HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110405 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, April 5, 2011
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities Room
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 404 Park/414 Park Circle, Final Planned Unit Development
(continued from 3/15)
B. Lift One Lodge, Final Planned Unit Development
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 00
F T .
P1
MEMORANDUM --
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
Chris Bendon, Community Development 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. Public hearing continued from February 15, 2011
and March 15, 2011.
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
This staff report is new since the March 15 hearing and addresses proposed changes. It contains
the following:
• Review authority.
• A summary of the issues raised from the last meeting with additional information
provided by Staff and the Applicant.
• Staff comments on the main issues.
• Staff recommendation & proposed motion.
• A revised draft resolution.
REVIEW AUTHORITY:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the fmal authority regarding Growth Management for
Multifamily Replacement for demolition of the free market and affordable housing units; Growth
Management for the development of affordable housing; and Residential Design Standard
Variances. The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding
Subdivision and Final PUD reviews.
The project is a public- private partnership between Aspen Walk LLC and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority ( APCHA). Even though APCHA is an applicant, the Code requires
referral comments from the Housing Board to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Growth
Management review. APCHA provides comments based on compliance with the APCHA
Housing Guidelines which address minimum net livable unit sizes and proposed categories. The
ability to reduce the minimum net livable unit size by a maximum of 20% is solely under the
purview of APCHA based on a finding that it is "demonstrated that the development satisfied, or
is required to adjust to other physical factors or considerations including, but not limited to,
design for livability, common storage, other amenities, location or site designs." Compliance
with the APCHA Guidelines is approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning
and Zoning Commission in addition to the specific criteria listed in Growth Management for the
development of affordable housing and the general requirements for growth management review.
With the exception of unit size requirements, the adopted documents that address quality and
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 1 of 8
P2
livability of affordable housing units are the AACP (a standard in Growth Management Review)
and the specific criteria for Growth Management for the development of affordable housing.
SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS FROM MARCH 15, 2011:
At the March 15 public hearing on Aspen Walk, the Planning and Zoning Commission raised a
number of issues that they asked be addressed in further detail. The Applicant has amended the
design of the project and a summary of the changes are provided below. Comments from Staff
follow when applicable. The Applicant's representative has provided a memo on the changes and
associated drawings that are included as Exhibit M.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
• Affordable Housing: The applicant submitted information regarding window sill
height and window size for the garden level units to address the livability of the
units. The affordable housing units are proposed to be deed restricted at Categories 3
and 4, rather than the proposed Categories 2 and 4. The specific designations for
each unit are not determined yet; however, the minimum net livable unit size is the
same for both Categories 3 and 4. The unit design has not changed, but the higher
categories require a larger unit square footage and sell for higher rates. The
following onsite affordable housing is proposed:
Table 1: Proposed Net Livable Square Footage for Affordable Housing Units at Cats. 3 and 4.
unit
type # of # of Square Feet Net Livable Area
tYp units bedrooms Proposed Required Reduction Difference
A 2 studio 500 500 0% 0
B 3 studio 500 500 0% 0
C 2 1 600 700 14% (100)
D 3 1 705 700 0% 5
E 2 2 857 950 10% (93)
F 3 2 851 950 10% (99)
G 1 3 1,110 1,200 8% (90)
H 1 2 851 950 10% (99)
5974 total sq. 6450 total sq.
17 units bedrooms ft. net livable ft. net livable
proposed required
• Street Facing Entrance: The applicant added 2 street facing entrances to the
affordable housing building. There are a total of 7 entrances that face the street for
this project.
Residential Design Standard variances for street facing entrances and first story
elements are required for this project as discussed below.
• Height Variance/ Elevators: The applicant reduced the number of elevators with
rooftop access from 3 elevators to 1, thus reducing the amount that the elevators
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 2 of 8
P3
penetrate the height limit. All of the elevators (with the exception of the elevator in
the affordable housing building) and the stairway corridors that provide rooftop
access are all above the height limit.
Height variances are required for the elevators, stairway access to the roof and the north
elevation of the affordable housing building adjacent to the parking ramp. Please refer to
the highlighted areas in Exhibit L to see the requested height variances.
• Lighting: The applicant revised the material proposed for the stair towers facing
Midland Park (southeast elevation) to reduce light pollution from the motion
activated lights within the stairways. The complete lighting plan is found on Sheets
A9.1 — A9.4 of the revised application. Proposed light fixtures were submitted with
the March 15 supplement to the application.
Certain aspects of the proposed lighting plan do not meet Lighting Code requirements,
for example the lights must be entirely located within the property boundaries and light
may not spill over property boundaries.
• Garage ventilation/noise requirements: The proposed garage ventilation system and
vents are depicted on Sheet A3.0 of the revised application. Outside air will be
pulled through the garage from the garage entrance (the garage door will open 18"
when the exhaust fan activates). The air will travel north to south through the garage
to be vertically vented through a grate located in the south portion of the property
that abuts the Midland Park open space area.
Title 18 of the Aspen Municipal Code mandates a maximum decibel level of 50dBA
during the nighttime (9pm — 7am) and 55 dBA (7am — 9pm) during the daytime for
residential properties. The parking garage is not permitted to exceed these maximum
noise levels.
STAFF RESPONSE:
1) Architectural Character/ Residential Design Standard Variances Final PUD review
addresses specific criteria regarding site design and architectural character. Visual interest,
engagement of pedestrian movement, compatibility with the neighborhood and
representations of the intended use are some of the criteria for Final PUD review. In
addition, the Residential Design Standards, which also focuses on pedestrian scale and
compatibility with the neighborhood, are applicable to this project. Both reviews generally
work together toward the same solution: positive pedestrian experience, visual interest and
architecture that contributes to neighborhood character.
