HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110215 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, February 15, 2011
Site Visit Noon — meet at site ASPEN WA LK
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities Meeting 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. Aspen Walk — 404 and 414 Park — Final PUD
B. Code Amendment for Affordable Housing percentage of
livable area above grade
VI. BOARD REPORTS
VII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
I A s
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: Aspen Walk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle): Subdivision,
Final PUD Review, Growth Management for multifamily replacement
(for free market multi- family units and for deed restricted affordable
housing units) and for the development of affordable housing,
Residential Design Standard Variances.
MEETING DATE: February 15, 2011
APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
PFG Aspenwalk, LLC (404 Park Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Avenue) and Aspen Pitkin County Commission continue the public hearing to allow
Housing Authority (414 Park Circle) time for the Applicant to revise the plans. A site
visit is proposed for noon on Tuesday, February
REPRESENTATIVE: 15t.
Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, SUMMARY:
Inc. The Applicant requests of the Planning and
Zoning Commission approval of Residential
LOCATION: Design Standard variances and Growth
Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision and Lot Management review for multi- family
5, Sunny Park Subdivision commonly replacement and the development of affordable
known as 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park housing, and a recommendation of approval of
Circle, respectively. Subdivision and Final PUD.
CURRENT ZONING & USE 1
Located in the residential multi - family
(R/MF) zone district with a Planned -Unit
Development (PUD) overlay. 404 Park k
Ave. contains 17,550 sq. ft. of lot area = _ - - - -�
while 414 Park Circle contains 15,224 / =
sq. ft of lot area.
404 Park Circle
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to merge lot �«
3 and lot 5 of the Sunny Park y _
Subdivision, develop a residential multi-
family building containing sub -grade
parking, 17 affordable housing units and _
14 free - market residential housing units
414 Park Avenue
for a total of 31 dwelling units.
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 1 of 13
P2
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning
Commission to develop Aspen Walk:
Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals:
• Growth Management Review for the demolition or redevelopment of multi - family
housing (Subsection 26.470.070.5.1) for the demolition of free market multi - family
residential units. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
• Growth Management Review for the demolition or redevelopment of multi - family
housing (Subsection 26.470.070.5.2) for the demolition of affordable housing units. The
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
• Growth Management Review for . the development of affordable housing (Subsection
26.470.070.4). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
• Residential Design . Standard Variances (Subsection 26.410.020.D) for multi- family
housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
City Council Approvals:
• Subdivision Review (Section 26.480) for the development of multi - family units and the
vacation of a lot line. City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
• Final PUD Review (Section 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the
proposed development. City Council is the final 'review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
Resolution No. 74 (Series of 2008) granted Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD)
approval for Aspen Walk on October 27, 2008. Council extended the conceptual approval for
one year to October 28, 2010 via Resolution No. 84 (Series of 2009).
The conceptual approval is for the proposed redevelopment of 404 Park Avenue (owned by PFG
Aspen Walk, LLC) and 414 Park Circle (owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority)
as a single development consisting of 18 affordable housing units and 14 market rate residential
units. The following standards were included in Resolution No. 74, Section 1.A (the entire
Resolution is included in the application) as conditions of submitting a Final PUD application:
1. Maximum Allowable Floor Area shall be no greater than 40,968 sq. ft. or a Floor Area
Ratio of 1.28:1.
2. The Maximum Allowable Height shall be no greater than 32 (excepting elevator shafts)
feet as outlined in the application.
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
• 02.15.11
Page 2 of 13
P8
plan, floor area, overall number of off - street parking spaces, and configuration of 2 separate
buildings above grade. Height variances that were not discussed during Conceptual review, and
architectural details and elements are appropriate for Final PUD Review. In addition, parking
allocation and the livability of the affordable housing units were raised as concerns by City
Council to be addressed during Final Review.
Both lots currently have a PUD overlay on them. The purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land
Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site
planning, a greater variety in the type and character of the development, and a greater
compatibility with existing and future land uses than would be possible through the
strict application of the underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services.
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure
sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives."
A PUD allows variation in the site's dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and
innovation, but does not allow variation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants are
requesting to vary the allowable height limit for this project. With the exception of height, the
project meets the dimensional requirements for the underlying RMF zone district.
Staff recognizes the community demand and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's goal
to develop affordable housing within the City limits of Aspen; however staff does not interpret
the housing goals as maximizing the quantity of affordable housing units on a site but rather
finding a balance between quantity and quality units for a positive livable experience. As stated
in the AACP, "housing policy should emphasize the development of neighborhoods and
community not just units." Staff is concerned about the quality and livability of the units, the
overall affordable housing experience, and the impacts on the neighborhood. The only outdoor
communal space for the housing units is proposed above the parking ramp in the northeastern
corner of the property that faces the windows of a housing unit (see Figure 2 below). Staff
questions the usability of this space and the proposed location. Balconies are not provided and
there is no rooftop access - there is very limited positive outdoor communal space for the
housing residents to enjoy.
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 8 of 13
P7
27 off - street spaces are required by Code if the applicant selects to maintain the existing deficit
of parking. The Applicant proposes 52 onsite parking spaces (including 5 stacked spaces) that
are allocated between the free market and affordable housing units. The avvlication meets the
parking requirement. Tables 4 and 5 provide detailed analyses of the existing and proposed
parking.
Table 4: Existing .arking at 404 and 414 Park
- p
t fe r n.'o !i iA-` leire m` SP& iita+idee r _ Deficit,
414 Park Avenue 11 14 5 - 9
404 Park Circle 14 22 10 - 12
Total 25 36 15 - 21
Table 5: Required off - street • arkint at As.en Walk •
r Th r ,
C3 d y 1
Existin_ 25 15
New 6 12
Total 31 Total of 27 s i aces
Table 6: Pro .osed off - street .arkm at As .en Walk vs. .arkin •uirement if no existm: deficit
3 R R y,j uSY.X+'Y
al 1 p. 1 !ice , r ,' '4 . ,Spec � _ ° », m , ea�stmg•r�eficlt
23 AH (including 2 stacked) 24 AH
29 Free market (including 3 stacked) 28 Free Market
Total of 52 Total of 52
The Applicant proposes a parking allowance of 23 spaces, including 2 spaces for electric
vehicles, for 17 affordable housing units which is 1 less than what is required if the applicant
choose to not maintain the existing deficit. Council mentioned parking allocation as an issue to
discuss during Final Review.
STAFF COMMENTS:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
The intention of Conceptual Review is to discuss the initial threshold issues relating to a large
development proposal, and to evaluate the suitability of a development project on a particular
parcel of land. Review boards identify areas of concern that need to be specifically addressed
during Final Review. The project was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission twice and
the City Council six times before Conceptual PUD approval was granted. Density, affordable
housing mitigation, height, floor area, ownership and parking were the main issues identified,
many of which are included as conditions of Conceptual approval in Resolution No. 74 (see
Exhibit E). Staff recognizes the discussion and subsequent improvements to the project made
during Conceptual review and does not find it appropriate to re- discuss the proposed density, site
5 Code requires the lesser of 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit - 52 required spaces: 28 spaces for free market
residential units and 24 spaces for affordable housing units
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 7 of 13
P6
The proposal presented before the Council is to demolish the existing the free - market units at
404 Park Ave. (Lot 3) and the affordable housing units at 414 Park Circle (Lot 5). There are two
different types of mitigation required for the demolition of the existing free - market residential
and affordable housing units. The following two sections are divided to address each type of
mitigation provided.
Demolition or Replacement of Multi - Family Housing:
Free Market Residential Unit Replacement: For approximately thirty years, the City has
required a certain amount of affordable housing to be developed when existing free market
multi - family residential dwelling units are demolished. The Land Use Code provides two
mitigation options when a free market residential multi - family project is demolished. The
Applicants propose to meet the 100% replacement option which requires the development to
replace at a minimum the number of units, bedrooms and net livable area of the demolished
multi- family building. The remaining development on the site may be free market as long as
there is no increase in the number of free market residential units that previously existed. The
applicant proposes the following onsite affordable housing units to meet the requirements of
multi- family replacement:
Table 3: Existing configuration of free market multi - family units and proposed configuration of
onsite affordable housing units
Existing Required Configuration Proposed
Configuration " for 100% replacement Configuration
# of units 14 14
# of bedrooms 25 25 25
net livable area (sq. ft.) 9,300
9,300 12,032
Affordable Housing Unit Replacement:
While mitigation for multi - family free market units requires unit density, bedroom count and net
livable area to be maintained, the Land Use Code requires projects that demolish deed restricted
multi - family affordable housing units to replace the total number of employees, also referred to
as full time equivalents (FTEs), housed in the existing development. The overall number of
units, bedrooms and net livable may be decreased or increased, but there may be no decrease in
the total number of employees housed in the existing development. Council Resolution No. 74,
approving the Conceptual PUD plan, states that "the existing affordable housing units to be
demolished have been determined to house 17.5 employees." The applicant proposes to
purchase affordable housing credits to mitigate for the required 17.5 employees. Providing off -
site housing was permitted under the Conceptual approval.
Parkin :
An existing deficit is allowed to be maintained when a property is redeveloped; however, this
deficit is only for the previously existing number of units and any new units are required to meet
the off- street parking standards unless granted a variation in the requirement. In a PUD, the
minimum off - street parking requirement can be established as part of the Final PUD. A total of
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 6 of 13
P5
Dimensional Requirements:
The proposed dimensional requirements are noted below in Table 2. The highlighted cells are
the proposed standards that exceed permitted requirements for the underlying zone district.
Table 2: RMF zone district comsared to sro s osed final PUD dimensional requirements
. may ] .,-`: y M. y ! 3 ��K{� } !!gy�p "'YY ' rv,
s e r;y ' - ,; , - , . ` b w ' o ' y. .... turenlen�i;.
'IL,. 6000 sq. ft. 32,774 sq. ft.
1- � ti e °
� ,,. ' no requirement for
Ma
% ' ` s '' multifamily
a, t � _t� w y
?.11'' t >; 1 — 31 units in total
" . a 14 free market residential 17 affordable
� nil 0: r _ units housing units
y mI I,, 60 ft. as per PUD plat
' ' 1 4.4., ,l 1 C �' 5ft. 5ft.
ID II . '. L 3.33 ft. 5ft.
r I l a, < r 5 ft. 5 ft.
ff
J C ihhi _
' 5ft. 5ft.
#4" Z. 4 i n/a as per PUD plat
r Tr, ,l 1 a` 32 ft.
,1.m , no reqm't for multifamily n/a
(bu and fire codes apply)
;;--. : 4 n/a n/a
' j ri -. 1.25:1 1.25:1 or 40,967.5 sq. ft.
,1t hr417 ' ' , .a' 'it
`; w e An existing deficit of parking 52 spaces
t -47 7 74. - ' ,, t 4 ; 21:-”ill may be maintained. 27 spaces 29 spaces (including 3 tandem) for free market
Em. L .. - : - are required. A detailed residential units; and
-2 7 " -' explanation is included in the 23 spaces (including 2 tandem) and 2 electric cars
. £ r c , , a'r_ W ` p arking section of this memo. for use by the affordable housing units
3 The Land Use Code requires the lesser of 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit for properties outside the
Aspen Infill area. If there was no existing deficit, the parking requirement would be the following - 52 required
spaces: 28 spaces for free market residential units and 24 spaces for affordable housing units.
° The Land Use Code does not count stacked or tandem spaces individually for multi - family development; therefore
47 parking spaces are technically provided on the site: 21 spaces for the ah units, and 26 spaces for the free market
units.
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 5 of 13
P4
Table 1: Pro .osed confi: ations for each butldm:.er floor
23 for the affordable housing
:- r 29 spaces for the free - market residential units units (including 2 stacked spaces
(including 3 stacked spaces) and 2 electric vehicles
5 units :
5 units: 1@ studio
° F 4@ 3 bedroom (1,424 - 2,322 sq. ft. net livable 1@ 1 bedroom
each) 2@ 2 bedroom
1@ 4 bedroom (2,257 sq. ft. net livable) 1 • 3 bedroom
5 units: 6 units:
r _ � 4@ 3 bedroom (1,506 — 2,343 sq. ft. net livable 2@ 2@ studi
each) bedroom
i 1 • 4 bedroom (2,257 s• . ft. net livable)
2 • 2 bedroom
4 units: 6 units:
2@ 3 bedroom (2,024 and 2,306 sq. ft. net 2@ studio
.;.:
livable)
w 2@ 1 bedroom
2@ 4 bedroom (1,997 and 2,242 sq. ft. net 2@ 2 bedroom
livable)
Access to rooftop . atio No access to roofto .
14 units
17 units
1 r , 31,158 sq. ft. 12,032 sq. ft.
f _ V II vim
4 Imo
»
Ir
O i BUILDING 9ECfCN ONE
�.e r.s
Figure 1: Section of the proposed free market multi - family building.
I Bedroom count for the free market residential units are to be verified at building permit.
2 Net livable area proposed for the affordable housing units is included in the growth management section of this
memo. Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 4 of 13
P3
3. The Minimum Off - Street Parking standards for the affordable housing units shall be 23
spaces for the 18 affordable housing units and the Applicants will provide two electric
vehicles for the use of the residents of the affordable housing.
4. Provision of affordable housing shall provide 100% replacement (Subsection
26.470.070.5.1.a) for the existing free market units. Additional affordable housing
associated with the project beyond the eighteen affordable housing units proposed on -site
may be provided off -site. The existing affordable housing units to be demolished have
been determined to house 17.5 employees.
CHANGES FROM CONCEPTUAL PUD APPROVAL:
As stated in the Land Use Code, "approval of a conceptual development plan shall only authorize
and applicant to submit an application or a final PUD development plan in accordance with the
City Council Resolution granting conceptual PUD approval." The applicant has submitted a
Final PUD plan that is in substantial compliance with the Conceptual PUD Resolution. Changes
from the dimensional standards listed in the conceptual approval are the following: 1.) the
number of affordable housing units was dropped from 18 to 17 units to meet multi - family
replacement requirements regarding number of bedrooms, 2.) the proposed FAR was reduced to
1.25:1, and 3.) height variations are requested.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicants, Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA)
have requested approval to demolish existing buildings located at 404 Park Avenue (Lot 3,
Sunny Park Subdivision) and 414 Park Circle (Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision). 404 Park Avenue
is a 17,550 sq. ft. lot that contains 14 free -market residential multi - family dwelling units in one
building. 414 Park Circle is a 15,224 sq. ft. lot containing 11 deed restricted residential multi-
family affordable housing units in one building. Combined, both lots contain 32,774 square feet
and 25 dwelling units.
