private sectors (to) work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing."
(Housing Goal C, pg 27.) Similarly, the AACP "Encourage(s) greater participation by the
private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27.)
Furthermore, the AACP seeks to "encourage (affordable housing) within the traditional
town site ..." It goes on to say that, "When employees have the ability to live neaz where
they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to
become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25-26.)
This desire was reinforced in the Transportation chapter, which stated that, "New
development should take place only in azeas that ate, or can be served by transit, and only
in compact, mixed-use patterns that ate conducive to walking and bicycling."
(Transportation Philosophy, pg 21.)
Also, with regazd to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale
and character of the community ... ," staff finds that the scale and density of the proposed
structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor azea ratios
and relatively high residential lodge densities.
3
P4
Compatibility with surrounding zone districts and land uses. The proposed rezoning
would change the property at 301 W. Hyman from R-15 to AH/PUD. According to a staff
examination of surrounding zone districts and existing land uses, a zoning of AH/PUD
would actually be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the current R-15
zoning.
-_
~-~' ..
Shadow Mfi. Lodge, at 232 W. Hyman.
This relatively high-density neighborhood includes R-6, R-15 and RMF (Residential
Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject pazcel. Although many properties
aze zoned R-6 and R-15, the existing characteristics of most of these properties aze more
consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF or AH/PUD zone
districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and `70s with relatively
high densities and high FAR - it beazs little resemblance to the R-6 neighborhood of the
West End, or the R-15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane azea. (Please see detailed staff
examination in Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject pazcel (3,600 sq. ft.)
should be considered because the small lot size inherently limits the overall impacts of
the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH-PUD zoning. In addition,
the existing city open space directly adjacent to the west creates a buffer with the
adjacent neighbor.
CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PUD: The most relevant standazds
in establishing a Final PUD Development Plan for this proposal relate to whether the
proposed dimensional requirements aze compatible with the neighborhood, whether the
proposal has an impact on traffic transit pedestrian circulation and pazking and whether
the azchitectural character is compatible with the neighborhood and reflects the intended
use..The staff memo will focus on these three key issues, while a list of all criteria and
staff findings can be found in Exhibit D.
Proposed dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for a proposed
structure in the AH/PUD Zone District aze established as part of asite-specific Final PUD
Development Plan, rather than being specifically prescribed, as they aze in most other
zone districts.
4
St. Moritz, at 334 W. Hyman.
P5
The AH/PUD Zone District includes a sliding scale for Floor Area Ratio according to lot
size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The lot
size of the pazcel at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 square feet, and the sliding scale suggests a
1.1:1 Floor Area Ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The applicant's
initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft. structure, reflecting a .02% increase over the
"guide," in order to include eight (8) one-bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. R. apiece.
After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the
applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire
protection and azchitectural chazacter), and to establish an interior hallway on the second
floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff
suggestions, the adjusted square footage now requested is 4,486 - reflecting a 13%
increase above what the AH/PUD Zone District "guide" suggests.
One of the relevant PUD standazds of review is whether the "scale" and "massing" is
"appropriate" for the surrounding area. Again, referencing staff s review of the
neighborhood, the proposed 1.2:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is well within the range of
existing FAR in this part of town.
Also, a mitigating factor is the existing city open space land on the west side of the 301
W. Hyman pazcel -this 30-foot strip creates a lazge buffer between the project site and
the next (and last) house on the south side of Hyman Ave. Also, it should be noted that
the immediate context of the subject parcel is the lazge mass and scale of the city's indoor
ski rink, directly across Second Street.
Staff finds that the existing buffer between the only adjacent residential neighbor, the
existing high-FAR chazacteristic of the built neighborhood and the provision of eight new
units of affordable housing al] mitigate for the modest vaziation (+13%, or +526 sq. ft.)
from the Floor Area Ratio "guide."
The AH/PUD Zone District also establishes a sliding scale of maximum allowable
density by assigning a Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit, also to be used "as a guide"
when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The guidelines contained in Table 1.
Table 1: Guide for Max. Allowable Density
in the AH/PUD Zone District
Unit T e Min. Lot Area Per Unit
Dormitory 300 sf
Studio 400 sf
1-bedroom 500 sf
2-bedroom 1,000 sf
3-bedroom 1,500 sf
3+ bedroom 1,500 + 500/bedroom
5
P6
According to the PUD "guide," the 3,600 square foot lot can accommodate seven (7) one-
bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one-bedroom units, thereby slightly
exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. The lot would have to be 4,000
squaze feet to meet the guideline, or 11 % bigger than it is.
PUD standazds of review allow for an increase in maximum allowable density "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." The PUD standazds go on to identify "goals of the
community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)."
By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown and
a commuter trail, the proposed modest increase in density serves a central goal of the
AACP. Also, this modest increase in density beyond the PUD guide is "compatible with
(the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the compazably high densities in this
neighborhood (please see Exhibit H).
Table 2: Dimensional Requirements for AH/PUD
7.nne District. compared to nroaosal
Dimensional AH/PUD Proposed @
Requirements Zone 301 W. Hyman
District
Minimum Lot Size No 3;600 sq. fr
re uirement
Min. Lot Area / 4,000 sq. ft 3,600 sq. fr
Dwellin Unit = "uide"
Maximum 7.2 units 8 units
Allowable Densi = " uide"
Minimum Lot Width No 60 feet
re uirement
Minimum Front No 7 feet
Yazd re uirement
Minimum Side Yazd No 10'6" -- east
re uirement 0 -- west
Minimum Rear Yard No 0
re uirement
Maximum Site No 66%
Covera e re uirement
Maximum Height No 23"
re uirement
Minimum dist. Not N/A
between buildin s a licable.
Minimum Open No N/A
S ace Percent re uirement
Allowable Floor 3,960 sq. fr 4,486 sq. fr.
Area = ide"
Minimum Off-Street No 0
Parkin re uirement
6
P7
Traffic transit pedestrian circulation and pazkinP.. With regazd to impacts on traffic, one
salient fact is that the proposal would only generate a net increase of four (4), 500+
square-foot residential units. While this does represent a net increase in potential traffic,
it is a very modest increase considering the existing density of the neighborhood. There
are no traffic congestion issues in this pazt of town, and the location of the project within
the townsite and close to downtown makes it more likely that people will walk and
bicycle to meet a vaziety of needs. The "commuting" Midland Trail is located right next
to the property. There are also Cars-to-Go locations at neazby Paepcke Pazk, the
Limelight Lodge and Third & Hyman.