Staff finds that the inclusion of two street facing entrances and walkways from the right of
way on the affordable housing building is a positive addition to the project. The applicant
added a walkway to a private side entrance for affordable housing unit B which also adds to
the residential feel of the building. All of these elements start to create a positive street
presence and a stronger pedestrian relationship, which brings the project into closer
alignment with the goals of the AACP and the Residential Design Standards. The
Aspen Walk -404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 3 of 8
P4
neighborhood represents an eclectic mix of architecture from a variety of decades which
creates a challenging context. Overall, Staff finds that the changes are moving in the right
direction for the neighborhood.
The Residential Design Standards recognize the importance of prominent entrances and one
story elements by requiring multi - family projects to provide 1 street oriented entrance per 4
units and 20% of the buildings overall width is a street facing first story element (that must
be 6 feet from the street facing building facade and a maximum height of 10 feet). This
Standard reiterates the requirement the street facing entrances are required to have a covered
entry front porch of 50 square feet or more, be located no more than 10' back from the front
facade of the building and have street facing principal windows.
The first story element and street facing entrance Standards are not technically met on either
the free market or the affordable housing buildings. The actual numbers of entrances that
face the street meet the required 7 street oriented entrances, however the proposed entrances
either do not have covered front porches that meet the 50 square feet requirement and/or the
doors are setback more than 10' from the front most facade of the building. Staff believes
that the most recent proposal with added walkways and entrance doors is closer to the intent
of the Standards, and supports the overall design.
Staff commends the applicant for adding walkways and more street facing entrances and
recommends that the applicant continue to meet the intent of the Design Standards and the
PUD criteria for Architectural Character by adding more first story elements (i.e. front
porches without usable space above) to the front facade to define all of the entryways. For
example, adding front porches as one story elements will create an appropriate relationship
with the pedestrian and neighborhood character, it will break up the perceived mass of the
building, and it will accurately represent the intended residential use.
The proposed mass of the project, which meets underlying zone requirements, is much
larger than the other multi - family buildings in the neighborhood and as such architectural
elements could be added to reduce the perceived mass of the building. Staff believes that
the enhancement of one story elements to break up the mass of the building would meet the
Residential Design Standards and assist the project to meet the PUD criterion for
Architectural Character - "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."
Overall, Staff believes that the project would comply with the intent of the Residential
Design Standards by adding one story elements to the front facade to break up the perceived '
mass of the building, which will likely also bring the project into compliance with the PUD
criteria for Site Design and Architectural Character.
2) Affordable Housing
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 4 of 8
P5
Design: The applicant has not changed the affordable housing units from the March 15,
2011 proposal which added French balconies to all 17 proposed units and refined the
outdoor patio space above the garage entrance. Staff remains concerned that the
combination of substandard unit sizes' and limited private outdoor space for the residents
does not meet the AACP policy to "promote a high quality of site planning and architecture
in affordable housing to enhance the character and charm of Aspen." Increasing the
categories of the units, which increases the purchase amount, requires a reduction of unit
size requirements for more than half of the units (9 of the 17). While French balconies
provide additional natural light, the lack of private outdoor space creates an imbalance in the
project when considered in the context of the adjacent free market building that features
abundant balconies. Staff is supportive of the partially sub -grade units on the ground level,
as long as the units meet criteria for a variation. Staff believes that the project does not
provide adequate compensation for the sub -grade location and for the substandard unit sizes
by at least providing private outdoor space to make up for the undersized interior space.
There seem to be somewhat simple changes that could increase the livability of the housing
units without compromising the overall project. For example, the addition of a walkway to
the street- facing garden level housing unit (Unit 1-1) activated the space in front of Unit H
and provided a positive connection between the building and the right of way. Another
example to increase livability is to allow the partially sunken units, Units G and H, to have
access to the sunken outdoor area created by the retaining wall as opposed to the proposed
French balconies that will not allow the resident to access the outdoor space. The trade -off
between sub -grade spaces and/or substandard unit sizes and the livability of the housing
units are not yet realized in this project. -
Community Development finds that the project can go further to fit into the neighborhood,
provide quality design and livable units for the future affordable housing residents. With
these few enhancements to the livability of the units, staff can support the design.
Garden Level Variance: The proposed code amendment language to vary the dimensional
requirement that an affordable housing unit's net livable area is below grade received a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 1, 2011 to the City
Council, attached as Exhibit N. Planning and Zoning changed some of the proposed
language to focus the criteria for granting a variation on significant storage, above average
window area, larger units than the minimum requirement, and specific unit amenities such as
access to outdoor space and private patios. The code amendment is scheduled for Council
review on April 25, 2011 for first reading and May 23, 2011 for second reading.
Aspen Walk requests a variation for the partially sub -grade garden level units pursuant to a
proposed Code amendment. Under the present Code partially sub -grade garden level units
are prohibited when more than 50% of finished floor is below natural or finished grade. The
proposed French balconies provide above average window areas for the units. However,
Staff is concerned that the lack of private outdoor space and the proposal to vary the
minimum unit size requirement do not exceed the expectations of the Housing Guidelines as
' If the 9 proposed category 2 units are raised to Categories 3 or 4, those units will be substandard size according to
the APCHA Guidelines.
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 5 of 8
P6
stated in the proposed code amendment and therefore do not meet the potential criteria to
allow sub -grade units. Again, some simple changes to enhance the livability of the units,
such as proper balconies, could meet the criteria for a variation.
The Commission's approval of Growth Management Review for the Development of
Affordable Housing relies on the ability to vary the amount that the finished floors of the
garden level units are below grade. There are two options for the proposed project: 1) City
Council approves the code amendment language that Staff drafted, which includes criteria
for granting the variation that the Aspen Walk project meets or 2) the applicant reworks the
garden level units to meet the code amendment language that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended to City Council pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 5, Series of 2011. Staff included draft language in the Resolution that
would allow the proj ect to receive Growth Management approval for the housing units
conditioned on Council's adoption of language that Aspen Walk satisfies. If Council adopts
language that Aspen Walk does not meet for a variation, the Growth Management approval
is void, the City Council review is continued, and the project is returned to Planning and
Zoning for a re- review pursuant to the adopted language.