The Applicants would like to merge the two lots and redevelop the newly created lot with two
new multi - family buildings and a sub -grade garage, accessed by ramp off of Park Circle, to
service both buildings. 14 free -market residential multi - family units are proposed in one
building and 17 deed restricted multi - family affordable housing units are proposed in the second
building. The affordable housing units are proposed to be a mix of Category 2 and Category 4
for sale units. The free market and the affordable housing units are proposed to have separate
HOAs. A total of 31 units are proposed for the Aspen Walk project, which represents an
increase of 6 units from the existing density.
The properties are located in the Residential Multi- Family (R/MF) zone district with a PUD
Overlay. The site is sloped with a distinct upper and lower bench demarcated by an existing
retaining wall between the two lots. The free market residential building is proposed to contain a
total of 31,158 square feet of net livable area and the affordable housing building is proposed to
contain a total of 12,032 square feet of net livable area. A portion of the garden level of both
proposed buildings is sub - grade, as illustrated in the building section labeled Figure 1. The
proposed configuration for each building is below in Table 1:
\ Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 3 of 13
P9
Figure 2: view of the affordable housing building, parking ramp and outdoor communal space
above the ramp.
_,_.
. ---+ ,
i
i
•_
4-''''.12"-- ''. a.
—
4 - ' -; '' FM building 1
1111r a
P1 r
` AH Building ,
i l l
Communal if
space for / -
AH J -1
residents . / I R amp to . -
!' parking
_
garage
As mentioned, the number of parking spaces exceeds the code requirement, which allows a
redevelopment to maintain a deficit of parking. However, there is another issue to discuss in
addition to the code requirement. Parking allocation is an issue identified during Conceptual
PUD review. When looking at the total number of proposed parking spaces and the allocation
between the free market and housing units, it appears that the allotment leaves the affordable
housing units deficient 1 space and the free market units over 1 space (refer to Table 6 for
details). Furthermore, 2 electric vehicles are proposed for use by the affordable housing units
that will occupy 2 of the spaces allocated to housing units. Staff is concerned about the impact
, of off -street parking allocated to the housing units on the neighborhood. The neighborhood does
not seem equipped to absorb any additional on- street cars.
Developing 2 separate buildings on the site to reduce impacts of the mass on the neighborhood
1 was included in the Conceptual approval. During Conceptual approval, the applicant reduced
1 the proposed floor area and density to comply with the underlying RMF zone district. The
height of the buildings was reduced by proposing a garden level that is partially subgrade.
Conceptual PUD approval notes that the maximum allowable height shall be no greater than 32
feet (excepting elevator shafts.) The detailed plans in the Final PUD application show that
height variances are needed for both proposed buildings in addition to the elevator shafts and
stairways. Staff finds that the height variances requested for the elevator shafts and access
stairways are appropriate, as noted in the Conceptual PUD approval.
The height of the north elevation of the affordable housing building is measured from finished
grade of the parking ramp, which explains why that portion of the building is over the 32' height
limit. Staff finds the height variance request for the housing building to be an appropriate trade-
off to providing off -street parking subgrade. Two height variances are requested for the free
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 9 of 13
P10
market residential building: the northwestern comer of the building measures 36' 2" and the
southwestern comer measures 37'. Staff finds that it is not appropriate to grant a height
variance for the free market residential building. The two and a half story building is already
larger than most multifamily buildings in the neighborhood and allowing a height variance will
exacerbate the size of the building and its impact on the surrounding context. Staff finds that the
purpose of PUD review to "achieve a more desirable development pattern, a higher qualify
design and site planning...and a greater compatibility with existing and future land uses..." is
not met with the proposed height variances for the free market building. Staff strongly
recommends that the application drop the height of the free market building to meet the 32'
height limit in the RMF zone district.
Figure 3: Northwest elevation of proposed project. The housing building is to the left and the free
market building is to the right. ..... . ,
`!T _
AH BUILDING T FREE MARKET BUILDING
• . _ • • •
,� �. _ ... - -- _
IT 4.„ _,____.__
., ! i r . _,,,,,„ _______„i--,-_ ,,.....-;
..
• ..._ .. . _ .,
f„,,,,,! ...
m a i ll ow
A.
I
a::
The Architectural Character section of Final PUD review emphasizes compatibility of the
neighborhood and appropriate . relationships between the architecture and intended use of the
building. Staff fords that the overall design conveys a heaviness and vertical emphasis that is
inconsistent with the eclectic, low scale architecture in the neighborhood. The proposed
"Mountain Contemporary" style is often found in lodges located in tourist zone districts to attract
visitors that associate a Rocky Mountain vacation with large log timbers, heavy stone veneer,
and big central fireplaces. The Park Circle neighborhood is largely residential with small scale
multi - family, single and duplex homes scattered around the base of Smuggler Mountain. Both
buildings' designs do not include a street facing entrance or one story elements that create a
positive pedestrian experience (these elements require a variance from the Residential Design
Standards addressed below) and relate to the residential nature of the neighborhood. Staff fords
that the proposed architecture does not relate to the multi - family use of the buildings and does
not contribute to the existing built environment of the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 10 of 13
P11
applicant restudy the architectural elements and materials to better relate to the intended use and
to bring the design into compliance with Design Quality goals of the AACP which states:
"We favor diversity tempered by context, sometimes historical, sometimes not, as
opposed to arbitrariness. `Context' refers first to region, then town, neighborhood, and
finally the natural and manmade features joining a particular development site. Decisions
regarding scale, massing, form, materials, texture, and color must be first measured by
context. Contextual appropriateness transcends `style' alone"
Staff recommends that the applicant improve the quality and livability of the affordable housing
units, re- allocate the parking spaces to provide 1 more space to the housing units, drop the
height of the free market building to comply with the underlying zone district, and redesign the
architectural details and materials to reflect the neighborhood context and intended use.
SUBDIVISION:
The application proposes to combine Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision into 1 lot,
renamed Lot 1 of the Aspen Walk Subdivision, and to redevelop the lot with 2 new buildings and
1 large subgrade parking area, as outlined above. Staff finds that the Subdivision criteria are
largely met, as outlined in Exhibit B, with the exception of the entire project's compliance with
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW:
As outlined above, the project requests three growth management reviews: multi - family
replacement for the demolition of free market residential multi - family units, multi - family
replacement for the demolition of deed restricted affordable housing multi - family units, and the
development of affordable housing. The project proposes to provide onsite mitigation in the
form of 17 units for the 100% replacement of the free market multi - family demolition
component, and to provide mitigation in the form of housing credits for 17.5 FTEs for the
replacement of the affordable housing demolition component. Conceptual Resolution No. 74
approves the concept of off -site mitigation for the 17.5 employees. Council recognized the
impacts of increasing the density of the project on the neighborhood and directed the applicant to
evaluate off-site mitigation options other than on -site units. The Code requires housing credits to
be purchased and extinguished upon issuance of a Development Order.
The 17 proposed affordable housing units require growth management review for the
development of affordable housing. This Section of the Code requires affordable housing to
meet specific criteria related to compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA) Guidelines including: mitigation requirements; ownership requirements; affordable
housing credit eligibility; and the requirement that 50% or more of the unit's net livable area is
at or above finished or natural grade, whichever is higher. The Aspen Walk project proposes
some "garden level" affordable housing units that are 2 or 3 feet below grade, while more than
50% of the units' volumes are above grade, however, the units do not meet the current criterion
noted in italics above. Similar to design variances for Accessory Dwelling Units, Staff proposes
a code amendment that permits the percentage of the unit's net livable area that is at or above
finished or natural grade to be varied at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission
through the Special Review process. The Code amendment is scheduled to be reviewed
concurrent with the Aspen Walk project. In the case of Aspen Walk there is a clear advantage to
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 11 of 13
P12
allowing 2 or 3 foot subgrade spaces, a small amount in Staff's opinion, in exchange for a lower
building height and increased density on site to meet mitigation requirements. Please refer to
Exhibit C for a detailed discussion. The Code amendment is written in consideration of all
future projects that may seek a variance from this criterion. Staff finds that the proposed Aspen
Walk building meets the proposed criterion for granting a variance to allow the garden level
units to be between 2 and 3 feet below grade.
Staff finds that the growth management criteria are met, conditioned on approval of the
proposed code amendment, for both on and off site housing mitigation. Staff included a
condition in the Resolution that requires the applicant at a minimum to extinguish the housing
credits for 17.5 FTEs at the time of issuance of demolition permit with the option to provide a
bond or letter of credit equivalent to cash in lieu payment for the 17.5 FTEs to ensure that the
demolished affordable housing units are not dependant on the entire project receiving a final
certificate of occupancy.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES:
All residential buildings are required to comply with the Residential Design Standards with
specific standards applying only to multi - family residential buildings. Many of the concerns that
Staff referenced in the PUD discussion above are reiterated in the Residential Design Standards
for multi- family buildings. The project requires variances for first story elements and street
facing entrances. The purpose of these standards is to "preserve established neighborhood scale .
and character and to ensure that Aspen's street and neighborhoods are public places conducive to
walking...Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front
facades of buildings and the streets they face." The street facing facades of the proposed
buildings have three story elements as opposed to the required one story element (i.e. a front
porch). There are two street facing entrances for the free market residential building and no
street facing entrances for the affordable housing building. Please refer to the illustrations
provided in Exhibit D for more detail.
Staff recognizes the topographical restrictions of the sloped site and the resulting garden level;
however the adverse impacts that the proposed architectural elements will have on
neighborhood character and the pedestrian experience are concerning and inconsistent with the
goals of the Design Standards and the AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A. It may be unrealistic for
the project to comply with the Design Standards; however Staff recommends that the
architectural elements are redesigned to be better aligned with the intent and purpose of the
Standards and provide an appropriate design for the context of the neighborhood.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water/Utilities Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Parking
Department, Transportation Department, Building Department, Housing Department and the
Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been
included as conditions of approval when appropriate. DRC comments are included as Exhibit E
to the memo.
RECOMMENDATION:
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 12 of 13
P13
Staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the AACP and the review criteria outlined above,
and recommends the following changes to the proposal.
• Reduce the height of the Free Market Residential building to comply with the 32' height
limit in the RMF zone district.
• Improve the livability and quality of the Affordable Housing units.
• Reallocate the parking spaces.
• Restudy the architectural details and materials as outlined above.
• Provide more street oriented entrances and some one story elements to bring the project
into closer compliance with the Residential Design Standards.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public hearing to a
date certain to address these issues; however a resolution is included with this memo that is
written in the affirmative, approving the GMQS reviews, Residential Design Standard variances,
and recommending approval of Final PUD and Subdivision to City Council as presented.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. _ , Series of 2011, approving with conditions, the Growth
Management reviews for the demolition of free market multi - family units, demolition of deed
restricted affordable housing multi - family units and the development of affordable housing;
Residential Design Standard Variances, and a recommendation of approval to City Council for
Final PUD and Subdivision for Aspen Walk."
Attachments:
EXHIBIT A — Final PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B — Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings
EXHIBIT C — Growth Management Review Criteria, Staff Findings
EXHIBIT D — Residential Design Standard Variances
EXHIBIT E — DRC Comments
EXHIBIT F — Council Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual PUD approval
EXHIBIT G — Application
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
02.15.11
Page 13 of 13
P14
RESOLUTION NO. _,
SERIES OF 2011
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR
THE DEMOLITION OF FREE MARKET MULTI - FAMILY UNITS, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, VARIANCES FROM
THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS FINAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION FOR ASPEN WALK, COMMONLY
DESCRIBED AS 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 3 AND 5, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2737 - 074 -04 -705 and 2737 - 0741 -04 -701
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority represented by
Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend approval of Growth Management review for the demolition of
free market multi - family units and the demolition of deed restricted affordable housing
units, and Growth Management for the development of affordable housing, Residential
Design Standard variances and a recommendation of approval of Subdivision and Final
PUD to the Aspen City Council to merge the two lots into one lot to be redeveloped with
two detached multi - family structures containing fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units
in one building and seventeen (17) affordable housing units, with a shared below grade
parking area; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi- family housing, Affordable
Housing Growth Management Allotments, Residential Design Standard Variances; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to the City Council for final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located is zoned Residential Multi - Family (RMF)
with a PUD Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, the application requested that the PUD's dimensional standards
meet the underlying zone district standards of the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) zone
district with the exception of Maximum Height; and
P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 1 of 7
P15
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral
comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building
Department, Parking Department, Transportation Department, Utilities Department, Fire
Protection District, and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review
Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend
the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD);
and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 15, 2011, the Planning and
Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets all applicable development standards 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 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Affordable Housing
a. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves
seventeen (17) Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotments from the
2010 Growth Management Year, conditioned upon the approval of a pending
code amendment related to Section 26.470.070.4.c for subgrade affordable
housing units. The applicant proposed 17 units onsite deed restricted for -sale
housing units, 25 bedrooms, and 12,032 square feet of net livable area with a mix
of Category 2 and Category 4 units meeting the mitigation requirements for the
100% replacement of the existing 14 free market units. Any changes to the
proposed categories shall meet the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, including the minimum net livable size.
P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 2 of 7
P16
b. In order to meet the mitigation requirements of the existing onsite affordable
housing, the provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide affordable
housing credits equivalent to 17.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) to mitigate for
the existing affordable housing units to be demolished. Affordable housing
credits equivalent to 17.5 FTEs shall be extinguished according to Section 26.540
of the Aspen Municipal Code prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the
project. A bond or letter of credit may be submitted to the City equal to the cash
in lieu payment for the 17.5 FTEs calculated at the time of building permit
submittal. The bond or letter of credit is subject to approval by the City Attorney
and shall be held by the City until affordable housing credits equivalent to 17.5
FTEs are extinguished. The credits shall be extinguished prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the free market units. Any change to the type of
mitigation provided for the demolished affordable housing units (i.e. affordable
housing credits) requires review pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System, of the Aspen Municipal Code.
Section 2: Residential Design Standard Variances
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves variances for the
Residential Design Standards listed in Section 26.410.040.D, Building Elements for
multi - family residences as represented in the application.