There aze currently no parking spaces located on the property. There aze six existing
head-in pazking spaces on the east side of the property inside the City Right-of--Way on
2nd Street. There aze 3-4 parallel pazking spaces on the north side of the parcel in the
City Right-of--Way along Hyman Ave.
According to the land use code, this project should provide four off-street pazking spaces,
due to the net increase of four residential units. However, a Special Review or the
establishment of dimensional requirements in a PUD process can allow for fewer pazking
spaces.
Applicant is requesting that the number of off-street parking spaces be established at zero
(0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There are two reasons for waiving the
requirement for off-street pazking in this case: The Parking Department does not want to
lose the six head-in, on-street pazking spaces on 2nd Street, which would be lost in order
to gain curb access for parking on the property itself.
These head-in pazking spaces are in the City Right of-Way, on the east side of
the parcel at 310 W. Hyman, The Pazking Dept. wants to retain these spaces, which
are across the street from the ice rink. Retaining these parking spaces means there
would be no access on the east side of the parcel to on-site parking.
P8
As for the north side of the lot, along Hyman Ave., the Community Development Dept.
recommends that there should not be pazking in this azea of the site because both
Residential Design Standazds [Section 26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Characteristics of Off-
Street Pazking Spaces [Section 26.515.020B] call for parking areas to be accessed off an
alley or private road and not a public street. Also, pazking on the north portion of the
property would provide 3-4 off-street pazking spaces, but would eliminate just as many
on-street parking spaces. Pazking on the west or south side of the pazcel would not be
appropriate, as such parking azeas would be directly adjacent to city-owned open space
land.
During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, Parking Department staff
stated that there is sufficient on-street pazking capacity in the neighborhood to
accommodate the net increase in vehicles generated by the proposal. Staff said the
adjacent ice rink does result in some pazking congestion, but noted there is sufficient
capacity for on-street pazking to the west (on the south side of Hyman Ave.), some
capacity along 2nd Street and significant capacity available along Hopkins.
Due to the Pazking Dept. preference to retain on-street pazking on 2"d Street, the code
preference to avoid off-street parking that is accessed directly from a public street, the
sufficient capacity of on-street pazking and the minimal net increase of about 2,000
square feet of living space, staff supports the waiver of off-street pazking requirements
for this project, via the Final PUD Development Plan process.
Architectural character. Although applicant has worked with Community Development
staff to improve the initial azchitectural proposal, staff finds that the proposed
azchitecture does not "enhance the visual character of the city." In a general sense, staff
believes affordable housing should be designed with a sense of chazacter and uniqueness
so that it reflects well on the housing program.
There have been some improvements to the first proposal: The initially proposed
"pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and has been replaced with the more
common two-pitched roof, though it still remains a rather long mass. The initial proposal
included exposed, outdoor exterior stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor
walkways, which suggested amotel-like appeazance. Applicant has made the stairways
and second floor hallways interior, which also allowed for more traditional private
balconies on the second floor. Staff suggested an entry porch feature to comply with
Residential Design Standazds, and applicant has added a deck on the east side.
Thus faz, applicant has not responded significantly to staff suggestions to modify the
window treatments to help show some individuality to the units -rather the window
treatment seems excessively symmetrical, again reflecting the style of a motel.
In general, it is a difficult proposition for staff to give direct design and azchitectural
suggestions to an applicant, and such a relationship with an applicant is not always
productive. In general, staff believes there is ample room in this case for an improved
azchitectural treatment that would reflect in a positive way on the housing program.
P9
Other PUD standazds. Staff has called out the above three PUD standards as key
standazds with regazd to the proposal; the full set of PUD standazds and staff findings can
be found in Exhibit D.
As noted previously, some PUD standards of review aze identical to those for rezoning,
such as consistency with the AACP. Staff addressed these questions in the rezoning
section above.
SUBDIVISION: Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple
dwelling units. Although the P&Z must review Subdivision criteria in this case and
recommend approval or denial, the standards of review for rezoning and PUD taken
together aze more stringent and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. The only key
subdivision standards for this proposal aze consistency with the AACP and consistency
with the chazacter of land uses in the area: These standazds aze address in this memo
under Amendment to the Zone District Map and Final PUD Development Plan. The full
set of subdivision standazds and staff findings can be found in Exhibit E.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT /AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Growth Management for
Affordable Housing requites compliance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) guidelines, mandating that half of each unit be above-grade and addresses
issues regarding whether units are for sale or rent. (See Exhibit F for complete staff
findings.)
The APCHA Board met on January 6, 2010, and recommended approval of the project at
301 W. Hyman, with conditions (see Exhibit G.) Because all of the units in the project
are entirely above-grade, the project exceeded the requirements of having at least half of
each unit above-grade.
The APCHA Board conditions included that all units be for sale units, and be sold via the
housing lottery. Applicant was uncleaz on this stipulation and will be asking APCHA to
allow him to sell two of the units directly to two of the current renters, who have been
living at 301 W. Hyman for more than 10 years (if they aze APCHA-qualified), with the
other six sold via the lottery.
Staff agrees that the applicant's request is reasonable and otherwise finds that the
proposal meets the requirements for approval of Growth Management for Affordable
Housing.
With regazd to the Growth Management code amendments that were processed in a
legally separate but pazallel review process, applicant is requesting to be awazded a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit certifying that he has 14 transferrable FTEs.
The APCHA Boazd met on January 6, 2010, and strongly supported the code
amendments. In the case that the code amendments aze approved and put into legal effect,
the APCHA Boazd voted to determine that the applicant was entitled to a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit certifying that he has 14 transferrable FTEs.
9
P10
Staff recommends that the ordinance approving the project at 310 W. Hyman contain a
condition that would generate a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit certifying that
applicant has 14 transferrable FTEs, at such time as the code amendments take legal
effect.