3) Lighting
The proposed light fixtures located in the right of way and the lighting that will spill over
property lines is prohibited in the lighting code. In addition the bollard -like fixtures along
the rear of the property are spaced too close together to meet the requirements for landscape
lighting. Staff recommends that that project meet the required lighting standards.
4) Garage Ventilation
Staff is unsure about the impact of the exhaust vent on the adjacent Midland Park property
and recommends that the applicant provide more information about the operation and
associated impacts (if any) of the exhaust vent on the neighborhood for review by City
Council during Final PUD.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes the benefit that affordable housing provides to the
community and the benefit APCHA sees in gaining new (both in construction and inventory)
affordable housing units at no cost to the agency; however, development projects need to be
sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood where they are located.
Staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the AACP and the review criteria outlined above,
and recommends the following changes to the proposal:
• Improve the livability and quality of the Affordable Housing units by adding balconies to
all of the units.
• Provide more one story elements to reduce the perceived mass of the building and to
bring the project into closer compliance with the intent of the Residential Design
Standards and meet the PUD criteria related to architectural character and site design.
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
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 6 of 8
P7
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 [provided on February 15, 2011]
EXHIBIT B – Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings [provided on February 15, 2011]
EXHIBIT C – Growth Management Review Criteria, Staff Findings [provided on February 15,
2011]
EXHIBIT D – Residential Design Standard Variances [provided on February 15, 2011]
EXHIBIT E – DRC Comments [provided on February 15, 2011 ]
EXHIBIT F – Council Resolution No. 74, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual PUD approval
[provided on February 15, 2011]
EXHIBIT G – Application [provided on February 15, 2011 ]
EXHIBIT H – Staff memo and exhibits dated February 15, 2011
EXHIBIT I - Supplemental information to the application dated March 1, 2011 [provided on March
15, 2011]
EXHIBIT J – Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dated February 15,
2011 [provided on March 15, 2011]
EXHIBIT K – Housing Department memo dated March 8, 2011 [provided on March 15, 2011]
EXHIBIT L – Height analysis
EXHIBIT M — Supplemental information to the application dated March 25, 2011.
EXHIBIT N – Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Numbered 5, Series of 2011.
EXHIBIT 0 — Letter from adjacent property owner Sara Garton.
Aspen Walk— 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 7 of 8
P8
EXHIBIT P — Comments from the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Board dated March 31, 2011.
EXHIBIT Q — Letter from Midland Park Homeowners Association.
Please notify Staff if you require another copy of Exhibits A — K.
Aspen Walk — 404 Park Ave. & 414 Park Cir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
04.05.11
Page 8 of 8
P 9
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 6
P10
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
continued the public hearing to March 15, 2001 and again to April 5, 2011; 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 Aspen Walk project shall meet the language in the adopted
code amendment as determined by City Council. Growth Management allotments
for the development of affordable housing for Aspen Walk are considered void if
the project does not meet the adopted code amendment language. In such event
the project shall be deemed continued until a new review for growth management
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission is completed.
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.
P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 2 of 6
P11
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 for Category 1, as listed in the Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, 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 PUD
Dimensional Requirements
minimum lot size 32,774 sq. ft.
minimum lot area n/a
per dwelling unit
31 units in total
maximum 14 free market 17 affordable
allowable density residential units housing units
minimum lot as per PUD plat
width
minimum front 5 ft.
yard setback
minimum
alternate front 5 ft.
yard setback
minimum side 5 ft.
yard setback
P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 3 of 6
P12
minimum rear ft
yard setback
maximum site as per PUD plat
coverage
maximum height as per PUD plat
minimum
distance between n/a
buildings
minimum percent
open space n/a
required
allowable floor 1.25:1 or 40,967.5 sq. ft.
area ratio
minimum off- 53 spaces:
street parking 29 spaces for free market residential units;
24 spaces (including 4 stacked) for the
spaces affordable housing units
Section 4: Subdivision to combine Lot 3 and Lot 5 of the Sunny Park Subdivision:
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
P& Z Resolution # , Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 4 of 6
P13
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.
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:
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 5 of 6
P14
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 5 day
of April, 2011.
Stan Gibbs, Chairman
4 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
James R. True, Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Site Plan
Exhibit B: Elevations
P& Z Resolution #, Series of 2011
Aspen Walk
Page 6 of 6
-... _
i
I z19,9 03 'KM:*
4101S M IATNN.19 51 illiiiiii
L i i ! 11 dilli 1 4:1 1 44012Nos15)nr AMIS t i iiiiiiiill
Aii E 1 1 ! i i _. 1011 S, : 411 Rr L ik ; .
( W 01 11
/ .g. 1. 1 gt,
WM uadsv
. b s .-- . •• ; ,-,-; 11 ,11/1 1 1 I
1 1 1 i <
; rz i
1,-
. I I I . , • . 1 .-1 II 1
7,, .. i (
b . ■ r, lit ,. , 1 , 5
'm E U., , 1 '.. l
1 m:b ------'Mi l i f 65."15211i 1 I
1 ' : '
! 11114 ii■ ! - r:',1 _ : !._.... .-.., _
• 1•01,1,.. • ! I 16111M.1901: . .
I I INEM •IP I I [ IThid : 1 .
I ri...... •"• 1 I.
//':' ill . I , I 11 I : l• 11 •
7 . 1 1 v 1 _ si
, , , 1,-.... ; ..
,,,. L ,,,,ios, 13 • r3
iiiI■I „
i ;; NIMMIli p I"
, ...„ ...
,„.. - ......:_ 1
. . i R Fs 1 h , ., ,,,....F"---9i - unt 7 1 .i
q I s' Sm. al ! Itilm , -
7
hi 11 P, 111 --- -C - . Le
1
1 . .1 L.1 i! „.iii Ins illiik E=-'
• t "palm it I ',
G.- - 0 — - -d :::--. a .., g 7 t - - 1'
- 1..