Section 3: Final PUD Dimensional Standards
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of
Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) of subject to the following conditions in Table 2:
Table 2: approved dimensional requirements:
FINAL PUb ,
P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 3 of 7
P17
Dimensional Requirements
tinili v � l Y mo -, 32,774 sq. ft.
minin loit'area n/a
per dwelling unit
31 units in total
maum 14 free market 17 affordable
allowable density residential units housing units
minimum lot as per PUD plat
width
minimum front 5 ft.
yard set
-— •
ra� �i r"6vi, ' 't •
s
ya e,
minimum side ; 5 ft.
yard' setback
minimum rear; 5 ft.
yard`se Ck ` -
ma►m site as per PUD plat
coverage I
ma u m t, as per PUD plat
minimum ,
distance behileen n/a
buildengs
minimum percent n/a
openspe
requi `
aitoivalbi+ 1.25:1 or 40,967.5 sq. ft.
ra "
7 52 spaces:
.'; r- ., 29 spaces (including 3 tandem) for free
minimum of
market residential units; and
street parking 23 spaces (including 2 tandem) and 2
spaces electric cars for use by the affordable
housing units
Section 4: Subdivision to combine Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision:
P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 4 of 7
P18
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approval to merge Lot
3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision. The newly created lot, Lot 1 of the Aspen
Walk Subdivision, is 32,774 square feet as depicted on the survey.
Section 5: Engineering
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System
Development Fee. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction
with the building permit application.
Park Avenue/Park Circle Intersection Alignment
The alignment of the Park Ave & Park Circle intersection needs to be consistent with the
Park Avenue Pedestrian Plan, prepared in conjunction with City staff by JR Engineering.
This includes a shift in current roadway alignment as well as the installation of sidewalk
on the eastern side of Park Avenue. If a traffic impact analysis deems a decrease in level
or quality of service the recommended speed table will be installed just south of the
intersection. The applicant agrees to pay their proportionate share of the improvements.
Section 6: Building Permit
Soils disturbance in the 414 site is regulated per the Smuggler Mountain Super Fund site.
Appropriate measures will be required manage this portion of the work for the proposed
development. The application must meet American National Standards Institute,
specifically regarding accessibility, prior to Council review. The project shall be subject
to Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 26.575, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, in
place at the time of land use application submittal on October 12, 2010. Changes
subsequent to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be subject to the Code in place
at the time of proposed changes.
Section 7: Fire Mitigation
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection
District. This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire
Code 2003 Edition Section 503), Turning around of fire apparatus, depending on site
configuration (IFC Section 503.2.5), Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall
be provided (IFC as amended Section 903 and 907). Detailed wildfire mitigation plans
for both landscaping and structural standpoints shall be submitted.
Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
Section 9: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code
pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10: Transportation
The application shall be subject to the Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality
impact fees at the time of building permit.
P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 5 of 7
P 19
Section 11: Parks
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are
not approved first by the City Parks Department.
An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition, development or
access infrastructure work takes place. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu
or on site. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree
removal permit based on the landscape estimates. The building permit shall be compliant
with Aspen Municipal Code Section 13.20.
Section 12:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby
incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if
fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 13:
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 14:
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 15
day of February, 2011.
Stan Gibbs, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James R. True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
P& Z Resolution #_, Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 6 of 7
P20
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Site Plan
Exhibit B: Elevations
P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 7 of 7
P21
EXHIBIT A
Planned Unit Development
Final PUD Review Criteria
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
Chapter 26.445.050 Review Standards: Final PUD
A development application for Final PUD shall comply with the following standards and
requirements.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) are met,
but that the Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of the AACP. The
proposed development contributes to the overall goals of the comprehensive plan by locating
development within the Urban Growth Boundary, improves transit options by installing
sidewalks, is located near public transit, and adds affordable housing units to the City's
inventory; however, a deeper review of the AACP notes a philosophy that, at this time, the
project does not achieve. Specific elements of the AACP (in italics) and staff's response to the
project's compliance is noted below.
Managing Growth Chapter:
• "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary... to
ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Goal D, pg 18)
• "Foster a well- balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic
diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from
different backgrounds." (Goal E, pg 19)
Staff finds that the proposed project is located within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary.
The location in the Park Avenue/ Park Circle neighborhood at the base of Smuggler Mountain
encourages pedestrian friendly lifestyles and public transportation. The proposed mix of both
affordable housing and free market residential units meets the goals of the managing growth
section by promoting economic diversity and integrating people from different backgrounds.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 15
P22
Transportation Chapter:
• "The community seeks to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for
residents, visitors, and commuters that reduced congestion and air pollution. Walking,
Bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." (Intent, pg 21)
• "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking...by adding sidewalk
connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development
approvals, where appropriate..." (Goal C, pg 22)
• "Consider other innovative transportation modes." (Goal L, pg 23)
The applicant proposes to construct sidewalks along Park Avenue and is working with the
Engineering Department to potentially contribute money to upgrade to the Park Circle /Park
Avenue intersection. A bicycle storage area is proposed in the subgrade parking garage and the
project is located near a RFTA stop. The project is required to pay Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) fees and as such, does not propose a TDM plan at this time. As discussed
during Conceptual PUD Review and included in the approved Conceptual Resolution, 2 onsite
electric cars will be available for use by the affordable housing residents and will be stored in the
subgrade garage. While electric cars can be considered an innovative transportation mode in
some aspects, the Transportation Department voiced concern over the incentive of driving an
electric car, which receives free parking in the city, rather than taking the bus, walking or
bicycling. Overall, Staff finds that the project is consistent with the Transportation goals in the
AACP.
Housing:
• "Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed
throughout existing and new neighborhoods..." (Intent, pg 25)
• "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and
should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily
increases costs and lessens production." (Philosophy, pg 25)
• "Consideration should be given to minimize the development. footprint of all affordable
housing projects without compromising the appropriate density or the livability of the
project." (Policies, pg 26)
• "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing
affordable housing." (Goal C, pg 27)
Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the Housing Policy to minimize the development
footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the appropriate density.
However, Staff is concerned about the quality and livability of the proposed affordable housing
unit design and the overall affordable housing experience. There is a large discrepancy between
the free market residences and the affordable housing residences. For example, the affordable
housing units do not have balconies (some of the units are designed with balconettes which is
essentially a railing across a window) nor do the housing units have rooftop access while the free
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 2of15
F23
market residences have both. The affordable housing residents have access to a small patio
located in the northeast corner of the lot above the entrance ramp to the parking garage. Not
only is the location of the patio less than ideal, but the windows of an affordable housing unit
directly face the patio area which reduces the quality of the patio space and the affordable
housing unit. In terms of parking allotments, the project proposes 23 parking spaces for the
affordable housing units (including 2 stacked spaces), where 24 spaces are required (using the
calculation of "the lesser 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit "); and 29 parking spaces
(including 3 stacked spaces) for the free market residential units, where 26 spaces are required.
The minimum off - street parking standard for the affordable housing units was established as 23
parking spaces during Conceptual review, however City Council raised the proposed parking
allotment as an issue to discuss at Final Review. Staff recommends that the applicant meet the
required parking for the housing units. Staff finds that the proposal is inconsistent with aspects
of the Housing Chapter of the AACP, and recommends that the applicant continue to work on
the design to emphasize livability, quality design and quality construction for the housing units.
Design Quality
• "We favor diversity tempered by context, sometimes historical, sometimes not, as
opposed to arbitrariness. 'Context' refers first to region, then town, neighborhood, and
finally the natural and manmade features joining a particular development site.
Decisions regarding scale, massing, form, materials, texture, and color must be first
measured by context. Contextual appropriateness transcends 'style' alone.'
(Philosophy, pg 42)
• "We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and
innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by being contextually
appropriate and harmonious without being copies of that which already exists."
(Philosophy, pg 43)
Staff finds that the proposed design is inconsistent with sections of the Design Quality chapter of
the AACP. The Park Avenue neighborhood represents a diverse mix of architectural styles;
however the proposed architectural elements seem out of scale with the neighborhood. The
heavy timbers and stone combination of materials cause the building to appear massive and
heavy. Street facing doors, one story elements and other design characteristics typically reduce
the perceived scale of a building by creating a relationship between the pedestrian and smaller
scaled building elements. The proposed building does not incorporate these design strategies,
rather it includes vertical elements (i.e. three story stacked balconies, tall chimneys that extend
the height of the building, 1 '/ story high column bases, etc.) that increase the perceived height
and scale of the building. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to develop a creative
design solution that produces a more contextually appropriate and harmonious building within
the neighborhood and meets the goals of the AACP.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding The existing land in the area is primarily residential: it is zoned Residential
Multi- Family (RMF) around the proposed project and Medium Density Residential (R -6) to the
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of 15
P24
south of the proposed project. Staff finds that the proposed multi- family project is consistent
with the existing land uses. The majority of the proposed project complies with the underlying
RMF zone district with the exception of height. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The future development of the surrounding areas will not be adversely affected
by the proposed subdivision.
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: Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the applicable
requirements of Title 26.
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.
Staff Finding: The proposed project complies with the underlying Residential Multi- family
(RMF) zone district in terms of FAR, density and setbacks. The proposed height requires
variations from the underlying RMF zone district. The northeast facade of the affordable housing
building (measures 46.5'), and the elevator shafts (access to the rooftop) do not comply with the
32 foot height requirement in the RMF zone district. Upon closer inspection of the elevations, it
appears that the northwest and west facades of the free market residential building exceed the
height requirements. The northeast and the southeast elevations of the free market building do
not provide enough information to measure height accurately at this time. Staff has requested
additional information regarding the requested height variations for this project.
Staff finds that the height variation for the northeast elevation of the housing building is an
appropriate trade -off to providing adequate subgrade off - street parking for the units. Staff does
not find that it is appropriate for the free market building to receive height variations from the
RMF zone district. The proposed height is inconsistent with the neighborhood context and
development pattern.
There are two aspects to the proposed parking on this property. The Code allows
redevelopments to maintain an existing deficit of parking, explained in the parking section of the
memo, and as such the project exceeds the parking requirements. The second aspect of the
parking discussion pertains to the allotments of the spaces between the free market and the
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 15
F' 25
affordable housing and was raised by Council as an issue for Final Review discussion. Staff
recommends that the allotment of parking spaces be reconsidered to provide 1 more space to the
affordable housing and 1 less space for the free market residential to meet the minimum number
of spaces generated by the number of units/bedrooms if there was no existing deficit, and the
height of the elevator shafts, chimneys and stone caps be the minimal height required by
Building Code.
The applicant proposes the following dimensional requirements:
Table 1: RMF zone district requirements compared to proposed PUD dimensional requirments
Underlying RMF Zone FINAL PUD
District Dimensional Requirements
minimum lot size 6000 sq. ft. 32,774 sq. ft.
minimum lot area no requirement for n/a
perdwelling unit multifamily
31 units in total
maximum allowable , 14 free market residential 17 affordable
4 density= units housing units
minimum lot width 60 ft. as per PUD plat
minimum front yard, 5 ft.
setback 5 ft.
lanimuui alternate 333 ft.
front yard setback 5 ft.
minimum side yard 5 ft.
setback 5 ft.
minimum rear yard 5 ft.
setback, 5 ft.
>'maximum <site.. n / a as per PUD plat
coverage
maximum height 32 ft. as per PUD plat
no reqm't for multifamily
minimum distance (building and fire codes n/a
between buildings.;` apply)
Minimum percent n / a n/a
open space required
allowable floor area 1 25:1 1.25:1 or 40,967.5 sq. ft.
ratio
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 15
P26
An existing deficit of
52 spaces':
parking may be maintained. 29 spaces (including 3 tandem) for free market
minimum off- street 27 spaces are required. A residential units; and
parking spaces detailed explanation is 23 spaces (including 2 tandem) and 2 electric
included in the parking cars for use by the affordable housing units
section of the exhibit.
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.
b. Natural or man -made hazards.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
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 Findings: In general, the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate and
compatible with the surrounding area; however staff is concerned about the requested height
variations and the impact on the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the free market building
comply with the underlying height requirement of 32 feet.
The character of existing and expected future land uses is consistent with the proposed
development. The applicant proposes to construct a sidewalk on the property to improve the
pedestrian circulation on Park Avenue and Park Circle. The applicant submitted a traffic impact
analysis that predicts a total of 20 to 25 more vehicles per day on Park Avenue. The
Transportation Department raised questions about the traffic impact analysis report, as
mentioned in the DRC comments. The applicant agrees to pay the TDM /Air Quality fee
pursuant to Land Use Code requirements.
Overall, the number of off- street parking spaces exceeds the Code requirement; however, Staff is
concerned about the allocation of parking, which is an issue that City Council identified during
the Conceptual PUD review to resolve during Final PUD review. The Land Use Code permits a
redevelopment to maintain the existing deficit of parking. Table 2 below explains the calculation
for required parking spaces and Table 3 shows the proposed off - street parking.
The Land Use code does not count stacked or tandem spaces individually; therefore 47 parking spaces are
technically provided on the site: 21 spaces for the ah units, and 26 spaces for the free market units.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 15
P27
Table 2: Existing parking at 404 and 414 Park
< u q 7 dce ti e s: Deft& ,
414 Park Avenue 11 14 5 -9
404 Park Circle 14 22 10 -12
Total 25 36 15 -21
Table 3: Proposed off - street parking at Aspen Walk
Spaces required by
Development # of units- ' Code, (maintaining
existing deficit)
Existing 25 15
New 6 12
Total 31 Total of 27 spaces
Table 4: Proposed off - street parking at Aspen Walk vs. parking requirement if no existing deficit
Spaces proposed * *Spaces required if no existing deficit
23 AH (including 2 stacked) 24 AH
29 Free market (including 3 stacked) 28 Free Market
Total of 52 Total of 52
The proposed number of parking spaces is appropriate for the project; however staff is concerned
about the impact of the proposed allocation of parking spaces on the neighborhood and the
residents of the proposed development. The affordable housing is under - parked by 1 space, not
to mention that 2 of the affordable housing spaces are proposed for electric cars. The free market
residential units have 1 more parking space than required by Code. Staff suggests that the
applicant reconfigure the parking to meet the minimum parking requirement for the affordable
housing units. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
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 Findings: Staff finds that the proposed dimensional requirements, in terms of quantity of
open space and site coverage, are consistent with the surrounding area which features a mix of
multifamily buildings and diverse architecture. Staff recommends that the height of the free
market residential building be brought into compliance with the underlying zone district, for
reasons described above. Staff is also concerned about the configuration of the massing, the
overall design of the building and the impact of the architecture on the neighborhood experience,
as described below. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
2 Code requires the lesser of 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit - 52 required spaces: 28 spaces for free market
residential units and 24 spaces for affordable housing units
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 15
P28
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based
on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non - residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking
is proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
Staff Findings: The project is located on a RFTA bus route and is reasonable walking distance
from a bus stop (located at Centennial). The pedestrian/ biking bridge over the Roaring Fork
River that connects Park Avenue to Hopkins Avenue is in close proximity and provides direct
access to downtown. The Land Use Code requires 27 parking spaces be provided for this
residential project which recognizes the ability for a redevelopment to maintain an existing
deficit of parking. Not maintaining the existing deficit of parking, the project would be required
to provide 52 parking spaces or the lesser of 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces per unit. The project
technically proposes 52 spaces that include 2 stacked spaces for the affordable housing units and
3 stacked spaces; however the Code counts stacked spaces as 1 space. The applicant appears to
have maximized the number of spaces that could possibly fit in the proposed subgrade garage.