RECOMMENDATION: Because staff remains unsatisfied with the architecture of the
proposal, staff is recommending that the P&Z remand the application to the applicant on
and continue the public heazing so that applicant can generate improved azchitectural
treatments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to
recommend approval for the requests, they may use this motion "I find that the
Amendment to the Zoning Map meets required standazds of review, I recommend City
Council approval of a Final PUD Development Plan and Subdivision, and approve
Growth Management for affordable housing."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -Initial application
Exhibit B -Updated application (updated floor plans and rendering)
Exhibit C -Staff findings for Amendment to the Zone District Map
Exhibit D -Staff findings for PUD
Exhibit E -Staff findings for Subdivision
Exhibit F -Staff findings for Growth Management for Affordable Housing
Exhibit G -Housing Authority Board action
Exhibit H -Zoning Analysis
10
P11
Exhibit G
Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria 8~ Staff Findings
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 Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The
proposed amendment to the Zone District Map would change current zoning on the
subject property from R-15 to AH-PUD, allowing for the conversion of four (4) free
market units to eight (8) deed-restricted affordable housing units. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP:
• "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in
providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27)
• "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable
housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27)
"Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be
encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg
25-26)
"When employees have the ability to live neaz where they work, their reliance on
the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the
town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26)
• "New development should take place only in azeas that are, or can be served by
transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that aze conducive to walking and
bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21)
• "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized."
(Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18)
Also, with regazd to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale
and character of the community ... "staff finds that the size and density of the proposed
P12
structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor azea ratios
and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.)
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an AH-PUD zoning designation,
which is compatible with a relatively high-density neighborhood that includes Residential
Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject pazcel. While there are also
a number of properties in the neighborhood that aze zoned R-6 and R-15, the
characteristics of most of these properties aze more consistent with the higher FAR and
density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the- limited size of
the subject pazcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR
and density that is allowed under AH-PUD zoning.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and. road safety.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would allow a net increase of four residential
units in an azea that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and
the use of mass transit. Regazding road safety, access to the site by vehicles will occur at
the end of a dead-end street, limiting conflicts with passing traffic.
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 Finding: To the extent that the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, the applicant will offset those demands in the form of impact fees,
upgraded water and sewer infrastructure and appropriate drainage planning. The
proposed amendment would allow a net increase of four residential units in an area that is
close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts
on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in new affordable housing that
would not otherwise be built. Sufficient affordable housing inventory is an important part
of the community character.
P13
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding: There are no recently changed conditions that would support or oppose the
proposed amendment.
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 Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The
proposed amendment allows for the development of affordable housing, and is therefore
in the public interest.
P14
Exhibit D
PUD Review Criteria 8~ Staff Findings
Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standazds shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The
proposed PUD would allow for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8)
deed-restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the
following statements in the 2000 AACP:
• "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in
providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27)
• "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable
housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27)
• "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be
encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg
25-26)
• "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on
the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the
town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26)
• "New development should take place only in azeas that aze, or can be served by
transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that are conducive to walking and
bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 2])
Also, with regazd to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale
and chazacter of the community ... "staff finds that the size and density of the proposed
structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor azea ratios
and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.)
P15
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: This neighborhood is a mixture of high-density lodges, condos and some
duplexes and single-family homes. The proposal is a relatively high-density residential
use that is consistent with chazacter of existing uses in the neighborhood. (Please see
Exhibit H.)
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the
area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future
development in the surrounding azea.
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.
Staff Finding: There aze no annual Growth Management allotments necessary for
affordable housing units:
B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans
shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as
described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional
requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining
the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed
dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing
development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements
shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in
the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements of the propose structure are consistent and
compatible with the existing and future land uses in the neighborhood, due to the
relatively high FAR and densities existing in the azea, as well as those allowed by the
number of RMF-zoned properties in the neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit H.) Also, the
limited size of the subject pazcel (3,600 sq. fr.) inherently limits the impacts of the
relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH-PUD zoning.
P16
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man-made hazazds
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as
steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
Staff Finding: This small property has no significant natural characteristics such as steep
slopes, waterways or significant vegetation or landforms. It is a small, flat property. The
surrounding azea features City of Aspen Open Space that segues into the base of Shadow
Mountain. The proposed structure, while lazger than the existing one, would have no
significant impact on the much lazger surrounding open space area. The open space area
is primazily enjoyed and viewed while on the Midland Trail, which will not be altered in
any way.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and
historical resources.
Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation
due to its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. With regard to traffic,
there are no congestion issues in this neighborhood.
According to the land use code, amulti-family project in the Infill Area must provide one
pazking off-street pazking space. per unit on a net increase basis, or four off-street spaces
for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P&Z or could
be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD
Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14.
Both applicant and staff aze asking that the number ofoff-street pazking spaces be
established at zero (0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There aze two reason
for waiving the requirement for off-street parking in this case: The Pazking Department
does not want to lose the six head-in, on-street pazking spaces now located in the city
right of way on the east side of the pazcel along 2"d Street, which would be lost in order to
gain curb access to a maximum of four off-street spaces. As for the north side of the ]ot,
along Hyman Ave., the Community Development Dept. recommended that there should
not be pazking in this area because both Residential Design Standazds [Section
26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Chazacteristics of Off-Street Pazking Spaces [Section
26.515.020B] call for pazking areas to be accessed off an alley or private road and not a
public street. Also, parking on the north side of the property would provide 3-4 off-street
parking spaces, but would eliminate just as many on-street pazking spaces.
During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, the Pazking Department
stated that there is sufficient on-street parking capacity in the neighborhood to
accommodate the net increase in vehicles generated by the proposal.
P17
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements for a proposed structure in the AH/PUD
Zone District aze established as part of asite-specific Fina] PUD Development Plan,
rather than being specifically prescribed, as they aze in most other zone districts.
However, the AH/PUD Zone District does include a sliding scale for Floor Area Ratio
according to lot size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development
Plan. The lot size of the pazcel at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 squaze feet, and the sliding
scale suggests a 1.1:1 Floor Area Ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The
applicant's initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft., reflecting a .02% increase over the
"guide," in order to include eight (8) one-bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. ft. apiece.