1 II:il,k
; 11 aliraq r-- ii=44 1p- !.
11 f_ . _ : ,, , 9
i
1 I I lEil I... : _,---± i] ,..4.-1
I.: T.,1
''' I "1 1 , li...1...,.. --- 1-
.1:'•
. . ....■,... I 1 I Iiir. 1
• !....,,,,:.• r••.,' e_..1.- < . II
, IT , _ .
0 _. __ 11 .., li ,... --i . :
1
int 1 '_
,, ....., , „„.. :,--_! I ( I )
• - j• - I k 1'114
1 1 1 , L.. '.q.; i -I-, , I t‘ _
i 46______. 4r ,_, I -ill -
'IL li.I I Wang I ..
il 11 s•V 1 0 Aim g Ifill = 1 . ;-- 1 1 - 1111 i 1-
-5 .
It --E .i, I I I
5-
51 i f , ir,so l_vmsit, .
1;i 0 . . --- '--i" i 1 1.1 11761 .1 N , ,._-_-,_.=
: J , miiilil, Vc 1 . f '
I i ,_, ..., .„,
------_,f, limit, -,...,,,, '! i
: , i .. I - ‘ k Ili '• - 1- .2 1 • 1 1 Al : ..---' ' iriil
Pitillre i lri V. -1LIL' l
1 • ".• IIII=11 ., linsi-,Ii •
. now •••1110mar•■•! 1 !....1%,0.!.M
: ' ,
.
1111Milillt l i el 1 • El:
11 -- ' 4- I . ! .A t_ -.
IM•
i 'N, 1111111111111110111NRIE" - ' , i
..,,
v' MUMS ii, 1-
• ' ),2 ' r1 1: ! .:,. ',,' leomOI111111. Ira i 1 1
il , i , hm :,:. !;) .: -- IR .,,1
rm I__LI e
MIII II' 17.,.4■;-7-11- E! gi ,L. '. --- Mil ". 1 1
7.,
i --.... ,:a.:1 r,5 il • . 1 ri v- . i , . ; I
1
4
!---- 1 1. d,i.- Lc. Ei
I- '
1 1 .„' „ . i.', ` 71- • I y /1 1 r • !.:-----.• . 1--..
ii RI t r;'.-.4111.1illiM ir _ r-,' 1:
g
• ' i f 1 g al 1 i ...' i 1
, ' ftil g
•
I
ft) ....
t I 0 . - .• - 1 t
. i ■
I 1
1 I
. P.1
. 6...
I -..
..............4.....................................e.n..-..,,....... ,,... ,. ... -, ..
- -- — _
- - - .
P 1 6 ,
,
MIS WNW/ .1 1 1
1 i ir
- ' i 0 1 1 1 i.F
1 -
li
1 1 l
- , a • .. 4. 1 trxroudywompis.tcn 3
• _ ;.1 Nigh!!
ti • 5 E f '11 g
' >Vol 1 i !, rid l in a
__________ 101M11115 )41Vd AMIS
) ilM UdS.
I I ,
1 41 hi Innil Ii ' * Ill g
Ai 1 ill
. .
1 1 i
0 ;
..71 - 4 •;: i' ';: : • ' ,-. __ __
• ::' , __,
, ■ iii , ;:l., ft lill T1
0--_:
i -t ; 11 ..1. ,:.:'! •// 4 , • .1• I ' -
II 1_ ,I2 .,
;1 vs i: . . • .
,, „••,, , ... ,, ., ;L: 1
I
41) , Di 6 . - . A , , , _ ,_•;•
45 : - --1 i
' '... , i: " i -I
• , L5. _..!,,? .„,..,
1, i : ig', '1' '!,)!', ,___ 1 .__.
1 i g4' Its
1 ! .
gr •
. 1 (, _If
`-' 11 ii . 1 . re Nark..31 ,
t ZI •• . .' :- isid .,- , I I
. • ''.1._ , : ig
• ! , , -.,-
1
.1 g I
• - 1 7 .- t -
t' AgEi ,,,,,1111, ,.... ,A_ ----.....-,,,
11 - , ._)...,•,,
0 ..,... 1 g . - .' WI . '1 t'--- C ..._ , k '.i • _:::
_ _
i t - 1 ,:,,•, pi :i ri, 4,i: n , 1,
, ,., 0 , : ,,•-• • , .:-.: ..7. ...._ — • :kl,.t lc - &-. tit
0 v.tY :I _ yet, _ i I
14 ..,..
_ ..,
I. LI t., ..01, '.j , • b -..' /1 i i i „
H 1 "
'1 'IL ' ..,' :. r. ' .".. ,..,
1 15 1 : im. : , .1):Ati :::::1); 1-
CD'
• I ':•• 111,V,s0=-•:=517 I.1 ! , I, ..; 1
' 11 IN I ' , ..1 i 11.I,
6
, , I I • ' ITAL...... ik 1 i
1 1 ,,,,, - Iiiirinnotti.:4_ 1 ic
0-- 8 al toin--9--i- — 0
1 ,p • _." ./.1„ - x
I! ill.- 1. 1 t ,1
4
6 \ im fin". iimoNftiali 0; :._ 8
l
. ingfiluimanim -
• IFM_IllielitX 4, w:
I I t i Il II =i i
1
0-, r ! • 1 '• ,11 :!'" - „_ 1 1 <
il 1 • 1 i I t Z ---• - 1: nil -' I !!?