Staff finds that the proposed number of spaces exceeds the Code requirement and is appropriate
for those using the proposed development.
As mentioned previously, Staff is concerned about the allocation of the parking spaces between
the affordable housing units and the free market units. Staff recommends that the applicant re-
allocate the parking spaces to meet the requirement for the affordable housing units by providing
24 spaces (23 spaces are proposed) for the affordable housing units and 28 spaces (29 spaces are
proposed) for the free market residential units. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if.
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal,
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if.
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of
ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche
dangers.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 15
P29
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or
causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
6. The maximum allowable density with in 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 sites' physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be increased it:
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan or a specific area plan to
which the property is subject.
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified
in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
Staff Findings: Staff finds that the proposed density of Aspenwalk is consistent with the
underlying RMF zone district. The proposed project is located on land and in an area that is
already developed. As such, the infrastructure is sufficient for the proposed project and there are
no natural hazards or critical natural site features that would warrant a reduction of the proposed
density. Staff finds that the criteria above are met.
C. Site Design
1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, p
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: n/a. The existing buildings proposed for demolition are not local landmarks and
there are no significant features of the site that provide visual interest or reference to the past.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
Staff Finding: The proposed project is not located in a designated viewplane. The applicant
proposes two detached buildings to break up the mass of the project with a courtyard between the
buildings. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 15
P30
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 lot is located on a peninsula with three street - facing sides; Park Avenue,
Park Circle, and Midland Avenue, as shown below. The proposed buildings are appropriately
oriented toward the street. The building provides a number of decks along the street to
contribute towards visual interest; however, entries are discreet and could be developed to create
a greater street presence. Adding one story elements to relate to pedestrian scale would
contribute to visual interest of pedestrian movement better relate to the pedestrian experience.
Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff Finding: Staff finds that this criterion is met. The Fire Marshal reviewed the proposal and
included requirements for building permit in the DRC comments.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access if provided.
Staff Finding: Staff understands that the applicant is revising the proposed floor plans to
provide adequate handicapped access to the buildings to meet this criterion.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Finding: The applicant represents that the project will meet storm water drainage
requirements and has provided a preliminary site drainage analysis in the application.
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Staff Finding: n/a.
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:
I. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of
ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding: The applicant included a proposed landscape plan in the application. The
proposed planting and landscape is appropriate for the neighborhood and the proposed project.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 10 of 15
P31
The Parks Department's comments on the proposed landscaping, tree removal and proposed
street trees in the right of way are included in the DRC comments. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding: n/a. No significant natural or man -made features have been identified on this
site.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is
appropriate.
Staff Finding: The applicant is working with the Parks Department to comply with this
standard. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to
existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for
and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby
historical and cultural resources.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes large timber beams with oversized stone column bases,
stone wainscoting around the first floor of the building and horizontal wood siding for the upper
floors. This type of architectural character, sometimes referred to as Mountain Contemporary
style, is typically found in mountain resort towns and is applied to large lodges and large single
family residences. The placement and combination of heavy materials and the absence of
architectural elements that break up the mass creates the impression that the two and a half story
proposed building is monolithic, heavier and larger than it actually is. Staff finds that the
proposed architectural character does not convey the feel of a multifamily building in Aspen.
Staff recommends that the applicant restudy the application of the proposed materials and add
architectural elements that strategically reduce the perceived size of the building and better relate
to the residential neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of
the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive
mechanical systems.
Staff Finding: The proposed buildings are oriented to the best extent practical for solar gain.
Some of the free market residential units have balconies that will provide shade from the sun.
The applicant does not specify the type of mechanical systems proposed for the project. The
application mentions the possibility of solar arrays and /or green roof technology but these
elements are not specified. Staff finds that the criterion is met with the orientation of the
building. Staff encourages the applicant to look into providing balconies for the affordable
housing units where possible and to continue to look at the possibility of green roof technology
for this project.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 11 of 15
P32
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: The applicant has not provided a detailed plan for snow shedding and removal.
The application indicates that snow storage will be provided in the landscape areas and will be
directed away from pedestrian ways. Staff requests that the applicant provide a detailed snow
shedding and removal plan at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to demonstrate
compliance with this criterion.
F. Lighting.
I. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted
in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic
concerns.
2. 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 Findings: The application states that the project will comply with the lighting
requirements listed in Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. A detailed lighting plan was
not submitted with the application. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a detailed
lighting plan at the Planning and Zoning Commission to demonstrate compliance with the
criteria.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the
mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit
of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded
in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the
PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
Staff Findings: There are no common spaces proposed as part of this application.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 12 of 15
P33
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden
on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified
financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development
shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
Staff Findings: The project site is already developed and as such is already served by municipal
water and sanitary sewers. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the
necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Findings: The application includes a traffic impact analysis that determines a minimal
impact on public streets. The applicant proposes to construct sidewalks and curb and gutter to
meet Engineering standards. The Sanitation District has indicated potential sanitary sewer
capacity improvement may be necessary and the Engineering Department identified
improvements to the Park Avenue /Park Circle intersection. The applicant agrees to pay a
proportionate share of these necessary improvements.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately
and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement.
Staff Findings: The application states that it will comply with required Engineering, ACSD,
and Utilities Standards. The Engineering Department requested a more detailed survey that
depicts easements, major utilities, topography and planned improvements on the site prior to the
City Council meetings to determine appropriate site drainage and intersection alignment.
1. 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:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public
street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other
area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding: The lot and associate structures are located on Park Circle and Park Avenue.
There is adequate access to public streets, and a new sidewalk is proposed as part of this project
to improve the current pedestrian way. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 13 of 15
P34
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 location of the parking garage ramp is adequate and should not
create traffic congestion. The application includes a traffic analysis for the proposed project that
concludes a minimal impact on the surrounding roads. The Transportation Department raised
some concerns regarding assumptions in the study, but agrees that the applicant is paying the
required TDM /Air Quality fee to mitigate for traffic impacts.
Currently, the existing buildings have haphazard on- street, off - street parking arrangements that
cause pedestrian and traffic issues. The applicant proposes a subgrade parking garage to clean up
the existing condition and to provide off - street parking for residents; however the parking for the
affordable housing units does not meet the minimum parking requirement. Staff believes that the
amount of parking provided for the affordable housing units may create overflow into the
surrounding neighborhoods. Staff does find this criterion met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections
to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public
lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are
proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
Staff Finding: The proposed development will not require any trail easements. Staff finds this
criterion to be met
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: The Applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks along the property but there are
no specific trails or paths that are required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
S. 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: There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review Criteria
Page 14 of 15
P35
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criterion is to ensure partially property co leted projects do not create an
un burden on the public or surrounding owners and impacts of an
each phase phase are shall be defined the adopted development plan is proposed,
ed final PUD development plan.
: The development is represents nts that all aspects of the project
wi be developed conc one p hase. The applicant
un'ently.
e
Exhibit A — Final PUD Review e S 15
P36
EXHIBIT B
SUBDIVISION
Chapter 26.480, SUBDIVISION
Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements
L The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
Staff Finding:
Staff addresses these criteria in Exhibit A, PUD Review. In summary, Staff finds that
aspects of the AACP are not met in the overall proposal, specifically the goals listed in the
Housing and the Design Quality Chapters. Staff finds that the proposed development is
consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the area and will not adversely affect
the future development of the area. The proposed development requires affordable housing
allotments, which are unlimited. The project requests GMQS review concurrent with final
PUD review.
B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision
a. 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 proposed project is a scrape and replace. As such, Staff finds that the
land is suitable for development and that this criterion is met.
b. 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: The proposed subdivision is located in a developed neighborhood where
utilities and public facilities already exist. The applicant represents that utility extension are
not be required. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 1 of 2
P37
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:
1. 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.
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: The applicant represents that this standard is met and does not request any
variations.
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: Staff finds that the applicant meets the affordable housing mitigation
requirements, as explained in Exhibit C. The applicant proposes to mitigate both on and off -
site, through off -site housing or the purchase of housing credits. Staff finds that this criterion
is met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards
set forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding: The applicant agrees to comply with the School Land Dedication Standards
in Chapter 26.630. Staff finds this criterion is met.
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)
Staff Finding: The proposed project only requires growth management allotments for
affordable housing units, which is unlimited. The project requires growth management
approval for multi - family replacement for the demolition of both free market residential units
and affordable housing units, and approval for the development of affordable housing units.
The application requests Growth Management approvals as part of the review at the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Please refer to Exhibit C for the review standards.
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 2 of 2
P38
Exhibit C
Growth Management Quota System
26.470.050 General requirements.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
a. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to
meet this standard.
Staff Response: There are no free market residential allotments required for this project and
there are an unlimited number of affordable housing allotments. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
b. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the development is consistent with many aspects of the AACP,
however the proposal is inconsistent with the Housing and Design Quality chapters of the
AACP. Please refer to Exhibit A for a detailed discussion.
c. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The development is located in Residential Multi- Family Zone District with a
PUD overlay. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
d. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Response: The proposed development is generally consistent with the Conceptual PUD
approval, City Council Resolution numbered 74, Series of 2008.
e. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent of the employees generated by
the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.a,
Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.
The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540,
Exhibit C — GMQS Review Criteria
Page 1 of 6
P39
such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for
Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
f Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to
at least thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free- market residential net livable area,
for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin county
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are
being provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units may be deed restricted at any
level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540,
such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for
Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section
26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
g. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking and road transit services.
Staff Response: The project proposes to mitigate any additional demand on public
infrastructure as outlined in Exhibit B, Final PUD review criteria. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
26.470.070.5 Demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing
1. Requirements for the combining, demolishing, 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-family
residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of
local working residents, no net loss off 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 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
Exhibit C — GMQS Review Criteria
Page 2 of 6
P40
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 a multi family or mixed -use
development.
Staff Response: City Council Resolution numbered 74, Series of 2008, granted conceptual PUD
approval for the development of 18 affordable housing units, 14 free market units and 100%
replacement of the existing free market units. For the 100% replacement option, the applicant is
required to provide 14 affordable housing units, 25 bedrooms, and at least 9,300 square feet of
net livable area. Table 1 below illustrates the existing configuration, the requirement and the
proposed configuration. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the proposed housing. The
units are proposed to be deed restricted, for sale, and a mix of Category 2 and 4. Staff finds that
the applicant meets the 100% replacement requirement.
Table 1: Existing vs. Proposed configuration to meet 100% replacement
Requirement Existing Required Proposed
Configuration Configuration Configuration
# of units 14 14 17
# of bedrooms 25 25 25
net leasable area (sq. ft.) 9,300 9,300 12,032
The existing free market units are substandard in comparison to the current affordable housing
requirements for unit size, which accounts for the discrepancy between the net leasable area of
the existing configuration and the proposed configuration.
Table 2: Breakdown of net livable square feet per unit and types of units proposed
STUDIO r, 111DRM 2BD101 31313RM Total #
(1.25 (1,75:FTEs)' . I (2.25 F'f.1ts)'= (3 FTEs) of units
1 unit- 501 sq. 1 units- 705 sq. 2 units- 850 and 851 1 units- 1,109 sq.
garden level ft. net ft. net sq. ft. net ft. net 5
2 units - 500 2 units- 601 2 units- 850 and 851
second level and 501 sq. ft. and 705 sq. ft. 0 6
net net sq. ft. net
2 units- 500 2 units- 601 2 units- 850 and 851
third level and 501 sq. ft. and 705 sq. ft. sq. ft. net 0 6
net net
Total net 2,503 3,317 5,103 1,109 12,032
livable sq. ft.
Exhibit C — GMQS Review Criteria
Page 3 of 6
P41
2. Requirements for demolishing affordable multi family housing units: In the event a project
proposed to demolish or replace existing deed - restricted affordable housing units, the
redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms or net livable area
such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units.
The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms and category of the units shall
be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded
to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff Response: In addition to mitigating for the demolished free market component noted
above, the project is required to mitigate for the demolished affordable housing units. The
Conceptual PUD Resolution adopted by City Council stated that a total of 17.5 employees were
housed in the existing affordable housing unit; therefore, the applicant must mitigation for a total
of 17.5 FTEs to meet this requirement. The concept of off -site housing to meet the housing
mitigation was discussed during the Conceptual PUD hearings and included in the adopted
Council Resolution as follows: "additional affordable housing associated with the project beyond
the eighteen affordable housing units proposed on -site may be provided off site." The applicant
proposes to purchase affordable housing credits equal to 17.5 FTEs to satisfy the requirement,
but may pursue off -site housing mitigation in lieu of the credits. Staff finds this standard to be
met and included conditions in draft resolution stating that affordable housing credits are
required to be extinguished prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. In the
case of off -site housing, staff included language in the draft resolution that requires a
development order for the off -site housing is granted prior to the issuance of a demolition permit
for the project, and a deed restriction be recorded prior to granting a certificate of occupancy for
the Aspenwalk project.
26.470.070.4 Affordable Housing
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.
Staff Response: The Housing Board, as co- applicant for the project, is fully supportive of the
project. Concern over the proposed Category 2 and 4 unit configurations related to community
demand was raised during the board meeting. The Board asked the applicant to continue to work
on the proposed Category and bedroom counts to ensure successful sales.
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 full
unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission
upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the
Exhibit C — GMQS Review Criteria
Page 4 of 6
P42
mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require
City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval
of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.560.080
Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided
through a mix of these methods.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing a mix of on -site affordable housing units to mitigate
for the free market multi - family replacement component of the project, and either the purchase
of Affordable Housing Credits or off -site housing to mitigation for the affordable housing
replacement component of the project. Staff finds that this requirement is met.
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 Response: The project proposes garden level affordable housing units that are 2 or 3 feet
below grade, and therefore the net livable area is Tess than 50% above natural or finished grade.