After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the
applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire
protection and architectural character), and to establish an interior hallway on the second
floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff
suggestions, the adjusted squaze footage now requested is 4,486 - reflecting a 13%
increase above what the AH/PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. Staff finds this to be
appropriate to the chazacter of the surrounding azea, and favorable to the chazacter of the
PUD due to the provision of eight (8) new affordable housing units.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any nonresidential land uses.
Staff Finding: The land use code requires one off-street pazking space for every new unit.
Applicant is requesting zero (0) off-street pazking spaces. There aze no "nonresidential"
land uses. Please see staff response to standazd B(1)d above.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
Staff Finding: This is not applicable. One residential structure 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.
Staff Finding: The site is close to public transit stops, is adjacent to the "commuter"
Midland Trail and is close enough to downtown so that residents can easily walk or
bicycle to important destinations. The applicant will be building curbs and gutters, which
P18
aze not currently existing along the property, which will help provide a walking path from
the neighborhood to the Midland Trail. The city Cazs-to-Go program includes vehicles at
Paepcke Park, the Limelight Lodge and at Third & Hyman.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City.
Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial
core and general activity centers in the city.
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:
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
Staff Finding: Not applicable
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. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may
be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in
the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the
property is subject.
Staff Finding: There is a modest increase in density beyond the "guide" contained in the
AH/PUD Zone District. According to the PUD "guide," this 3,600 squaze foot lot can
accommodate seven (7) one-bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one-bedroom
units, thereby slightly exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. The lot
would have to be 4,000 squaze feet to meet the guideline, or 11% bigger than it is.
By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown
through an innovative private sector initiative, the proposed modest increase in density
serves a central goal of the AACP. Also, this increase in density beyond the PUD guide is
"compatible with (the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the compazably high
densities in this neighborhood (please see Exhibit H).
P19
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 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated.
Staff Finding: There aze no negative physical chazacteristics of the site as identified in
Subpazagraphs 4 and 5 above, regazding infrastructure and natural hazards.
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.
Staff Finding: This relatively high-density neighborhood includes R-6, R-15 and RMF
(Residential Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Although
many properties aze zoned R-6 and R-15, the existing characteristics of most of these
properties aze more consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF
or AH/PUD zone districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and `70s
with relatively high densities and high FAR - it beazs little resemblance to the R-6
neighborhood of the West End, or the R-15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane area.
(Please see detailed staff examination in Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject
parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) should be considered because the small lot size inherently limits the
overall impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH-PUD
zoning.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public
spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the
adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the
town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: Not applicable. No unique features on this ]ot.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
Staff Finding: Not applicable. Only one structure.
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.
Staff Finding: The proposed structure complies with Residential Design Standards.
P20
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff Finding: Proposal has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory in this regard by
the Fire Marshall.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding: First floor units will be handicapped accessible, as required by the
Building Dept. Applicant will be constructing curb and gutters, which do not currently
exist on the site, as required by the Engineering Dept.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with site drainage requirements.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the
proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels
and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed
development shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits awell-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.
Staff Finding: Small lot will feature minimal landscaping. Pazks Department has
reviewed the site plan.
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.
Staff Finding: Proposal will not negatively impact the adjacent public trailhead for the
Midland Trail and adjacent public open space, as reviewed by Parks Dept.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with Pazks Department requirements.
E. Architectural character.
P21
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the properly, represent a character
suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of
nearby historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding: Applicant has worked with Community Development staff to improve the
initial azchitectural proposal. But overall Community Development staff still finds that
the proposed architecture does not "enhance the visual chazacter of the city." In a general
sense, staff believes affordable housing should be designed with a sense of chazacter and
uniqueness so that it reflects well on the housing program.
There have been some improvements to the initial proposal: The initially proposed
"pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and has been replaced with the more
common two-pitched roof. The initial proposal included exposed, outdoor exterior
stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor walkways, which suggested amotel-like
appeazance. Applicant has made the stairways and second floor hallways interior, which
also allowed for more traditional private balconies on the second floor. Staff suggested an
entry porch feature to comply with Residential Design Standards, and applicant has
added a deck on the east side that will serve as a common element to first floor users who
do not have balconies.
Thus faz, applicant has not responded significantly to staff suggestions to modify the
window treatments to help show some individuality to the units -rather the window
treatment seems excessively symmetrical, again reflecting the style of a motel.
In general, it is difficult for staff to give direct design and azchitectural suggestions, and
such a relationship with an applicant is not always productive. In general, staff believes
there is room in this case for an improved azchitectural treatment that would reflect
strongly on the housing program.
There aze no historical resources nearby. The ice rink across the street is a cultural
resource that features a mass and scale much lazger than any surrounding residential use,
including the proposed structure.
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.
Staff Finding: The structure will have anorth-south pitched roof orientation.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding: Structure and site is designed to accommodate storage and shedding of
snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner. Eaves will shed beyond the
balconies and into the grassy azeas, without affecting passing pedestrians.
P22
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development
will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general
aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit
requirements.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site
features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to
the property is prohibited for residential development.
Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit
requirements.
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:
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
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 Snancial 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.
Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding: Not applicable
P23
I. Access and circulation. 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:
I. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding: The single lot has direct access to two public streets.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or
such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding: The proposed development would generate a net increase of four
residential units in an azea where there is no traffic congestion, which is close to the
urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The Caz-to-
Go program has sites nearby.
The Pazking Dept. has stated that there is sufficient on-street pazking capacity to handle
the modest increase generated by this proposal.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
Staff Finding: Not applicable. Midland trail is accessed directly from 2nd Street.
Applicant will provide curb and gutters along 2"d Street to improve walking access to this
trail.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
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.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
P24
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: There aze no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions.
J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially
completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or
surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated
adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be
defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply
with the following:
Staff Finding: Not applicable
P25
Exhibit E
Subdivision Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following
standards and requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Finding: Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the
2000 AACP. The proposed amendment to the Zone District Map would change cun•ent
zoning on the subject property from R-15 to AH-PUD, allowing for the conversion of
four (4) free mazket units to eight (8) deed-restricted affordable housing units. The
proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP:
"The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in
providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27)
"Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable
housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27)
"Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be
encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands" (Housing Philosophy, pg
25-26)
"When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on
the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the
town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26)
"New development should take place only in areas that aze, or can be served by
transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that aze conducive to walking and
bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21)
"Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized."
(Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18)
Also, with regazd to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale
and chazacter of the community • • • "staff finds that the size and density of the proposed
structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor azea ratios
and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.)
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
P26
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an AH-PUI) zoning designation,
which is compatible with a relatively high-density neighborhood that includes Residential
Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject pazcel. While there are also
a number of properties in the neighborhood that aze zoned R-6 and R-I5, the
characteristics of most of these properties aze more consistent with the higher FAR and
density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the limited size of
the subject pazcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR
and density that is allowed under AH-PUD zoning.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the
area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future
development in the surrounding azea.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements
of this Title.
Staff Finding: The subdivision will be in compliance with all applicable requirements.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,
rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or
other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents
in the proposed subdivision.
Staff Finding: The 3,600 squaze foot subject pazcel is small and flat.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is only one lot in this subdivision.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided
for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See,
Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
I. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals
of the community.
P27
Staff Finding: Applicant proposes to meet standazds of Chapter 26.580.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Finding: Not applicable.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision
which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable
housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System.
Staff Finding: This is a 100% affordable housing proposal.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set
forth at Chapter 26.620.
Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with school land dedication fees.
F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been
granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to
Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned
Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining
growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain
such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal
instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, §2; Ord. No. 12,
2007, §§29, 30)
Staff Finding: No annual allotments aze required for affordable housing.
P28
Exhibit F
Growth Management for Affordable Housing Staff Findings
Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission Applications:
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following
standazds and requirements:
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in
accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitltin County
Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitltin County Housing
Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff finding: The proposed units comply with APCHA guidelines. Please see Exhibit G
for vote of APCI-lA Boazd of Directors in this case.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of
actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within
the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the
City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is
less than one (1) full unit, acash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning
and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitlcin County
Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, acash-in-
lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
Staff finding: Not applicable. There is no mitigation requirement.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty
percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher.
Staff finding: Project exceeds this standazd. All units entirely above-grade.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitlcin County
Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as
P29
defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitlcin
County Housing Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units
owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The
City encourages affordable housing.units required for lodge development to be
rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term
viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitlcin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be
subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff finding: Owner reserves the right to sell two of the units to APCHA-qualified
buyers; the rest will be sold through the housing lottery.
P30
Exhibit G
APCHA Board Votes and Recommendations
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ben Gagnon
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Operations Manager
DATE: January 8, 2010
RE; 301 J{,ESTHYMANREDEVELOPMENT
Parcel ID # 2735-124-67-002
ISSUE: The proposal is to change the use of the pazcel to affordable housing, demolish the
existing structure, replace with eight affordable housing units and utilize the units for credits that
other developers could utilize for future developments.
BACKGROUND: The development of the property provides a 100% affordable housing project -
all one-bedroom units -with the units to be utilized as credits for future development. The use of
the units for credits requires an amendment to the Land Use Code.
The proposal has four units on the first floor and four units on the second floor with eight storage
units located in the basement of the structure. The units will be approximately 503 squaze feet.
Although there is no off-site pazking proposed there is street parking available in the azea. The
squaze footage does not meet the minimum requirements for aone-bedroom unit, but the
Guidelines allow fora 20% reduction of squaze footage if certain criteria aze met; i.e., the location
of the project, additional storage, the units being provided aze above grade, etc. With the ability to
have the 20% reduction, the units meet the minimum requirements for Category 1 and 2 one-
bedroom units as stated in the Guidelines.
Then language being proposed for the Land Use Code would be an additional to pazagraph 4 of the
Affordable Housing section. The language is as follows:
e. The initial owner of one or more affordable housing units that aze developed after
(EFFECTIVE DATE OF CODE AMENDMENT APPROVAL) and that is not required for
mitigation is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (CAHC) fully
describing the dimensions of the affordable housing units, to be recorded with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and the Pitkin County Clerk and' Recorder's
Office; such certificate is legally transferable and may be utilized subsequently to satisfy
~,~,.,F__ ,_,_ _.... ,m..
P31
affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with other applicable sections of
this Title.
The affordable housing section of the Land Use Code is attached.
The Housing Boazd reviewed the project at their regulaz meeting held January 6, 2009. The
applicant expressed to the Boazd that the project had been modified per the Community
Development Department to satisfy certain requirements of the Land Use Code and per the Fire
Marshall to meet fire regulations.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Boazd is recommending approval of the redevelopment of
the pazcel as well as the additional language to be added to the Land Use Code. The Boazd is
recommending approval with the following conditions:
1. The units shall be ownership units and sold through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority lottery system upon certificate of occupancy.
2. The applicant, upon Certificate of Occupancy, shall receive the use of 14 mitigation credits
(1.75 employee for each one-bedroom unit times 8 units) in the form of a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit (CAHC).
3. The units shall be classified asone-bedroom units, 503 square feet for the four units on the
first floor and 508 squaze feet for the four units on the second floor, for a total of 4,044
squaze feet.
4. The units shall be classified as Category 1 and 2 with the preference for the units to sold as
Category 2, but that the credits can be utilized to mitigate at the Category 1 or 2 rate.
5. That the language allowing for the use of the 100% privately constructed affordable housing
development be able to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits to sell to future
developers to be approved.
6. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits shall be required to describe the dimensions
of the affordable housing units (size, number of bedrooms) as well as the category, and shall
be recorded with APCHA and with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
2
P32
Exhibit H
Zoning Analysis of Shadow Mountain Neighborhood
The following is a brief overview of a portion of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood,
including detailed information on properties within 1 and'/~ blocks of the subject
property, at 301 W. Hyman. There is a mixture of zoning in this area, including Medium-
Density Residential (R-6), Moderate Density Residential (R-15) and Residential Multi-
Family (RMF).
As staff attempts to determine whether the applicant's proposal meets standards relating
to neighborhood compatibility, staff is provide some reseazch on zoning, existing floor
area ratio and density. Staff's primary conclusion is that while there aze properties in the
R-6, R-15 and RMF zone districts in this area, the neighborhood has all the features and
characteristics of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District.