_5 • i ,
ll
1/ I 471114 r EL- .---; Lei
.__ 4
' I 4 ■ , ' I 1
„ _ ._1,
, ..i.:WL.,..._
', '• 1--mir E. ii• L- ' , , 1 11- – - I L • ;: 0 • r:i. * - , t
' ' 1 11 11. 11 1 1 1 111 1 11 ...7
: ' II 111..maLjmrEl siuctik • I IN . I: '-' 'I' .. ' I •
' I • *IIIIMIIMMIEBINI.Mini k , _ . 4B -. I • If ' . !: I
O ; 1
.7._•,,i,milw
. , : • • i ., Ili . 1,-:. tor ; ,; -.,--,
• , , ,
____1_ I FL; IF -
i_-._- a 1 a • 1
t N 7
•
• t a L it j riTF —
i 411 _11,i0. , ,,,t. 1 -
!th
4 1
ATLI' 11 1, C— '
i R ._, , 4 _
•
, NI
it V:" s; ._.7 r i ( . : 1 0 1 , 1; r L51,.."-3 ''J trlir
•
••1 t'
A 1-49J
: Bi I i ti P.1.1 !Ii
1
0 . --- i - iiil - .7 ... : .—
G-4 ---
.._ __
0. ,• , I :. q .11 ,) . -----... 4
,-.
Hi . , I. _ , ,
I
__ 1 „. ,. ,... . . . 1 , , - .
1 1 1 • .
,
• 1 d ..1$ .1.... 4, t i :
I
i
i , b„, • 41 ” - s) ' ---
• Ill _ raw , .....g.i ...... =
?I
' i....401 2: -- J.'
O----
* ' r
1 .
. .. : k , • =_ .....r
t ■4 I :—
•
s _ , - lh._ • . ,,.ii.-...
t
1 ... , _
I . I ;•-• _.-..--4* ...
!
1
!'-,. . ialb .3. •
E =
ii
I 2 t t t*
,
1 .
• , , - .------ ------..............,................_.............,..........,,.... wilos.~10.”1.6.6 ...{.4 ig.. zo••••■ t..•■•••-• ,••••••••- • - • • I... , ....Aft. •:la •
...
\ 1 .
P 1 7
I .
g 4 : $ E Z194 0) 'Eusv
Itioll size VoixtrialSial • i [ "
ii, 1.111
1 Il
, i i ri gi irl. 11.!5 1 401%/00615 *AV 4816 i, . 111111111/ 1rlli 1 1 1 i. 1 a c ., 1
! 9 1
)il•,.. :;:ittlii!
: ll 1 < t
4g 14 1iR ill g
i 1 5 ,... ::: 1,1
Nym uadsv .,,1
' 11111;111 i L
..<
b 4 46
• V • Y.: g
41 .,- , 0
f ,t
1
r 6
ii •
•
,
i ,
, ii,.. 1 1 II i • .1
1 1
I ' 1 1 \ 1 ifi 1
. , , ., ... • 11 ,
1
..
II - • i , h r.---.... i :111
1 -17, - ...--Ji , 7_4:17J 1._. -, .. ... i • ,;
I i ' i Irialcia 11 111 1_ i . I • T ,
• 1 0 '- - s r .', IF 1111 i • ",'2.4 ....1
%two si -ITT. III ,),. L
i I ritatik Et 14
i' 11; ''
' I . 4:ik. • : -=.
4 lummtukti ....„.• • ,....,,,.
a _imsomissis, ._ li - 10iiq I .
_
-,• t.. •:-ii, - ,
i L pzimwo-E. i ,,, —
i 1 ■., ' 1 tv••:!A . - 0 ';' , ', , ,' , ' x
a.. , ... .... t__ F- =
1
C t " I 111 1 i ljjWIV . B
a 1 il .4 i i - •:
%I gi 1 • , - -:-. ' ----.'• :I usiutl ;
.i L.; g . --- -- ,...„. , .„,.
• 1.,x
1 , I
.,i , ,.1,r‘ I, ■ =
i • . ■ il': ir ; .. *E'.;I:11 0
ii . ,. ; iL:.41bri t; :fi i i
I i 1 , ' , 1 ''.; , q9 . ,.....! ', ;I:
I I : le 1 0
-L• 1 R ,, . 1 1:1 111 :--.-', : ‘"= ix 4
1 i
o ,
RI I i t 1 i■ ise --,' i ',. , -.; .. z. L ,,, , id: .i
_ _
.. , ta
. 0 -4 , --- 1 ..,-,.,• .,
Ei.• -' l''' l ' ''';" , ..@•i' i ,:
;,.,,,,,, • , it,: :; , ..., ' l . . w . 1
---•
A ----N ATI:
< 1 ) . ms . ., I.,. -; 1 ir " - .* 1
• • : ' I" ''' ' if
NI ;:-.,i 1 ..- 1. t 01;0. ..-4
l ' I . ,., ,- ,• '. . '
ri 1 1 I I I t I
I _ 'Tit' It • 4 i ''' •
4 ; ( ; . . , f. ;ii. .4 • ,
1 11
i za
! L__ _, _ . . li ' -,-•' il! .. 114r , , ,,_.
•• 0 - '- f
.; • 'Hfeeitil - - - :- —
' 1 1 :: ----1 :1,:, ..]-• 117 i
I 1 II 11 f I17- I 1 : ,- 1 s
I
1 t 1 1
1 i .111; • I 1611 OT i 1 t I
j . -NP 1 . _
.__S ____ . 1 — I - ; , • = 1
I
•
® . - .. I,. tiVil ' JP i .
:, ;, ,.1.)'1,•' . - ■••_1• ! .
! , 1 ■ . _ j_...
I— 1 " - - 11= 1
,,. i
11 ' i 1 i 't ' ' '' I N V' I I': f. i tii'. ,
. k i t1-44 ,i . !-Ei ....—.– 1 1 I
., —Iii i E!ik 11 J-
. 4D: - --- j, j : P r , i■;'=
i
:1 'ri
. le limilimmi: i .
. __. .
----
1
1:
I. -
. r
L ' ' 4 ' .- - 1-- 1 i ".1 ; '...jrilli■iii :#1:
I ■ i ,.: 1 ''' i 1 i 11111,
' ."