A code amendment to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to vary this dimensional
standard is in the review process. The code amendment requires that the affordable housing
units meet specific criteria to ensure that there is a balance between the livability of the unit and
the amount that a unit is permitted to be subgrade. The review criteria proposed in the code
amendment (in italics) and the staff response is below:
Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a special review is conducted to
reduce the required percentage that the _finished ,floor level of the unit's net
livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a
recommendation from the Housing Board and all of the following criteria shall be
met:
1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner which
exceeds the expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, and promotes the unit's general livability by exceeding
minimum requirements of two or more of the following conditions:
a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit.
b. Above average natural light, such as adding more windows than
the Building Code requires.
c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement.
d. Site amenities, such as access to outdoor space, private patios or
balconies, carshare memberships.
e. Energy efficient units, such as solar panels, energy star rated
appliances, or insulation.
Staff response: Staff finds that the additional storage proposed above the
assigned parking spaces in the garage meets criteria 1.a, and that the proposed
electric vehicles for use by the housing residents meet criteria 1.d. The proposed
units are 2 to 3 feet below grade and have large windows with adequate natural
Exhibit C — GMQS Review Criteria
Page 5 of 6
P43
light. Staff finds that the proposed criteria are met to vary the dimensional
requirement that 501/4 of the unit's net livable is above natural or finished grade.
2. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that meets
the following criteria:
a. Compatibility with the character of the neighborhood.
b. Design is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such
as topography.
Staff response: Staff finds that the design of the housing units is an appropriate
response to the slope of the topography. Staff finds that overall the proposed
units are compatible with the character of the neighborhood; however, Staff is
concerned about the proposed architectural details and the massing of the project,
as explained in detail in Exhibit A.
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 restrictions 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 by 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.
Unites 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.
Staffse. The proposed units comply with this standard.
e. Non - Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required
for mitigation, but meet the requirement of Section 26.470.070.4(a —d). Me owner of
such non - mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate o Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff R e: Not applicable
Exhibit C — GMQS Review Criteria
Page 6 of 6
P44
Exhibit D
Residential Design Standard variances
The Residential Design Standard variances requested for this project are below (D.1, D.la, D. lb,
D. l c, and D.2:
D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards 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 26.410.010.B.4
shall have a street- oriented entrance and a street r t ! 1 ! !
facing principal window. Multi - family units shall I
III
have at least one (1) street- oriented entrance for i i i i i i i
every four (4) units and front units must have a Conceals i ' I
l i! I
street facing a principal window.
i l 1 i i i i i
On corner lots, entries and principal windows 'Y Block Length
should face whichever street has a greater block
length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the
following conditions are met: "R.
-
a. The entry door shall face the street and be no C
more than ten (10) feet back from the front -most Q
wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be
01.#41% I IIIE tl
taller than eight (8) feet. s +c elf \tll
b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square 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.
c. A street facing principal window requires
that a significant window or group of L ill11 III1 [ ®j Prue
8' ^T P
windows face street. one Story :i III �I 1� 11 4--- Window
Element's = ®) I Ei ii
anti
2. 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
Exhibit D — Residential Design Standard Variances
Page 1 of 4
P45
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.
26.410.020. Procedures for review.
D.2.Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not
meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board
of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the
requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other
requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of
Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance
application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use
application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design
Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if
granted would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular 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 board feels is necessary
to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific
constraints. (Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20 -2005, § 1)
Staff Response: The proposed buildings lack a first story element and street facing entrances
that comply with the standards above. The proposed project is entirely new construction and as
such, Staff finds that the design can reasonably comply with the Residential Design Standards.
As proposed, there are 2 street facing entrances on the free market building. The Affordable
Housing building is accessed from the courtyard between the two buildings. The addition of
street oriented entrances on both buildings and incorporating one story elements or front porches
contributes to the pedestrian experience along Park Avenue and within the neighborhood.
Exhibit D — Residential Design Standard Variances
Page 2 of 4
11
P46
ter . 1 ` , , '
' �'
- -^ ,ate
_ .1 ri„ , _
k. ?:-' LA
1 „,,
-A - 4;""' 0, ....,__
l Li ; !
e AH entrance Street facing - - Note the three
- through g
courtyard on entrance #1 story stacked
left porches on the
free market and
AH buildings.
�
1
h> a
�.. .� ......}...02A 1 r�.
'l - 1 , --
1
�� • sib
li ` _ i
St facing z . '
I!
....11h
entrance #1
'i
Street facing
entrance #2
Staff finds that the review criteria for granting a variance are not met. The proposed design is
not appropriate for the context of the neighborhood, which is extremely varied, and there are no
unusual site - specific constraints. There are a variety of multi - family, single family and duplex
buildings in the vicinity that appear to be primarily from the 70s or 80s. Many of the multi-
family buildings are oriented perpendicular to the street and, as such, do not have street oriented
entrances or first story elements; however the proposed Aspen Walk building is new construction
that is oriented to the street. A few examples of the buildings in the vicinity of AspenWalk are
below:
Exhibit D — Residential Design Standard Variances
Page 3 of 4
P47
1
I*
, . IT- -;-. Ill: 0-{-1--"*C7-1- , _ /
=
_.., — ..... __.
w t i
407 Park Avenue, street oriented entrance. 403 Park Avenue, perpendicular to the street, note
the impact of not having a street oriented entrance.
Staff strongly recommends that the applicant redesign the front elevations to bring the buildings
closer to compliance with Design Standards by incorporating more street oriented entrances and
one story elements to create a positive pedestrian experience and to break up the perceived mass
of the building.
Exhibit D — Residential Design Standard Variances
Page 4 of 4
P48
Aspen Walk, Final PUD
DRC comments
01/03/2011
Building Department:
Contact: Denis Murray, Plans Examination Manager, 970/429 -2761
We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as
currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Departments /Community - Development /Bui (ding/
http : / /www.aspenpitkin.com/Portal s/0 /docs/ City /clerk/municode /coaspent08.pdf
The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concerns that may
require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a
meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at
denism@ci.aspen.co.us or call at 970 - 429 -2761.
1. The plan review of these conceptual plans is very preliminary. The plans lack detail to a
degree where plan review is difficult to provide exact comments.
2. Soils disturbance in the 414 site is regulated per the Smuggler Mountain Super Fund site.
Appropriate measures will be required manage this portion of the work for the proposed
development.
3. The Building dept is planning a code adoption to the 2009 International codes. We have
already adopted the 2009 IECC.
4. We have questions in regards to:
a. The exiting from individual stories and units.
b. Accessibility to the site and units.
c. Building type of construction.
d. Openings and fire resistive construction
e. The site plans indicate a property line through the structures.
5. We suggest a meeting with the Architect and Building department as early as possible to
review the plans and code analysis.
Aspen Fire Protection District:
Contact: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal 970- 920 -6538
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but is not limited to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2003 Edition
Section 503), Turning around of fire apparatus, depending on site configuration (IFC Section
503.2.5), Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be provided (IFC as amended
Section 903 and 907). Detailed wildfire mitigation plans for both landscaping and structural
standpoints shall be submitted. Please have the applicant contact the Fire Marshal's Office for
specifications on the above requirements.
•
Exhibit E — DRC Comments
Page 1 of 6
P49
Transportation Department:
Contact: Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Programs Manager 970/ 920 -5038
REGULATORY COMMENTS:
1. The project will provide TDM /Air Quality Fees as required by the Land Use Code, Section
26.610.090 Current Impact Fees. The applicant shows fees of $ 11,454 in its application.
COURTESY COMMENTS:
1. The Transportation Department would like some clarification regarding the inclusion on two
electric vehicles in the conceptual PUD approval granted in 2008 for use by the residents of the
affordable housing units. Was this condition related to parking or trip generation by the
project? The Transportation Department is concerned that the electric cars on site may
encourage vehicle trips, especially if they are available for free use with the free parking in town.
2. The Transportation Department staff appreciates the letter -report generated by Felsburg Holt &
Ullevig (FHU) in the application. Can FHU provide any more detail as to why a 30% trip
reduction was applied to the ITE rates of 50 -60 trips per day? Also, could FHU provide some
more data to support the 60/40 directional distribution of traffic on Park Avenue and King /Neale
Street?
3. With existing traffic of 800 vehicles a day on Park Avenue, the estimated 20 -25 additional trips
per day may not provide much impact to an already busy street. The Transportation
Department always encourages applicants to try to mitigate any additional trips generated by
their project so that the community can meet its goals as stated in the 2000 AACP including:
reducing the flow of traffic within Aspen, limiting traffic on Highway 82 to 1993 volumes, reduce
the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area, and to provide a range of transportation
management tools and techniques to reduce single occupant vehicle use.
4. Could FHU provide the Level of Service (LOS) of the Park Avenue and SH 82 intersection at 800
vehicles a day and with the additional trips?
5. As a possible trip management tool. The Transportation Department would like to see the
applicant provide free trial memberships to CAR TO GO car share program to residents when
they move in.
6. The Transportation Department would also suggest that the project participate in bus stop
improvements to offset the increased ridership at this location. This could include a bench and
trash receptacle.
Parking:
Contact: Rich Ryan, Lead Parking Control Officer 970/ 429 -1764
Aspen Walk looks like a well planned and attractive development. It was good to see the on -site
parking spaces in the plan. The application states "full accommodation of parking requirements
met ". This may be true; however, going from 27 bedrooms to 70 bedrooms will result in more
Exhibit E — DRC Comments
Page 2 of 6
P50
vehicles forced on street, even with the garage parking, with literally no parking spaces available
in this area.
The 52 on -site spaces will, for all intent and purposes, be the only parking available for
residences of this development. The existing 21 on- street parking spaces noted within the
application are currently on Public Right Of Way which will no longer be available when the
project is complete.
Of even greater concern will be meeting the space requirements for equipment, materials and
staging areas during demolition and construction.
Park Ave and Park Circle are on the Hunter Creek bus route. No illegal parking or staging will
be tolerated on these streets, Perhaps some arrangement can be made with the Midland Park
Condo Assoc. for use of adjacent property on the south side of existing structure.
Due to the lack of parking availability in the immediate area, I would suggest utilizing a shuttle
service from the Brush Creek Intercept lot for workers which do not need their vehicles on site.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District:
Contact: Tom Bracewell
ACSD Requirements- Aspenwalk — 404/414 Park Circle
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
The old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are
attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where
more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Exhibit E — DRC Comments
Page 3 of 6
P51
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans
will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or
easements to be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a demo /infrastructure or
foundation permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans
have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve
capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional
proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment
capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all
development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building
stubouts prior to building permit.
The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to
any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have
approved containment facilities.
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet
vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
Engineering Department:
Contact: Tyler Christoff, Project Manager 970/544 -3143
Detailed Site /Grading /Landscape Plan
Engineering Department would request a more detailed survey showing existing easements,
major utilities, and an accurate depiction of topography and planed improvements on the site.
Notes on the existing site conditions survey that relate to a vacation of property should be
removed.
Park Avenue/Park Circle Intersection Alignment
The alignment of the Park Ave & Park Circle intersection needs to be consistent with the Park
Avenue Pedestrian Plan, prepared in conjunction with City staff by JR Engineering. This
includes a shift in current roadway alignment as well as the installation of sidewalk on the
eastern side of Park Avenue. If a traffic impact analysis deems a decrease in level or quality of
service the recommended speed table will be installed just south of the intersection.
Stormwater System Development Fee
Due to increase of impervious area on site the Stormwater System Development fee will be
triggered during plan review. The Stormwater system development fee is applied to projects that
create or disturb more than 500 square feet of impervious area. The fee is $2.88 per square foot
of total impervious area on the site and is calculated and applied during building permit review.
Exhibit E — DRC Comments
Page 4 of 6
P52
A comprehensive drainage plan is required upon submittal of Building permit. Stormwater from
impervious surfaces shall be detained on site.
Engineering Standards
Owner shall comply with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all
construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department.
Construction Management Plan
A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit
application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes
construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging /encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution.
Detailed plans are required prior to council — please see engineering department for specific
details.
Parks Department:
Contact: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager 970/429 -2035
Parks Department Approval Requirements:
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements,
Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by
the City Parks Department. Final plans shall show compliance with these requirements by way
of new street trees, irrigation, locations, tree trench preparation and designs will be subject to
approval from the City Forester, 920 -5120. A plan is required for review and approval. ROW
requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, if a system is not in place one
will need to be added. Street trees shall be planted 18 feet on center.
An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition, development or access
infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920 -5120. Mitigation for
removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. Per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final
landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates.
A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or
groupings of trees on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee
(920 -5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of
materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed
within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing
denoted on the plan. Per City Code 13.20.
Utilities Department:
Contact: Andy Rossello, Utilities Engineer 970/429 -1999
Exhibit E — DRC Comments
Page 5 of 6
p53
Utilities doesn't really have any comments at this stage in design, once all internal design is
complete we should be able to work towards calculating permitting and tap fees. At this level of
design, water and Electric Service Have an Ability to serve this development since their utility
plans seem to be Schematic at this point Utilities don't really have additional comments until we
receive full Utility plans submitted directly to the water department for review as is required by
our Standards.
Exhibit E — DRC Comments
Page 6 of 6
P54
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sara Adams, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Department
DATE: February 3, 2011
RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE
ISSUE: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) and PFG AspenWalk, LLC
have entered into negotiations to create a new partnership agreement to redevelop 414 Park
Circle and 404 Park Avenue.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Board reviewed the Final PUD Application at their regular
meeting held February 2, 2011. The Board approves of the new design and mix of units, but still
wants to work with AspenWalk regarding the categories of the units. The current design of the
project was approved by the Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board recommends approval of the project overall with
the ability to modify certain aspects of the development; e.g, categories, additional common area,
etc.