A brief look at Table 1 shows that the R-6 and R-,15 zone districts prescribe a relatively
low floor area ratio (FAR), which typically translates into relatively modest mass, scale
and site coverage. The R-6 and R-15 zone districts also feature low densities, limited to
either single-family or duplex units. In stark contrast, the RMF Zone District allows for
much higher FAR and far higher densities. The applicant is seeking a zoning from R-15
to AH-PUD, which is comparable to RMF zoning.
Table 1: Zoning, FAR & Density
~,...., t .,r c;~a Flnnr Area Ratio Density
R-6 6K - 9K .41: ] -- .54: I 1 /6,000
1/4,500
R-15 9K -- 15K .45:1 -- .3:1 1/15,000
1/7,500
RMF 4,500 - 6K .75:1 - 1.5:1 1/300
1/1,500
1 /6,000
AH- 4,500 - 6K 1.1:1 1/300
PUD 1/500
]/1,500
Table 2 (below) is a list of properties within 1 and '/z blocks of the subject property at 301
W. Hyman. Table 2 is ranked according to existing floor area ratio (see FAR Exist in
bold): In other words if you have a 3,000 squaze foot lot and a 4,500 square foot structure
sitting on it, your existing FAR is 1.5:1. The higher the FAR, the more mass, scale and
site coverage will be appazent. (Applicant proposal also in bold.)
P33
Table 2: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked By FAR
' bt =basement
T nratinn/Name 7.nne Lot Size Sa. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density
130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4-plex 1.5:1 1/6715
Fireside condos a rox.
124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047
Cottonwoods approx.
Condos
301 W. Hyman AH- 3,600 4,441 8 units 1.2:1 1/561
PUD
334 W. Hyman R-6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342
St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt
214 W. Cooper R-]5 5,580 5,039 1-Fam 1.1:1 1/5039
Ice Garden PUB 27,000 n/a n/a 1:1 n/a
123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1/3169
Albano condos
300 W. Ho k R-6 6,000 5530 1-fam .92:1 1/5530
237 W. Ho k R-6 9,000 7,855 du lex .87:1 1/3927
311 S. First RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681
a rox. 1,831 bt
315 W. Hyman R-6 1,102 921 1-fam .83:1 1/921
322 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 4,440 4-8 units .74:1 1/555
232 W. Hyman R-6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549
Shadow Mtn LP Approx.
Lodge
204 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200
211 S. First
Koch Townhos
104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053
condos
300 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 3,718 4+ .62:1 1/413
Former
Kitzbuhel
Lod e
221 W. Hopk R-6 6,000 3,737 1-fam .62:1 1/3737
314 S. Second R-15 8,175 4,181 + 1-fam .51:1 1/7527
Built 2008 3,346 bt
315 W. R-6 7,500 3448 + 1-fam .46:1 1/4998
Ho kins 1550 bt
312 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 1,970 1-Fam .33:1 1/1970
City-owned HP
P34
Table 3 shows the same properties, ranked by density (in bold). For example, the highest
density is at the St. Moritz, where the average room size is 342 square feet. (Applicant
proposal also in bold.)
Table 3: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked by Density
* bt =basement
r ,,,.~*;,,.,rnia..,P 7nne T.~r Cie Sa. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density
334 W. Hyman R-6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342
St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt
300 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 3,7]8 9+ .62:1 1/413
Kitzbuhel
232 W. Hyman R-6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549.
Shad Mtn Ld LP
322 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 4,440 4-8 units .74:1 1/555
301 W. Hyman AH- 3,600 4,024 8 units 1.2:1 1/561
PUD
315 W. Hyman R-6 1,102 921 1-fam .83:1 1/921
124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047
Condos a rox.
104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053
condos
204 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200
211 S. First
Koch Townhos
312 W. Hyman R-6 6,000 1,970 1-Fam .33 1/1970
123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1!3169
Albano condos
311 S. First HP RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681
approx. 1,831 bt
221 W. Ho k R-6 6,000 3,737 1-fam .62:1 1/3737
237 W. Ho k R-6 9,000 7,855 du ]ex .87:1 1/3927
315 W. Hopk R-6 7,500 3448 + 1-fam .46:1 1/4998
1550 bt
214 W. Coo er R-15 5,580 5,039 1-Fam 1.1:1 1/5039
300 W. Ho k R-6 6,000 5530 1-fam .92:1 1/5530
130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4-plex 1.5:1 1/6715
Fireside condos a rox.
314 S. Second R-15 8,175 4,181 + 1-fam .51:1 1/7527
3,346 bt
P35
Generally speaking, this neighborhood features significantly higher FAR and faz higher
densities than the more typical residential neighborhoods of the West End (R-6) and
Cemetery Lane (R-15). As stated above, many of the R-6 and R-15 properties in Tables 2
+ 3 have the FAR and density characteristics of the RMF Zone District.
For this reason, staff finds that the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is proposed. It is also important to recognize that the size of the subject lot
(3,600 sq. ft.) is the 2"d smallest in this neighborhood sample, so that the overall impact
of the FAR and density proposed is relatively small compazed to many of the lazger
properties in the area.
P36
RESOLUTION N0. _,
(SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW, AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING,
AND SUBDIVISION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 W. HYMAN AVE,
CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parce[ ID: 273512467002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Ajax Apartments LLC, represented Peter Fomell, requesting approval of final
Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management
Allotments, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop eight affordable housing units at 301
W. Hyman Ave.; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotments; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to the City Council for final Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Rezoning, and Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 301 W. Hyman Ave. and is zoned
Moderate-Density Residential (R-15); and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standazds, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend
the proposal to better comply with the azchitectural chazacter requirements of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD); and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2010, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2010, by a
vote, approving Affordable Housing Growth Management Review for eight (8)
one-bedroom units, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Final PUD,
Rezoning, and Subdivision; 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,
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 1 of 5
P37
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Comrission fmds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all 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,
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
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
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 Affordable Housing
Growth Management Review, creating eight (8) one-bedroom deed-restricted units; and
hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Rezoning, and Subdivision, subject to the following conditions.
Section 2: Rezoning
Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code
Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone 301 W.