.11 _ !L 1.1- -1 A
r ..., r • .•
„. 1;. :7 , .:.; 5 ,:i• '• ,-,
i , _ .,„• :- I C I
i-s•-__ ----:•.• !„,1 ± ■., i; A 7... ,.... .-------‘-'
C
\ I 1 ■ ,.!* , f 1 . ,f- q ti ,
,,.:( '!4'7 • cc
k k li 1
I A I f III: :17 z
1111111111•1■11
lilaininallni_l_=-11-'-._ -' no --I i . .. . , I 1 L 01
1 li alliVii. ,:i 2 •,. ..
-r-.1 - ,-=--
8- - rtflii 7 7`..7,7"f7:77,
11, . g. 1 .4 .% op. - a ! .1 11 , tvo lli ?-
- .
J ..:,..?::, ..4 IL, ..,_-• L
.1 g 1 •
,,,....-„ - .; ta.
_ . t...!, A , ,'•:, 1 : 4 ' i I : ,
Q Al'i i: 1' L±. ill ! . ,
,
J V. . ., '.._''
1 Cr3)
C>-. ' A r
E
5 1
. _
1 1 ..
1 1
1
SI
I
or 1
•
• r
6 ' 8,
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC
landscape architecture. planning. resort design
1. .
412 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 t.97 f.970/92o -1628
info @scaplanning.com www.scaplanning.com
i '
k , . ut
25 March 2011
MAR iii,
Ms. Sara Adams, Senior Planner
City of Aspen CITY OF ,ASPEN
Community Development Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: AspenWalk Supplemental Submission / Planning and Zoning Commission
Dear Sara:
On behalf of our clients, please accept the enclosed supplemental materials in response
to certain questions voiced by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
public at our last hearing on 15 March 2011. The materials enclosed are:
T
• Garden Level plan with window height and window size call -outs. Renderings of
the subgrade affordable units are being prepared and will be ready for review by
the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing scheduled for 5 April 2011. In
connection with concerns over the livability of the partially sub -grade affordable
housing units, the enclosed plan demonstrates that all of the window sills are either
at or above - proposed grade. When considered with the forthcoming renderings,
we believe that these drawings will provide sufficient information to determine that
the subgrade units enjoy excellent access to light and ventilation and are very
livable and avoid creating a "dungeon- like" condition. Moreover, the first -floor
windows are generally the same as those provided in the free - market units.
• Revised roof plan and building sections showing only one (1) elevator accessing
the roof top deck on the free - market building. It has been determined that only
one elevator is required to permit ADA compliant access to the roof -top deck. The
one elevator that will access the roof -top deck will be the elevator that is least
visible from the street, located mid -block along Park Circle. The other two (2)
elevators will only rise above the roofline the minimum over -run required by code,
approximately four (4) feet. Efforts have also been made to reduce the
perception of mass on all elevator and stair towers.
• Revised Site Plan showing increase street- facing entries. The enclosed site plan
shows that a total of eight (8) street - facing entries are provided, along with an
additional access for a mid - building AH unit. In addition to the previously identified
six (6) street - facing entries, among them the very strong roofed portico leading to
the AH entry, we have added a street facing entry on the southern end of the free -
market building and a street - facing entry which will provide direct street access for
affordable housing unit "H." Although not exactly street - facing, we have also
provided a direct access n entry to the mid - building affordable housing unit "B."
We believe that these additional street - facing entries create a very strong street-
`�.. `
1 Sara Adams, Senior Planner '±�- F- � P1 9
Supplemental Submission / AspenWalk
25 March 2011 1
Page 2 CITY OF PEN
COMMJ'IIlY DEVELOPMENT
orientation for the project and meet the intent of the land use code section to the
greatest extent possible, while maintaining an efficient layout of the building.
• Revised Garage Plan showing garage ventilation. The revised garage plan clarifies
the method for providing ventilation for the garage. The ventilation system will pull
outside air through the garage via the main garage entrance located at the
ramp. The internal demising door between the free - market and affordable parking
areas will be an open type rollscreen door which will allow air to pass through. The
exhaust will then be pulled to a grated well located at the far southern end of the
free market building. The exhaust will be vented vertically and all mechanical will
be located in the garage. This method of ventilation will pose no negative impact
on the neighboring properties.
• Revised stair -tower glazing to reduce Tight spill. Following comments from residents
at the Midland Park Townhomes, the architect has modified the glazing on the stair
towers facing the Midland Park Townhomes to ensure that there will be no light
spillage from the motion activated lights located within the stair tower. While an
architectural detail denoting glazing will be visible from outside, these elements will
be decorative and not permit light spill from the interior. We believe that the other
lighting shown on the previously submitted lighting plan is entirely conforming to
code.
As we have previously indicated, the APCHA Board has reaffirmed their position that the
affordable housing units meet and exceed the standards for livability, even with the slight
subgrade condition of some of the units and the small reduction of the net livable of nine
units as a result in the adjustment of the category classification of these units. We have
been informed that they intend to provide a memo which reflects this position.
We sincerely hope that these latest modifications to the proposed development will
garner staff support for this very beneficial project. If you have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
C ACP" -
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Attachments
P20
RESOLUTION No. 05
(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,
continued to March 1, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that
City Council approve amendments to the text of 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, by a five — one (5 — 1) 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 # 05 of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 1 of 6
P21
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
26.575,0308)
• 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 # 05 of 2011
GMQS – Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 2 of 6
P22
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 # 05 of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 3of6
P23
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. 444999, §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 demonstrating compliance with as many
of the following conditions as possible:
a. Significant storage, such as additional storage outside the unit.
b. Above average natural light, such as adding more window area than
the Building Code requires.
c. Net livable unit sizes exceed minimum requirement.
d. Unit amenities, such as access to outdoor space or private patios.
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.
al
Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the gewth
requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, the following type s grow
management approvals shall be deducted from the respective development ceiling levels
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 05 of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 4 of 6
P24
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)
s
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
acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The
City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 05 of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 5 of 6
P25
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 1" day of March, 2011.