•
Code Amendment Approval Page 1
F P55
RESOLUTION NO. 74
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH CONDITIONS FOR ASPEN
WALK, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 AND 5, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID:
2737- 074 -04 -705
2737 - 0741 -04 -701
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority represented by Stan
Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD); and,
WHEREAS, an application was submitted to consider both Lots 3 and 5 of the Sunny
Park Subdivision as one site to be redeveloped with a multi - family structure containing twenty -
five (25) affordable housing units and fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the application requested that the PUD's dimensional standards meet the
underlying zone district standards of the Residential Multi - Family (RMF) zone district with the
exception of Maximum Height, Maximum Allowable Floor Area, Minimum Setback and
Minimum Off - Street Parking; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee
meeting; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD
approval may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public
hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and
relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on April 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the
public hearing to May 20, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the
public hearing on Aspen Walk, reviewed the proposed changes of the project and design which
included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and twenty -four (24) affordable housing units
Page 1 of 6
P56
and recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application
by a four to two (4 -2) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD
approval may be reviewed by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Community Development Director, Planning and Zoning Commission
and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on August 11, 2008, the City Council opened a
duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and,
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2008, the City Council at a public hearing on Aspen Walk,
reviewed the project and design which included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and
twenty -four (24) affordable housing units and continued the hearing to August 25, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2008, at a continued public hearing the City Council
considered the application and upon the applicants' request continued the public hearing to
September 29, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, prior to the September 29 hearing date, legal charges were filed against
Mr. Thomas Petters and Mr. James Wehmhoff who have an ownership interest in PFG Aspen
Walk, LLC creating concem over potential financial and legal risks associated with the project;
and,
WHEREAS, on September 29 hearing the Applicants presented an amended
application which included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and eighteen (18) affordable
housing units and requesting a variation of the allowable Floor Area Ratio to 1.28:1; and,
WHEREAS, the September 29 hearing was continued to October 14 and then to
October 27 and,
WHEREAS, at the October 27 hearing City Council considered the amended proposal
and approved the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application by a four to zero (4 -0) vote,
with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval, granted by City Council, shall only grant the
ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD and the proposed development is further subject
to Final PUD review as well as additional relevant land use review approval pursuant to the
Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the development review standards for Conceptual
PUD have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen City Council approves the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the project known as Aspen Walk, subject to the
conditions listed in Section 1 below.
Page 2 of 6
P57
Section 1:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
A. The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the
Commission and City Council, allowing for the development of eighteen (18) affordable
housing units and fourteen (14) market rate units on the site. Additionally, the Final PUD
may be submitted with the following dimensional standards as requested in the
application:
1) The Maximum Allowable Floor Area shall be no greater than 40,968 sq. ft. or a Floor
Area Ratio of 1.28:1.
2) The Maximum Allowable Height shall be no greater than 32 (excepting elevator shafts)
feet as outlined in the application.
3) The Minimum Off - Street Parking standard for the affordable housing units shall be 23
spaces for the 18 affordable housing units and the Applicants will provide two electric
vehicles for the use of the residents of the affordable housing.
B. The Final PUD's design shall be in substantial compliance with the conceptual PUD,
inclusive of the proposal of two structures and a shared underground parking facility.
C. The Final PUD application shall include:
1) An application for Final PUD application and the proposed development is further
subject to Final PUD review as well as associated land use review approvals pursuant
to the Municipal Code. A pre - application conference with a member of the Community
Development Department is required prior to submitting an application.
2) Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD.
D. Prior to the issuance of Final PUD approval by the City Council, the Applicants shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City: (1) the elimination of Thomas J. Petters and
James Whemhoff from any project ownership or involvement; and (2) the project is in no
way subject to any closing liability or other legal or financial risks arising from the
foregoing concems over potential financial and legal risks associated with the project.
E. Prior to the issuance of Final PUD approval by the City Council, the Applicants shall
provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Attorney of the availability of sufficient
financing to pay the total cost and completion of the project. Prior to issuance of any
building permits and closing of the 414 Park Circle land purchase, Applicant shall provide
evidence that sufficient financing is in place to pay the total cost and completion of the
project. This may include, but is not limited to, a financing commitment, a general contract,
letters of credit, escrow money or completion bonds, as determined by the City Attorney in
his sole discretion.
F. Conceptual Approval is explicitly conditioned upon receipt by City Council of a letter of
opinion from an expert on receivership and related proceedings; said expert to be of
Page 3 of 6
P58
Council's choice and paid for by the applicant. Further, Council may, at its sole
discretion upon review of expert opinion of the financial state of this application
including but not limited to the disposition of this property, withdraw their approval.
Section 2: Building
The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building
permit is submitted. Clarification and code compliance on the shared property line, exiting from
the basement garage, exiting from the market rate units, exiting from each story, elevator
openings, accessible parking spaces, accessible entries, and the 2003 Efficient Building Program
is required.
Section 3: Engineering
Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21
and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department.
Resolution of the proposed land swap (approximately 618 sq. ft. of public right of way for a
certain amount of private property) shall be resolved prior to Final PUD application. Storm water
drainage fees may be applicable to this development proposal.
In order to achieve the ROW swap and accomplish the pedestrian connectivity and appropriate
traffic calming for the project, the alignment of Park Ave & Park Circle intersection needs to be
consistent with the Park Avenue Pedestrian and Transportation Plan. This includes shifting the
roadway and installing sidewalk on the east side of Park Ave. It also includes a speed table and
associated crosswalk just south of the intersection. A traffic impact analysis will be required for
the project.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
Provision of affordable housing shall provide 100% replacement (Subsection 26.470.070 5.1.a.)
for the existing free market units. Additional affordable housing associated with the project
beyond the eighteen affordable housing units proposed on -site may be provided off -site. The
existing affordable housing units to be demolished have been determined to house 17.5
employees.
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
Page 4 of 6
P59
Section 8: Environmental Health
The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos.
Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a
prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement
and pool designs.
Section 9: Exterior Llehtingg
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 10: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees
The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of
building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 11: Parks
A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. Final
layout of the plantings within the public right -of -way require Park Department approval and
shall meet the comments from the Parks Department during the Development Review Committee
meeting.
Section 12:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 13:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the City Council at a regular meeting on October 27, 2008.
Attest:
, / IL / Og
Kathryn och, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayo
Approved as to form:
/WWI
Ci • Atto ' ey
Page 5 of 6
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC
r. landscape architecture . planning. resort design
422 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 82622 t. 970/925-2323 f.970/920 -1628
info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com
18 January 2011
Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3ro Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Request for Administrative Variances / AspenWalk/Aspen Pitldn County Housina
Authority
Dear Sara:
On behalf of our clients, please accept this request for two (2) administrative variances from
the residential design standards for the proposed AspenWalk planned unit development
located at 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle. The two (2) requests for administrative
variance involve code sections 26.410.040 (D) (1) and 26.410040(D) (2). The request for two (2)
variances fulfills the requirement for administrative variances that no more than three (3) of
the individual requirements of the guidelines can be requested to be varied.
Sec. 26.410.040(D) (1) states that 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
principal window." Currently, all front units have a street facing principal window. The
proposed building provides two (2) entrances that are directly accessed off of Park
Avenue and Park Circle respectively and two (2) entrances that are accessed off of
the courtyard which sits between the free - market and affordable housing buildings.
These third and fourth entrances, with one serving the free - market units and one
serving the affordable housing units, are located a short distance off of Park Circle
and are accessed by a common walk which lies immediately off of the sidewalk
along Park Circle. Additional non - street- facing entrances are located elsewhere in
the building.
All street facing units contain a patio, which serves as the first story element, and
which is accessed from the interiors of the units by a sliding glass door. While this is not
intended as a primary access point for the residents of the free - market units, this does
allow limited ingress /egress from the first story units to /from Park Circle and Park
Avenue. This configuration of the street facing patios and windows provides a very
strong street orientation for the proposed development.
Due to certain site constraints and the stacked configuration of the thirty -two (32)
units, which is required to provide 100% replacement of the affordable units onsite,
having an entrance for every four (4) units would result in an inefficient design, create
an aesthetically distracting form, and detract from the design vernacular of the
surrounding neighborhood. The building has been designed with sufficient means of
ingress and egress for both normal use and in the event of emergencies.
sac P61
k Sara Adams, Senior Planner
Request for Design Standards Variance / AspenWalk
18 January 2011
Via, *
\� .
It is requested that a Design Standards variance be granted from the requirement for
a street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and that the proposed
configuration which provides two (2) street-oriented entrances immediately off of Park
Circle and Park Avenue and a third and forth entrance located a short distance off of
the sidewalk along Park Circle be permitted.
• Sec. 26.410.040(D) (2) states that all residential buildings must 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." The requirement continues, stating that a "first
story element may be a porch or a 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 fagade
shall not be precluded."
As we have indicated above, the proposed development has been designed with
first story street- facing elements in the form of patios. These patios comprise at least
twenty- percent (20%) of the buildings overall width and the depth of these patios are
least six (6) feet from the wall the element projects from.
Due to the various site constraints and the stacked configuration of the units, and in
i order to provide free - market units whose design is consistent with adjacent free-
) market structures, accessible space in the form of balconies are requested to be
) provided over the first story element.
- I t is requested that a variance be granted from the requirement prohibiting accessible
space over the first story element, thereby permitting the current configuration which
provides balconies over the first story element be permitted.
We will be glad to provide additional materials as necessary to assist in the administrative
review of these variance requests.
Please call me with any questions.
Very truly ours,
40 ek ------
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC RECEIVED
landscape architecture. planning. resort design
� -. 9 O),
g U
JAN 412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t 970/925-2323 1 970/920 -1628
CITY ` 8 C
info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com
COMMUNITY DE VEL OP E
28 January 2011
Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Supplemental Information / AspenWalk/Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Dear Sara:
On behalf of our clients and in connection with the Final PUD application for AspenWalk,
please accept the enclosed supplemental information which is submitted in response to your
email sent to this office on 25 January 2011. The materials enclosed are as follows:
• Two (2) sets of 24x36 and ten (10) sets of 11x17 plans, including:
o Sheet A8.0, AH Unit A
o Sheet A8.1, AH Unit B
o Sheet A8.2, AH Unit C
o Sheet A8.3, AK Unit D
o Sheet A8.4, AH Unit E
o Sheet A8.5, AH Unit F
o Sheet A8.6, AH Unit G
o Sheet A4.0, Roof Plan and
• Ten (10) sets of 8.5x11 Garage Storage Unit, Typical Elevation and Typical Section.
Please find below responses to the specific questions you asked in your email on the 25
1. Are you going to provide floor plans with windows delineated to help show the livability of the ah units
in particular?
The enclosed individual floor plans for the AH units have been provided to show the
locations of windows in the units which will provide a high degree of livability to the
residents.
2. Are you going to submit a rooftop plan that delineates the areas above the height limit?
The enclosed roof plan illustrates, through the use of shading, the various roof
elements that are over the height limit. These elements relate to the stairwell and
elevator access to the rooftop.
3- It looks like you need a height variance on the northeast elevation to accommodate the parking ramp.
We measure height from finished grade or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive. The height
measurement will be taken from the floor of the ramp to the top or midpoint of the roof depending on
P63
111 " Sara Adams, Senior Planner
Supplemental Information / AspenWalk
28 January 2011
the roof pitch of that elevation. This isn't a big deal since it is already going through PUD review — I
just need to make sure that my memo explains all of the changes from the RIM zone district
Pursuant to staff memorandum dated 20 May 2008, page 27, a maximum height of 43
feet rather than 32 feet was allowed to "accommodate the access point for the sub
grade parking." Based on this statement made in the staff memo, we do not believe
that it will be necessary to request a height variance on the northeast elevation.
Please contact us to discuss further, if necessary.
4. Did you figure out the use of the stone caps on the rooftop? And the shed roof forms on the rooftop that
show up in the elevations?
The stone caps on the rooftop are associated with the elevator cores. The stone caps
as shown is a trim piece around the perimeter and not a full cap.
The shed roof forms on the rooftop are associated with the stair cores that provide
access to the rooftop deck.
5. You mentioned providing storage above the parking spaces in the basement — are you planning on
providing more information to that end?
Enclosed is an elevation and section of the garage storage units which shows the
configuration of the garage level "hung" storage. In addition to these storage units, a
separate bike storage room has been provided on the garage level.
6. AH net livable calculation: there is a discrepancy between the floor plans net livable calc and the
numbers listed in the supplemental submitted 2 weeks ago. The floor plans show 3 units that are
substandard (a 2 bedroom Cat 2 unit, 840 sq. ft net hv., located at the rear of the building) If I use the
numbers provided on the floor plans, the total net livable for the AH units is 12,024 not the 12,021
provided in the supplemental. Which numbers are correct?
The previously substandard unit, Unit C, has been revised to contain 601 sq. ft. of net
livable, category 2. Unit F, the neighboring unit, has been revised to contain 851 sq.
ft., category 2, of net livable on the upper two levels only.
In order to achieve the 100% replacement of existing free - market bedrooms onsite,
AH Units A and C have been combined to create Unit G, a three bedroom, 1109 sq.
ft., category 2.unit on the garden level. This modification occurs on the garden level
only.
The correct figure to use for the total net livable for the AH units is 12,032 sq. ft. This
figure reflects the combination of units on the garden level.
7. There are still some questions surrounding the School Lands Dedication Fee. I am going to work with
Jen when she is back in town to figure it out. The calculation is a little strange since the lots are going
to be merged. More on that later.
•
Sara Adams, Senior Planner
Supplemental Information / AspenWalk
28 January 2011
Please contact us to discuss the School Land Dedication Fee after you have reviewed
our calculations which we have previously submitted.
In connection with the question concerning offsite mitigation for the existing affordable
housing units, determined to contain 17.5 FTEs, please be advised that 17.5 FTEs will be
provided per code either in the form of affordable housing credits or buy down units. The
17.5 FTEs will be delivered at issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the enclosed supplemental information. We trust this
information has sufficiently responded to the remaining outstanding issues. Should further
clarification be required, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Patrick S. Rawley
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Enclosure: Supplemental Information
Cc: Thomas H. Klassen
Thomas R. Salmen
Ken A. O' Bryan
Andy Berry
Stan Clouson
P65
SUPPLEMENTAL LAND USE CODE SECTION RESPONSES
26.445.050 Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated, and minor PO _
26.445.050.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 fmancial 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.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary
improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the
developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvements.
The proposed development will not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure
capabilities or an unjustified financial burden. The proposed facilities comply with the following:
1. Adequate utilities and public infrastructure facilities currently exist to accommodate the
development. The site is served by municipal water and sanitary sewer, as well as all shallow
utilities.
2. Our engineering and traffic studies indicate that the proposed development will not have
adverse impacts on public infrastructure. Certain proposed future infrastructure projects
have been identified by City Engineering and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
(ACSD). These are:
a. intersection alignment improvements at the Park Avenue /Park Circle intersection, and
b. sanitary sewer capacity improvements in the area of King Street.
The project will make its curb and sidewalk improvements conform to the new proposed
intersection alignment, as may be requested by the City, and has offered to pay its fair share
of any required sanitary sewer improvements. The extent of sanitary sewer improvements
required, if any, have yet to be determined by the ACSD.
3. Attachment 4 of the Final PUD Application contains a site drainage report which presents a
Drainage Plan for the AspenWalk project. The Drainage Report evaluates current drainage
conditions and estimates future runoff conditions for proposed developed conditions. The
project will comply with the rules and regulations of the City of Aspen for drainage and water
quality for surface water runoff.