Hyman Ave. from R-15 to AH/PUD.
Section 3• PUD Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional
Re uirements 301 W. Hyman
Minimum Lot Size 3,600 s . ft
Min. Lot Area /
Dwellin Uni[ 3,600 sq. ft
Maximum Allowable
Densi 8 units
Minimum Lot Width 60 feet
Minimum Front Yard 7 feet
Minimum Side Yazd 10'6" -- east
0 --west
Minimum Rear Yazd 0
Maximum Site
Covera e 66%
Maximum Hei ht 23"
Minimum dist.
between buildin s N/A
Minimum Open Space
Percent N/A
Allowable Floor Area 4,486 s . ft.
Minimum Off-Street
Parking 0
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 2 of 5
P38
Section 4: Engineerine
The Applicant's design
Municipal Code, Title 21
Engineering Department.
Development Fee.
shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
and all construction and excavation standazds published by the
The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System
The construction management plan submitted as part of building permit will address
construction and shall address how all construction activities will not impact all trees that
aze remaining on the site.
Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering
Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed Right-of--Way
improvements, including curbs and gutters, meet all applicable standazds. Prior to final
approval by City Council, the applicant will work with the Engineering Department to
determine a proportionate shaze of any costs associated with Right-of--Way improvements
on the east side of 2nd Street to the extent this work upgrades the entrance to the Midland
Trail.
Section 5: Affordable Housing
The eight (8) on-site, one-bedroom affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to
Category 2. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process, with the
exception of two units to be sold by applicant (Ajax Apartments LLC) to APCHA-
qualified owners; subsequent owners to be determined through the APCHA lottery
process.
The sales price of all units shall be as stated in the APCHA guidelines in effect at the time
of recordation of the deed restriction plus appreciation calculated at three percent (3%) per
annum or the Consumer Price Index (simple appreciation not compounded), whichever is
less, as of the listing date of the units.
Section 6: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503),
approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
The applicant shall provide an overall access plan for the site with the building permit .
submittal.
Section 7: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25,
and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory
Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department.
Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standazds. Each of the units
within the building shall have individual water meters.
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 3 of 5
P39
The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be
reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation.
Section S: Sanitation District Requirements
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District will require a new separate sewer service to
the district's main line located on the east side of Second Street, as a condition of CO.
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which aze on file at the District office.
Section 9: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be awaze of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise
abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle azea is required.
Section 10: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 11: Parks
Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for new street trees, with
species, location and tree trench preparations subject to approval of the City Forester. An
approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition or access
infrastructure work takes place. Tree protection fences must be in place on the west and
south sides of the property line, and inspected by the City Forester or his/her designee
before construction activities commence.
No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of
equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed outside of the tree protection fencing. There
should be a location and standazd for this fencing denoted on the plan.
Over digging into City property (west and south sides) is prohibited, any excavation shall
be vertical only.
Section 12: Parking
There is no pazking on the property. Owners/renters will be eligible to purchase
Neighborhood Permits for on-street parking.
Section 13:
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.
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 4 of 5
P40
Section 14•
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 15:
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 19th
day of January, 2010.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Stan Gibbs, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No _, Series 2010
Page 5 of 5
.. .. _ .............._........ _ _
~~iC~ ti'r ~~;~-UpiT'
Chapter 26.410
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections
Sec. 26.410.010 General
Sec. 26.410.020 Procedures for review
Sec. 26.410.030 Administrative checklist
Sec. 26.410.040 Residential design standazds
26.410.010. General.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood
scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods aze public places conducive
to walking. The standards do not prescribe azchitectural style, but do require that each home, while
serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape.
Neighborhood character is lazgely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings
and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain
consistency in front setback patterns, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the
built environment.
The azea between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of
the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate
the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house. Certain
elements of the front facade of a house aze particularly important components of neighborhood
chazacter. Front porches provide. outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one-story
entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street-facing windows can
establish a hierazchy of spaces with larger; formal windows denoting public azeas and smaller ones
suggesting private rooms.
Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is
important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. Avoiding building materials which have no
relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal, as does avoiding a significant
overshadowing of small homes by larger structures.
Finally, along with creating homes which aze architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian
nature of a neighborhood can. be further enhanced by reducing conflicts between people and
automobiles and by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Parking azeas aze to be concentrated to
the rear or side of each residence. Secondary structures and accessory dwelling units, located along
the alleys and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, aze encouraged.
B. Applicability. Except as outline below, this Section applies to all residential development in the
City requiring a building permit, except for residential development within the R-15B Zone District:
-• -- City of Aspen Land Use Code
vp.+ann rsaa~
1. Only the following standards shall apply to multi-family housing: Subsection
26.410:040.A.1, Building orientation, Paragraph 26.410.040.C.1.a, Access or, if not
applicable, Paragraph 26.410.040.C.2.b, Garage setback and Subsection 26.410.040D,
Building elements, as outlined in said Section for multi-family buildings.
2. Pazcels located within and partially within the Aspen infill azea (see Chapter 26.104,
Definitions) shall be required to comply with all of the standazds.
3. Parcels not located in the Aspen infill azea aze required to comply with all the standazds
except the following: Subsection 26:410.040.B.1, Secondary mass, Subsection
26.410.040.D.3.b, Nonorthogonal windows and Subsection 26.410.040.E.2, Inflection, in its
entirety.
4. Pazcels with no street frontage and pazcels with front yard setbacks at least ten (10) feet
vertical above street grade shall be exempt from the following requirements: Subsection
2f.410.040.A.1, Building orientation, and Subsection 26.410.040.D, Building elements, in its
entirety.
5. Residential units within mixed-use buildings shall be exempt from the requirement of this
Chapter 26.410 in its entirety.
C. Application. An application for residential development shall consist of an application for a
development order as may be required by the Community Development Director, Historic
Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, pursuant to Section
26.304.030 and an application for "Residential Design Standards" review, pursuant to Section
26.410.020.
D. Exemptions. No application for a residental development order shall be exempt from the
provisions of this Section unless the Planning Director determines that the proposed development:
L Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the
building; or
2. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but
aze not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or
3. Is an application only for the erection of a fence and the application meets Subsection
26.410.040.A.3.