./ ' 1
Stan Gibbs, Chairman
Attest:
l ited:A----- ckie, Lothian, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
amen R. True, Special Counsel
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # 05 of 2011
GMQS — Affordable Housing Code Amendment
Page 6 of 6
P26
March 17, 2011
Dear Stan and members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
I will be unable to attend the April meeting to comment on the proposed
Aspen Walk free - market and affordable housing project on Park Circle, so I would
like to convey some thoughts by letter.
First, I want to compliment the developers on redesigning the exterior of the
building to better fit our neighborhood.
However, I'm still concerned about the height, especially the elevator towers
on the roof. I can't imagine that the corner of Park Circle and Gibson streets will
ever be clear of snow and ice during our long winter season with obliteration of the
sun by this big high building. It will be a dangerous bus stop at the bottom of an icy
hill.
Roof access for residents presents several concerns besides the need for
taller elevator shafts: Will there be sun umbrellas, outdoor furniture, and parties on
the roof?
I believe the partnership between the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing
Authority and the developers of Aspen Walk was a Faustian bargain. It serves as a
warning that joining two parcels for a supposed community benefit, to gain
replacement affordable housing along with new free - market condominiums, is not
always a win -win situation. Instead, a neighborhood of modest apartment buildings,
duplexes and single - family homes is going to change forever with the precedent -
setting structure of a large- massed building on a prominent corner. Perhaps the
two parcels should have remained separate and been developed separately by the
Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority!
Sincerely yours, % a w
Sara Garton
110 Midland Park Place, Aspen, CO 81611 RECEIVED
i!AP 17 21ii
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPME!r'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sam Adams, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Department
DATE: March 31, 2011
RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE
ISSUE: The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors (APCHA Board) and
PFG AspenWalk, LLC met on March 16, 2011, to review the Joint Development Agreement and
came to an agreement regarding the development.
BACKGROUND: The applicant had recommended all Category 4 units at P &Z's last meeting
and the Housing Board and the applicant have reached an agreement that there are to be six on-
site units designated as Category 3. Per the Guidelines, the Housing Board reviewed the square
footages of the units and found that they were within the allowable minimums because of
superior design, lighting, transportation, parking and storage. The Guidelines permit the Board
to make allowances up to 20% below the minimums if certain criteria are met, and these square
footages easily meet the requirement of this policy. The developer has also been sensitive to
holding down the HOA assessments through design, heating decentralization, and the use of
durable, low maintenance materials.
The Board also discussed a request by the Community Development Department for balconies
and a roof -top garden for the affordable housing units. The Board was given this information and
the applicant has made excellent use of the design of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board is recommending approval of the application and
that the categories will be decided upon by the Housing Board in conjunction with the developer.
Category Criteria for Aspen /Walk Joint Development Page 1
( --)7
4 . II
Midland Park Condominium Association
P.O. Box 10609
Aspen, CO 81612
March 31, 2011
Chairman Stan Gibbs and Members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
The following are the concerns of the Midland Park Condominium Association regarding the
redevelopment of Aspen Walk, aka the 404 Park Avenue / 414 Park Circle properties.
Midland Park is a 33 year -old affordable housing complex immediately adjacent to the
aforementioned properties. As one of the earliest affordable housing projects in Aspen, we
understand and accept the responsibilities that come with the privilege of owning affordable
housing. The majority of our residents have been homeowners for at least 10 years. There are
even five or six original homeowners still roaming around. And as a point of interest, the
livability of our neighborhood has recently attracted the next generation of Aspenites.
We are a full -time residential complex and consider ourselves to be a true community. We have
been supportive of affordable housing in the community and have always attempted to be in
compliance with Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. Over the years we have taken great
pains to maintain and enhance our community. We have strived to be good neighbors and Aspen
citizens. We are a solid, stable HOA and are fortunate to have good financials. We strongly
believe in the concept of neighborhood and giving back to Aspen.
In past collaborations with 404 Park Avenue, under previous ownership, we allowed access to
their residents, employees with families much like ourselves, to Midland Park's open space
buffering our two complexes. We continue to spend considerable time and effort improving this
area.
We have negotiated successfully with other neighbors to our east and north on common land and
utility issues. In general, we think we are pretty good people, and we appreciate our mixed single -
family, multi - family, owner /renter, long -term eclectic neighborhood. Messy vitality is very much
alive and well in Midland Park and its surroundings.
Having said all that, we need to express reservations regarding the redevelopment of the 404 Park
Avenue project as currently presented. While we all can agree that the existing structure is in dire
need of replacement, the planned redevelopment is cause for concern for all Midland Park
residents as well as adjacent neighbors. Along with the incorporation of the replacement of the
Smuggler Mt. Apartments our main concerns are as follows:
1. The mass and scale of the proposed building(s).
These proposed buildings are out of proportion with any existing multi - family complex in
the neighborhood. This is a clear instance of lot line to lot line development, reminiscent
of the rather unappealing (and unsold) redevelopment of the Lauriski Property on the
corner of South Street and Gibson Avenue. Midland Park sits on the edge of Aspen. We
are a transitional neighborhood bordered by City and County open space and USFS lands.
The proposed increase in livable heated square footage is excessive. The Aspen Walk
submission states the existing square footage on the property is 17,665 sf. Their proposed
development is 40,914 sf.
2. The rooftop deck.
It is our position that the rooftop patio with its planned spas, grills and entertainment
areas is inconsistent and inappropriate with the existing neighborhood. The roof top and
patio noise will impact our common elements and individual residents. The rooftop deck
is surrounded by clear glass /Plexiglas railings. Our preference is for the roof top deck to
be eliminated but if it remains, we request that it be set back inward on the roof and that
solid siding be used on the Midland Park side of the structure. The other known
proposed /completed rooftop developments (Dancing Bear and Stage 3) are in the
downtown commercial area and not in a multi - family neighborhood.