4. The proposed site plan enhances pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood by providing
sidewalks where none currently exist. Currently, informal off- street surface parking at the x04
Park Avenue site surrounds the existing buildings on three sides. There is no designated
pedestrian route or sidewalks around the site, causing pedestrians to travel in the right -of-
way. The proposed site plan organizes off- street parking into a subterranean garage. The
installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the street frontage of both 404 Park Avenue
and 414 Park Circle will create a safe pedestrian route with minimized traffic conflict.
26.445.050.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:
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street directly or
through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Supplemental Code Response
Aspen Pifkin County Housing Authority & PFG AspenWalk LLC Page 1
Final PUD Application for Redevelopment of Smuggler Mountain Apartments & 404 Park Avenue
23 December 2010
•
•
P66
The proposed development is located directly on Park Circle and Park Avenue, which are public
streets. Pedestrian access will be provided via public sidewalks which will be constructed as pa'
of the development.
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.
Sufficient parking for all residential units will be provided in a subterranean garage accessed from
Park Circle. The access point for the garage has been sited at an appropriate distance from the
Park Avenue /Park Circle intersection and at a location with good sightlines. The current informal
on- street parking condition often causes traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the existing
development and has no provisions for pedestrian safety.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreation trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and
pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided
through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
The proposed site plan enhances pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. Currently, informal
off- street surface parking at the 404 Park Avenue site surrounds the existing buildings on three
sides. There is no designated pedestrian route or sidewalks around the site, causing pedestrians
to travel in the right -of -way. The proposed site plan organizes off- street parking into a
subterranean garage. The installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the street frontage of
both 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle will create a safe pedestrian route with minimized
traffic conflict.
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(
appropriate.manner.
This proposed development will be consistent with high priorities of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (AACP) including:
• Is within walking distance to the downtown core
• Has access to public transit /Is on a RFTA bus route.
While there is currently no adopted sidewalk or trails plan affecting this site, the provision of
sidewalks will support any foreseeable adopted plan.
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.
No new streets are proposed for this PUD.
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are
minimized to the extent practical.
No security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions, other than a garage door on the
entrance to the parking garage, are proposed for the development. The garage entry is
considerably recessed from the front facade of the building and unobtrusive in its subgrade
location.
Supplemental Code Response
Aspen Rifkin County Housing Authority & PFG AspenWalk, LLC Page 2
Final PUD Application for Redevelopment of Smuggler Mountain Apartments & 404 Park Avenue
23 December 2010
P67
26.610 Impact Fees
g P 1 Impact Fees, along ( Following are tabulations for Parks Development and TDM/Air Quality p g with a tabulation of cash -in-
lieu fees for School Land Dedication. Studio units being removed are shown as negative numbers for six (6) units,
reflecting the fact that there are currently twelve (12) existing studio units in both buildings and six (6) units are proposed
in the new structure. Thirty -six (36) units are shown as the net additional bedrooms for other unit configurations.
if, c 7AC�,7ril s1 - = 3®j d]i7 -
Residential Per Studio $3,543.20 -6 $- 21259.2
Residential
Per Bedroom $4,429.00 36 $159,444
= h .. - °,
Residential Per Studio 398.40 -6 $- 2390.4
$
Residential Per Bedroom 498.00 36 $17,928
TOTAL $ 153,722.40
Supplemental Code Response Page 3
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority & PFG Aspen Walk LLC
Final PUD Application for Redevelopment of Smuggler Mountain Apartments & 404 Park Avenue
23 December 2010
P68
.X715•I�il leCi?iit7 pr <,. - _
Existing Studio 0.049 12 0.588
One -Bedrm 0.062 2 0.124
Two -Bed 0.115 8 092
Three -Bed 0.31 2 0.62
Four + Bed 0.452 1 0.452
subtotal
2.704 existing
Proposed Studio 0.049 6 0.294
One - Bedroom 0.062 6 0.372
Two -Bed 0.115 6 0.69
Three -Bed 0.31 10 3.1
Four + Bed 0.452 4 1.808
Total
Students subtotal
Generated 6.264 proposed
Land Area
Per
Student 896 SF
Land
Dedication
Req't 3189.76 SF
Appraised
Value of
Land Per
SF Land Dedication x Value
404 Park
Ave 151.605 483582.6179 1595
414 Park
Circle 169.798 541613.8728 178732.6
338314.8
Percent of
Fee to be
Paid 0.33
Cash -In-
Lieu
Payment $338,314.84
Supplemental Code Response
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority 8 PFG Aspen Walk, LLC Page 4
Final PUD Application for Redevelopment of Smuggler Mountain Apartments 8 404 Park Avenue
23 December 2010
P69
26.470 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) —
26.470.070 Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
1. 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 APCHA.
The proposed eighteen (18) for sale deed - restricted units comply with APCHA guidelines
in size requirements and income category designations. The eighteen (18) units are a
mix of categories averaging Category 3 per the Guidelines. The mix of units has been
reviewed and approved by the Housing Authority. There are:
3 units @ 851 SF = 2553
3 units @850 SF = 2550
3 units @ 705 SF = 2115
3 units @600 SF = 1800
3 units @ 501 SF = 1503
3 units @ 500 SF = 1500
18 units = 12,021 SF
b.) Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or
buy -down units.
The proposal is to replace the existing twenty -five (25) bedrooms located in fourteen
(14) market rate units on Lot 3 with 18, newly constructed, on -site deed - restricted units
which will contain twenty -four (24) bedrooms. The remaining one bedroom, which
represents a partial unit, will be provided via cash -in -lieu in accordance with
guidelines. As the proposed net livable of the on -site deed - restricted units exceeds the
existing net livable of the existing free - market units by 2,597 sq. ft. (12,021 - 9,424) this
excess net livable will be converted to a full -time equivalent of 6.5 FTEs (2,5697/400). The
6.5 FTEs will be credited to the 17.5 FTEs identified to be replaced from the existing
affordable housing units. This results in the need to purchase the equivalent of 11 FTE:
affordable housing credits to replace the existing affordable housing. As such, it
represents both 100% replacement of a multi - family building (exceeding the 50%
requirement) and 100% affordable housing mitigation (exceeding the 60% requirement).
A total of eighteen (18) deed - restricted units and fourteen (14) market rate units are
proposed for this 0.74 acre site.
26.470.070.5.1.a Minor P &Z Growth Management Review: Demolition of Free - Market Multi- Family Housing
Units, 100% Replacement
This proposal represents both 100% replacement of a multi - family building (exceeding
the 50% requirement) and 100% affordable housing mitigation (exceeding the 60%
requirement) as described in Section 26.470.070 (1)(b) above.
Supplemental Code Response Page 5
Aspen Rifkin County Housing Authority & PFG AspenWalk LLC g
Final PUD Application for Redevelopment of Smuggler Mountain Apartments & 404 Park Avenue
23 December 2010
P70
26.470.70.5.2 Minor P &Z Growth Management Review: Demolition of Affordable Multi- Family Housing Units
The applicant proposes to replace 100% of the bedrooms and square footage being
demolished on the site (see above description).
26.470.90.3 City Council Growth Management Review: Provision of Affordable Housing via Cash -In -Lieu
Payment
A cash -in -lieu payment is proposed to mitigate the one bedroom of the existing free -
market residential, which represents a partial unit, not replaced by the on -site deed
restrict affordable housing. The cash -in -lieu payment will be made in accordance with
APCHA guidelines.
Supplemental Code Response
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority & PFG AspenWalk, LLC Page 6
Final PUD Application for Redevelopment of Smuggler Mountain Apartments & 404 Park Avenue
23 December 2010
P71
I I FELSBURG
( ,HOLT &
ULLEVIG
engineering paths to transportation solutions
•
January 21, 2011
Mr. Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
Stan Clauson Associates, INC
412 N. Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Aspen Walk Redevelopment
Relative Traffic Impact Information
FHU Project No. 10- 133 -01
Dear Mr. Clauson: -
This letter provides additional information regarding the traffic impacts associated with the Aspen
Walk redevelopment proposal. Specifically, this addresses two courtesy comments provided by
City staff relating to the parameters used in the traffic evaluation and intersection Levels of Service.
The comment along with our response is provided.
COURTESY COMMENT NUMBER 2:
The Transportation Department staff appreciates the letter -report generated by Felsburg Holt &
Ullevig (FHU) in the application. Can FHU provide any more detail as to why a 30% trip reduction
was applied to the ITE rates of 50 -60 trips per day? Also, could FHU provide some more data to
support the 60/40 directional distribution of traffic on Park Avenue and King /Neale Street?
FHU RESPONSE:,
The ITE trip generation rates are reflective of typical suburban conditions. They tend to reflect
conditions in which:
1. Trips are primarily made via automobile due to the layout of neighborhoods and the large
supply of parking at destinations.
2. Commuter - oriented trip making.
3. Lack of auto disincentives. Suburban development has taken place with reliance on the
automobile to get around, so many suburban residents utilize their auto for all trip needs.
The City of Aspen promotes non - automobile modes with respect to local transportation. Given
Aspen's alternative -modes encouragement of residents and guests (as compared to a typical
suburban setting within a major metropolitan area), it is appropriate to use a lower trip generation
rate in estimating impacts for a redevelopment in Aspen versus a suburban setting. As a means to
gauge this, the ITE category of "Recreational Homes" shows a daily trip generation rate that is 45
percent less than the per -unit generation rate for a typical condo /townhome. Only a 30 percent
reduction was used in this evaluation. It is interesting to note that if only a 15 percent reduction
were used instead, the net traffic impact onto Park Avenue would only increase to 25 to 30 trips
per day from the 20 to 25 per day shown in the letter- report.
6100 South Syracuse Way, Sure 600 Germ nniol, CO 50111 tel 303.721.1440 tax 303.721.0533
W\V .fhurn!,.n intt+(rfhurng.com
P72
January 21, 2011
Mr. Stan Clauson
Page 2
With respect to the trip distribution of Aspen Walk trips, the site's location would tend to suggest
that a 50/50 split is highly probable (50 percent using Park Avenue to SH 82 and 50 percent via
King /Neale). This 50/50 estimate is based on the approximate equal distance to the downtown
area for the two routes. With the primary question being impact to Park Avenue, a slight bias was
made to Park Avenue, hence the reason why 60 percent was used rather than 50.
COURTESY COMMENT NUMBER 4:
Could FHU provide the Level of Service (LOS) of the Park Avenue and SH 82 intersection at 800
vehicles a day and with the additional trips?
FHU RESPONSE:
The Levels of Service (LOS's) were calculated for the SH 82 /Park Avenue intersection given the
additional trips associated with Aspen Walk proposal. Intersection turning movements used in the
calculations were based on December 2007 data provided by the City. Aspen Walk
redevelopment trips would increase traffic passing through this intersection by only one percent.
LOS's are calculated for movements that must yield to other movements passing through the
intersection. These include the left turn from Park Avenue, the right turn from Park Avenue, and
the left turn to Park Avenue. The LOS calculation results are as follows:
• Left turn from Park Avenue — LOS B
• Right turn from Park Avenue — LOS A
• Left turn to Park Avenue — LOS A
This should address these two courtesy comments. If there are any other questions, please feel
free to call.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG
J
Christopher J. Fasching, PE, PTOE
Principal
15 P1
•
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community'Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
RE: Affordable Housing GMQS code amendment
DATE: February 15, 2011
Projects that are required to develop affordable housing, with the exception of single family
and duplex residences, are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Growth
Management approval pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4. This Section requires affordable
housing to meet specific criteria related to compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA) Guidelines including: mitigation requirements; ownership
requirements; affordable housing credit eligibility; and the requirement that 50% or more of
the unit's net livable area is at or above finished or natural grade, whichever is higher.
Similar to design variances for Accessory Dwelling Units, Staff proposes a code amendment
that permits the percentage of the unit's net livable area that is at or above finished or natural
grade to be varied at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission through the
Special Review process.
BACKGROUND: During the Conceptual PUD review process for the Aspen Walk project
(404 and 414 Park), the intent of the review criterion that requires half of a unit's net livable
area to be developed above natural or finished grade was discussed. Aspen Walk proposes
"garden level" affordable housing units that are 2 or 3 feet below grade, and more than 50%
of the units' volumes are above grade, however, the units do not meet the current criterion
noted in italics above. The Applicant and Staff both agreed that a code amendment to allow
specific sub -grade affordable housing units was appropriate to bring forward.
It is Staffs opinion that the intent of this criterion is to prevent sub -grade affordable housing
units that are unlivable; however the standard does not differentiate between livable and
unlivable units that may be partially sub - grade. There is no flexibility for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to vary this standard considering site constraints, the overall project and
most important, the design and livability of the units. It can be argued that not all sub -grade
spaces are unlivable — well designed sub -grade spaces with, for example, large windows and
a sunken patio can be a very livable and private residential space. Staff proposes the
following code amendment to permit the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a
recommendation from the Housing Board, to vary the requirement that 50% of an affordable
housing unit's net livable is located above natural or finished grade through the Special
Review process.
Affordable Housing GMQS Code Amendment
P &Z memo, February 15, 2011
Page 1 of 3
P2
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS: (see attached resolution for reference)
Section 1: 26.430.030 Applicability. The proposed change adds the ability to vary the affordable
housing unit criteria for net livable space through Special Review. The Code currently permits
ADU and Carriage House design standards to be varied through the Special Review process.
This amendment would allows Affordable Housing Units to be varied through a the same review
process but subject to different review standards.
Section 2: 26.430.040 Review standards for special review. Staff proposes that, based on a
recommendation from the Housing Board, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the
authority to grant a variation of the percent net livable above grade for affordable housing units
subject to the following criteria:
1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner which exceeds the
expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the
unit's general livability by exceeding minimum requirements of two or more of the
following conditions:
a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit.
b. Above average natural light, such as adding more windows than the Building
Code requires.
c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement. patios or balconies,
d. Site amenities, such as access to outdoor space, p rivate p
carshare memberships.
e. Energy efficient units, such as solar panels, energy star rated appliances, or
insulation.
2. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that meets the following
criteria:
a. Compatibility with the character of the neighborhood.
b. Design is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as
topography.
The review criteria listed in Part 1 are similar to the standards that the Housing Board apply to
projects that request a variation of the minimum net livable unit size. The goal is to ensure that
the housing units provide a positive livable experience by exceeding at least 2 of the following:
excess storage, minimum unit size, site amenities, or energy efficient units. It is important that
the quality trade -off of varying the amount of sub -grade net livable space in a housing unit is
balanced in other areas of the unit or housing portion of the project.