E. De£mitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall
be the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of this Land Use Code. In addition, the
following definitions shall apply:
Street. Away or thoroughfaze, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used
or intended for vehiculaz, bicycle or pedestrian traffic. The term street shall include the entire
azea within aright-of--way. For the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street
City of Aspen Land Use Code
J ~
PArf dlln Pnao R
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particulaz standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or
a broader vicinity as the boazd feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
b. Be cleazly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
(Ord. No. 52-2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1)
26.410.030. Administrative checklist.
The Director of Community Development shall create a checklist for use. by applicants and
Community Development staff in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a
development order for an application that is consistent with the residential design standards. (Ord.
No. 20-2005, § 1)
26.410.040. Residential design standards.
A. Site design. The intent of-these design standazds is to encourage residential buildings that
address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and
semi-public realms. In addition; where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is
intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the
visibility of the house and front yard from the street.
1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal
structures shall be parallel to the street. On wrner lots,
both street-facing facades must be pazallel to the
intersecting streets. On curvilineaz streets, the front
facade of all structures shall be paza11e1 to the tangent of
the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined
in Subsection 26.410.O10.B.4 shall be exempt from this
requirement.
One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building
may be on a diagonal from the street if desired.
2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than
fifteen thousand (15,000) squaze feet, at least
sixty percent (60%) of the front facade shall
be within five (5) feet of the minimum front
yard setback line. On corner sites, this
standard shall be met on the frontage
I ~~ ( F
1
Yes. N°. Yes.
City of Aspen Land Use Code ~ '~
rsrr dnn vpaa to
with the longest block length. Porches maybe used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standazd.
3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter-boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches
high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forwazd of the front facade of the house. Man-
madeberms are prohibited in the front yazd setback.
Yes
B. Building forvr. The intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of
Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which aze more similaz in their massing, by
promofing the development of accessory units off of the City alleys and by preserving solar access.
Secondary mass. All new single-family and
duplex structures shall locate at least ten
percent (10%) of their total squaze footage
above grade in a mass which is completely
detached from the principal building or linked
to it by a subordinate connecting element.
This standazd shall only apply to parcels
within the Aspen irifill area pursuant to
Subsection 26.410.O10.B.2. Accessory
buildings such as gazages, sheds and accessory
dwelling units are examples of appropriate
uses for the secondary mass.
A subordinate linking element for the purposes of secondary mass shall be defined as an
element not more than ten (10) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length with a plate height of
not more than nine (9) feet. Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length
shall be exempt from Subsection 26.575.020.A.8.
C. Parking, garages and carports. The intent of the following parking, gazages and carport
standazds is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by
placing pazking, gazages and carports on alleys or
-°_ f ( ~-
City of Aspen Land Use Code
nA~ dnn PnOP ~ r
to minimize the presence of gazages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do
not exist.
1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standazds
shall apply:
a. Pazking, gazages and carports shall be accessed
from an alley or private road.
b. If the garage doors aze visible from a street or
alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or
double-stall doors designed to appear like
single-stall doors.
c. If the gazage doors aze not vis~~ble from a street
or alley, the gazage doors may be either singte-
stall or normal double-stall gazage doors.
2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standazds
shall be apply:
a. Cm the street facing facade(s), the width of the living $H
area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet
greater than the width of the garage or carport.
lLx y' .t--zX•s'y'
b. The front facade of the gazage or the front-most supporting
column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet
further from the street than the front-most wall of the house.
c. On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,1100)
square feet in size, the gazage or carport may be
forward of the front facade of the house only if
the garage doors or carport entry are
perpendiculaz to the street (side-loaded).
City of Aspen Land Use Code
r.~ ann rAao
~~t
d. When the floor of a garage or carport is
above or below the street level, the driveway
cut within the front yard setback shall not
exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from
natural grade.
~~
z
e. The vehicular entrance width of a garage or
carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24)
feet.
_: ,,~
r----- ~" -~-x
f. If the gazage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall
doors or double-stall doors designed to appeaz like single-stall doors.
D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standazds is to ensure that each
residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to
the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions.
1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except
as outlined in Subsection 26.410.O10.B.4 shall have a
street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal
window. Multi-family units shall have at least one
(1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units
and front units must have a street facing a principal
window.
On comer lots, entries and principal windows should
face whichever street has a greater block length. This
standazd shall be satisfied if all of the following
conditions are met:
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no
more than ten (10) feet back from the front-most
wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be
taller than eight (8) feet.
--- f ---
j l i i i i j i
i i i l i i j i
~~...a i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i j
City of Aspen band Use Code
vArr ann PROP ra
b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more squaze feet, with a minimum depth of six (6')
feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than
one (1) story in height.
2.
c. A street-facing principal window requires
that a significant window or group of
windows face street.
One Story
Element
' ~ n;nc~
~+-- wn,a°w
First story element. All residential buildings - -.~~` ""'"~"` •° :.
shall have a first story street-facing element the
width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the
depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from.
Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story
element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element
may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed
area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the
remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded.
3. Windows.
typically exist, which is between nine (9) and
twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor.
For interior staircases, this measurement will be
made from the first landing if one exists. A
transom window above the main entry is exempt
from this standazd.
a. Street-facing windows shall not span through
the azea where a second floor level would
b. No more than one (1) nonorthogonal
window shall be allowed on each facade of
the building. A single nonorthogonal
window in a gable end may be divided
with mullions and still be considered one
(1) nonorthogonal window. The Non-0~tli°goed
requirement shall only apply to Subsection
26.410.01 O.B.2.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part dull Pnaa td
4. Lightwells. All azeaways, lightwells and/or
stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a
building shall be entirely recessed behind the
front-most wall of the building.
E. Contest The intent of the following standazds is to reinforce the unique chazacter of Aspen and
the region by drawing upon Aspen's vemaculaz azchitecture and neighborhood characteristics in
designing new structures.
1. Materials. The following standards must be met:
a. The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on
all sides of the building.
Yes
b. Materials shall be used in ways that are true to
their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is
alight or nonbearing material, shall not be used
below a heavy material, such as stone.
No
c. Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as
exterior materials.
Yes
No
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Dnrt enn PROP 1G