The Housing Chapter of the AACP states that "housing policy should emphasize the
development of neighborhoods and community, not just units." Part 1 of the criteria addresses
the individual unit design, while Part 2 of the criteria steps back and assesses the proposed
project from a comprehensive perspective by considering the impacts of sub -grade units on
neighborhood character and site constraints to encourage the project to positively respond to the
natural and built landscapes.
Section 3: 26.470.070.4 GMQS — Affordable Housing. Staff proposes to add language to
Section C to allow the dimensional requirement to be varied via Special Review.
Affordable Housing GMQS Code Amendment
P &Z memo, February 15, 2011
Page 2 of 3
P3
HOUSING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board recommended in favor of the
proposed code amendment language at their regular meeting on February 2, 2011 with a 4 -0
vote.
NEXT STEPS: Review by City Council.
REQUEST OF THE P & Z: Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation
to the City Council regarding the proposed code amendments in the attached draft resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
AACP, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval to City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution # , Series of 2011
Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review
Exhibit B — Housing Board Recommendation
Affordable Housing GMQS Code Amendment
P &Z memo, February 15, 2011
Page 3 of 3
P4 Mama u? WriiM
RESOLUTION No.
(Series of 2011)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.430.030 SPECIAL REVIEW —
APPLICABILITY, 26.430.040 REVIEW STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL REVIEW,
AND 26.470.070.4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM -
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the review standards for
Affordable Housing Growth Management Review; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval
of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.430.030
Special Review Applicability, 26.430.040 Review standards for Special Review,
26.470.070.4 GMQS - Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications for
Affordable Housing, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which states the following: "new affordable housing projects
should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community and enhance
the character and charm of Aspen; "consideration should be given to minimize the
development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the
appropriate density or the livability of the project"; and "create an affordable housing
environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new
neighborhoods... "; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 15, 2011, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Sections26.430.030 Special Review Applicability, 26.430.040 Review
standards for Special Review, 26.470.070.4 GMQS - Minor Planning and Zoning
Commission applications for Affordable Housing, as described herein, by a _ -
vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 1 of 6
• P5
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text bring removed is
purple with strikcthrough and looks like this. Text being added to the code is blue with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.430.030 – Special Review Applicability shall be amended as
follows:
Sec. 26.430.030. Applicability.
Special review shall apply to all development in the City designated for special review by
the following chapters or sections of this Title:
•
• Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 — Zone Districts)
• Replacement of nonconforming structures (Chapter 26.312)
• Reduction of open space requirements in CC Zone District (Subsection
26.575.030.B)
• Off - street parking requirements (Section- 26.515.040)
• Reductions in the dimensions of utility /trash service areas (Section
26.575.060)
• Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050)
• Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Chapter 26.520)
• Wireless telecommunications facilities and /or equipment (Section
26.575.130)
• Affordable housing unit criteria regarding percentage of unit's net livable
required above grade (Section 26.470.070.4.c)
Section 2: Section 26.430.040 Review standards for special review shall be amended as
follows:
Sec. 26.430.040. Review standards for special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with
all standards and requirements set forth below.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS – Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page2of6
P6
•
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed
_ development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be
• approved if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration,: amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is
compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not
limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. -
J
B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof,
which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the
property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall
- - be met:
1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection
26.430.040.A above;
2. There exist special characteristics - unique to the property which differentiate the
property from other properties located in the same zone district;
3.- No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents
the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property;
and
•
• 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause
unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the
property. .
C. Reduction of public amenity. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine
whether a reduction of the public amenity requirement is to be granted, it shall be
reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth at Section 26.575.030.
D. Off - street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to
determine a change in the off - street parking requirements, it shall be considered in
accordance with the standards set forth at Chapter 26.515.
E. Utility /trash service area. Whenever a special review is conducted to - determine a
change in any utility /trash service area requirements, it shall be considered in accordance
with the standards set forth at Section 26.575.060.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page3of6
P7
F. Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is for development which
does not meet the subdivision design standards of Section 26.480.050, the development
shall be approved only when the conditions set forth at Section 26.480.050 have been
met.
G. Accessory dwelling unit design standards. Whenever a special review is conducted to
determine a change in the design standards required for accessory dwelling units, it shall
be considered in accordance with the standards set forth at Subsection 26.520.080.D.
H. Wireless telecommunications facilities and/or equipment. Whenever a special review
is conducted to appeal the decision of the Community Development Director regarding a
proposed wireless telecommunications service facility or equipment or to determine a
proposed increase in the allowed height of a wireless telecommunications facility and/or
equipment, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth in Paragraph
26.575.130.C.6, Wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment. (Ord.
No. 44- 1999, §4; Ord. No. 5- 2000, §4; Ord. No. 1 -2002, §9; Ord. No. 52- 2003, §12; Ord.
No. 12, 2007, § §20, 21)
I. Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a special review is conducted to
reduce the required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit's net livable
area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation
from the Housing Board and all of the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner which exceeds the
expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and
promotes the unit's general livability by exceeding minimum requirements of two
or more of the following conditions:
a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit.
b. Above average natural light, such as adding more windows than the
Building Code requires.
c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement.
d. Site amenities, such as access to outdoor space, private patios or
balconies, carshare memberships.
e. Energy efficient units, such as solar panels, energy star rated
appliances, or insulation.
2. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that meets the
following criteria:
a. Compatibility with the character of the neighborhood.
b. Design is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as
topography.
Section 3: Section 26.470.070.4, Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications
— Affordable Housing shall be amended as follows:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 4 of 6
P8
Sec. 26.4'70.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110,
Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below.
Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general
requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth
management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels
but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply
cumulatively.
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, a cash -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,
a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy
mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department
Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
(Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §4)
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. This dimensional requirement may be varied
through Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.
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
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 5 of 6
P9
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 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. Non - Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not
required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d).
The owner of such non - mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6
— 2010, §4)
FINALLY, adopted and approved this 15 day of February, 2011.
Stan Gibbs, Chairman
Attest:
Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 6 of 6
P 10 Cb Arti
RESOLUTION No.
(Series of 2011)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.430.030 SPECIAL REVIEW —
APPLICABILITY, 26.430.040 REVIEW STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL REVIEW,
AND 26.470.070.4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM -
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the review standards for
Affordable Housing Growth Management Review; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval
of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.430.030
Special Review Applicability, 26.430.040 Review standards for Special Review,
26.470.070.4 GMQS - Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications for
Affordable Housing, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community Plan which states the following: "new affordable housing projects
should reinforce and enhance a healthy social balance for our community and enhance
the character and charm of Aspen; "consideration should be given to minimize the
development footprint of all affordable housing projects without compromising the
appropriate density or the livability of the project "; and "create an affordable housing
environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new
neighborhoods..."; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 15, 2011, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Sections26.430.030 Special Review Applicability, 26.430.040 Review
standards for Special Review, 26.470.070.4 GMQS - Minor Planning and Zoning
Commission applications for Affordable Housing, as described herein, by a _ -
vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 1 of 6
P11
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being added to
the code is blue with underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.430.030 – Special Review Applicability shall be amended as
follows:
Sec. 26.430.030. Applicability.
Special review shall apply to all development in the City designated for special review by
the following chapters or sections of this Title:
• Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 — Zone Districts)
• Replacement of nonconforming structures (Chapter 26.312)
• Reduction of open space requirements in CC Zone District (Subsection
26.575.030.B)
• Off - street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040)
• Reductions in the dimensions of utility /trash service areas (Section
26.575.060)
• Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050)
• Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Chapter 26.520)
• Wireless telecommunications facilities and/or equipment (Section
26.575.130)
• Affordable housing unit criteria regarding percentage of unit's net livable
required above grade (Section 26.470.070.4.c)
Section 2: Section 26.430.040 Review standards for special review shall be amended as
follows:
Sec. 26.430.040. Review standards for special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with
all standards and requirements set forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed
development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be
approved if the following conditions are met.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS – Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 2 of 6
P12
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is
compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not
limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof,
which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the
property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall
be met:
1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection
26.430.040.A above;
2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the
property from other properties located in the same zone district;
3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents
the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property;
and
4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause
unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the
property.
C. Reduction of public amenity. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine
whether a reduction of the public amenity requirement is to be granted, it shall be
reviewed in accordance with the standards set forth at Section 26.575.030.
D. Off - street parking requirements. Whenever a special review is conducted to
determine a change in the off - street parking requirements, it shall be considered in
accordance with the standards set forth at Chapter 26.515.
E. Utility /trash service area. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a
change in any utility /trash service area requirements, it shall be considered in accordance
with the standards set forth at Section 26.575.060.
F. Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is for development which
does not meet the subdivision design standards of Section 26.480.050, the development
shall be approved only when the conditions set forth at Section 26.480.050 have been
met.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 3 of 6
P13
G. Accessory dwelling unit design standards. Whenever a special review is conducted to
determine a change in the design standards required for accessory dwelling units, it shall
be considered in accordance with the standards set forth at Subsection 26.520.080.D.
H. Wireless telecommunications facilities and /or equipment. Whenever a special review
is conducted to appeal the decision of the Community Development Director regarding a
proposed wireless telecommunications service facility or equipment or to determine a
proposed increase in the allowed height of a wireless telecommunications facility and /or
equipment, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth in Paragraph
26.575.130.C.6, Wireless telecommunication services facilities and equipment. (Ord.
No. 44 -1999, §4; Ord. No. 5 -2000, §4; Ord. No. 1 -2002, §9; Ord. No. 52 -2003, §12; Ord.
No. 12, 2007, § §20, 21) ,
1. Affordable housing unit standards. Whenever a special review is conducted to
reduce the required percentage that the finished floor level of the unit's net livable
area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a recommendation
from the Housing Board and all of the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner which exceeds the
expectations of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and
promotes the unit's general livability by exceeding minimum requirements of two
or more of the following conditions:
a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit.
b. Above average natural light, such as adding more windows than the
Building Code requires.
c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement.
d. Site amenities, such as access to outdoor space, private patios or
balconies, carshare memberships.
e. Energy efficient units, such as solar panels, energy star rated
appliances, or insulation.
2. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that meets the
following criteria:
a. Compatibility with the character of the neighborhood.
b. Design is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as
topography.
Section 3; Section 26.470.070.4, Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications
— Affordable Housing shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110,
Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 4 of 6
P14
Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general
requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following types of growth
management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels
but shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply
cumulatively.
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, a cash -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,
a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy
mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department
Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
(Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §4)
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. This dimensional requirement may be varied
through Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430.
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
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 5 of 6
P15
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 Tong -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 f sale" provision.
e. Non - Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not
required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a -d).
The owner of such non - mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. (Ord. No. 6
— 2010, §4)
FINALLY, adopted and approved this 15 day of February, 2011.
Stan Gibbs, Chairman
Attest:
Jackie, Lothian, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, Special Counsel
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 6 of 6
P16
Exhibit A
Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this Title.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions
of the Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the AACP,
specifically the following statements from the Housing and Design Quality Chapters:
"Create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed
throughout existing and new neighborhoods... " (Intent, pg 25)
Response: The proposed amendment creates a situation where the Planning and
Zoning Commission, based on a recommendation from the Housing Board, has
the authority to vary the amount that an affordable housing unit is below grade in
exchange for the unit exceeding the minimum standards in other areas of design.
Allowing a partially subgrade unit may result in a lower height of the building or
a more appropriate response to topography or other site constraints.
"Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and
should emphasize quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily
increases costs and lessens production." (Philosophy, pg 25)
Response: The proposed amendment takes into account both the specific design
of the individual units and amenities, and it weighs the compatibility of the
subgrade units within the neighborhood.
"Consideration should be given to minimize the development footprint of all affordable
housing projects without compromising the appropriate density or the livability of the
project." (Policies, pg 26)
Response: Staff finds that providing the Planning and Zoning Commission with
the discretion to allow partially subgrade units offers some design flexibility that
may result in minimizing the development footprint of the overall project.
Affordable Housing GMQS Code Amendment
Exhibit A
February 15, 2011
Page 2 of 3
P17
"We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are fresh and
innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by being contextually
appropriate and harmonious without being copies of that which already exists."
(Philosophy, pg 43)
Response: The flexibility to vary the affordable housing standard encourages
creative solutions that support livability and innovative thinking for affordable
housing units.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Response: n/a
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Response: n/a..
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Response: n/a.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Response: n/a.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment incorporates neighborhood compatibility into
the review criteria for granting a variation from the dimensional requirement. Staff finds
that the proposed amendment is consistent with the community character in the City.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Response: n/a.
Affordable Housing GMQS Code Amendment
Exhibit A
February 15, 2011
Page 2 of 3
P18
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest
and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Response: Staff recognizes that unique situations exist throughout town and finds
that providing some flexibility in the Code for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
use its discretion to vary the percentage that an affordable housing unit is below grade is
appropriate and in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Affordable Housing GMQS Code Amendment
Exhibit A
February 15, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Oa P19
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sara Adams, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Department
DATE: February 3, 2011
RE: APPROVAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CODE AMENDMENT
ISSUE: The subgrade units proposed in the AspenWalk development do not conform to the
land use code. An affordable housing GMQS code amendment is being proposed to remedy the
situation.
BACKGROUND: Due to the terrain of the property and the proposal of the garage, some of the
units being proposed in the development or subgrade and do not meet the City of Aspen Land
Use Code conditions. The attached code amendment will remedy this nonconforming issue.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the Code amendment at their regular
meeting held February 2, 2011 and are recommending approval of the following changes:
Under Section 26.430.030. Applicability, add a bullet point as follows:
• Affordable housing unit criteria regarding percentage of unit's net livable required above
grade (Section 26.470.70.4.c).
Under Section 26.430.040, Section 2, paragraph I, Affordable housing unit standards, the
following will be added:
Whenever a special review is conducted to reduce the required percentage that the finished floor
level of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, a
recommendation from the Housing Board and all of the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner which exceeds the
expectations of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, and promotes the
unit's general livability by exceeding minimum requirements of two or more of the
following conditions:
a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit.
b. Above average natural light, such as adding more windows than the Building Code
requires.
c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement.
Code Amendment Approval Page 1
P20
d. Site amenities, such as access to outdoor space, private patios, or balconies, car share
memberships.
e. Energy efficient units, such as solar panels, energy star rated appliances, or insulation.
2. The proposed affordable housing units are designed in a manner that meets the following
criteria:
a. Compatibility with the character of the neighborhood.
b. Design is an appropriate response to unique site constraints, such as topography.
Code Amendment Approval Paget