3. Shadowing impacts.
The October 2010 Aspen Walk submission states the height of the existing structure to be
+/- 32 feet, and that their proposed project will be the same height. This neglects to
address the elevator tower(s). Therefore we request a shadow study for the buildings and
mature landscaping on all the surrounding streets. This area is prone to intense icing in
winter and presents some serious challenges to pedestrian traffic.
4. Lack of Green Space (open space)
We are not a fully built -out complex and hope to stay as such. The lack of green and
open space of the proposed development is of concern as Midland Park and Aspen pride
themselves in its strong environmental and outdoor ethic.
5. The issues regarding noise venting from the underground garage and air conditioning
system as well as air quality.
The ventilation system for the garage is said to not be noisy. We would like see
specifications for the noise level at the property line, and we would like to ensure the air
coming from the vent adjacent to our children's park is filtered and vented upwards and
away from the park.
6. The motion- triggered lighting from stairwells facing Midland Park.
Lighting in the stairwells, even with darkened glass does not seem to be an assurance to
avoid unnecessary lighting in the area. There is already a wall approximately 112 feet
long, three stories high that will be facing Midland Park. Specific lighting specs need to
be determined prior to approval if stairwell glazing is allowed. We would recommend
that no glazing be allowed in the stairwells. Skylights may be an alternative low energy
and pleasant lighting option for the stairwells. Motion censored lights are disturbing to
adjacent neighbors. Midland Park is one of the few neighborhoods without ambient light
allowing us to enjoy the night skies.
7. The affordable housing common area which abuts the back of one of our buildings.
A noise level buffer is needed for this area in a form other than landscaping.
8. The inadequate landscape plan buffering the garden level units from Midland Park.
The landscaping on the Midland Park side is inadequate and should be contained within
the boundaries of the Aspen Walk project. The proposed deciduous trees will lose their
leaves in winter and thus not shield light or noise for most of the year. A stone wall at the
maximum height allowed by the City would be attractive and help shield at least one
floor of lighting from Midland Park.
9. Resident and Guest Parking
The amount and allotment of guest parking compounded by a segregated "gated"
arrangement in the underground parking area does not allow for overflow from one side.
There is also a lack of accommodation for on- street parking.
10. The mass and scale of the proposed development is inconsistent with the
neighborhood.
Recently Stan Clauson was kind enough to meet with us for nearly two hours explaining the
project details and taking our questions. While there is an opportunity to mitigate some of these
issues, this redevelopment will not be a "neighborhood" in an area where neighborhood is the
name of the game.
Eliminating the rooftop patio and redeveloping the property with minimal increase in footprint,
would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
This project has been financially troubled from the start and remains such. Because of the
uncertainty of ownership and potential difficulty with financing (a la Stage 3 and Dancing Bear)
we are concerned about the successful completion of a project of this magnitude in our
neighborhood.
Midland Park Condominium Association cannot support this project as currently presented. As a
neighborhood of concerned citizens we remain wary of it in any form until there is resolution
and /or more transparency regarding its ownership and associated legal and financial issues. We
urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration.
k
Jim McPhee, President
For the Board of Directors, Midland Park Condominium Association
Including:
Tom Griffiths
Cindy Houben
Todd Welden
g I E 1.07 - SLIMY '3AV )flIdd 78 E $ d j r z
a ' S LO I NOISIAIQfl17S )Rldd ANI�IIIS i S b s
mW 1a2 . s e i1 "� n a O 0
�
A < i ?IZ�dt1[1 l�I3dSF1 F 6a °a U =
F N z d
1
o
Z a
2. oV
G�
Z 0- a p c _ 3 1 w I g 3 2 Q 0 % y ^:
Lt o b a .. � s S ;°2„ f � ¢ W �
, p � w 2 Ni M
a x a a
o
2. v k '1 . 0Q' 1 18
1 m
°' t, 1 11 1 1 � fi e
J. G r IIIIE l \ ''� (° c i I = p
a
1 uorSJAjpgns Y)JON irjed Lfauns
f 707
1 ��e
\-::?' '' Ac __.- hi aaer --
- ligis AfAs,-- 1p . .
f 1 . i
a e
----- ---- N , y .„ 0 ! ii_ I 11 1 18 01 10 1 M . i ` E'
2 w E 1 i,
" Iii
7 — 0( /
3 � 1 1 I 11E II' ii s
I i c? i11� II, i'.,
1II 1
1 a
I 0.
�, I
l 1 1 �\
3 sl 11 I 1 , 1
tio m
t �� 1 1 11 1 01 I'i
'�' l °t 1� �S 1 11 5
— — i t j ��'; tae
:� 1 1
!!F e� d f,
o �I i l l r 11 }
4 $ aq \ 1'r l A
6 O° i
_ �^ If
A Sa.41 . 4 1 14 4 .
trosee ` ri <
/2:
ca
w
0
nu OM
$! E 1 O1 SI2IaV end xxva E s a q N W
z s # S S LOI �IOISIAIQfl17S ?RIVd CIS NI1S ° 1 '= 1 N > a >
YN P1'1 c Ici 01 n I m F
vv A � �7 ° " 4 o�d I x r ; o
g ; l )11VM MddSV 1Sd i 8 g & 5 \.!
S
I
o
1 -
=
r tt t _ s w
c c • IF c a cc 2
'o u v a o a• Q V m o ° z \ @$
5._
r i.-- relit yob I„ �� U =-
11 \ C; CL
s . I ° > t $ w b
9 -
I
x r ■
x
_ — • la r i
-!$ir' Fi 1 '
Ir' I
1
l l . II
L , u Ni i I �I �fl I
3 I ; T 1 ,
1
V�I -
b 0
�g
LI
g
ro 1 Pr I II g
411 , I 1 i IM 1 I ID ,
i Iii
ii II
I I ,
j;
1 ,
]
i,* „
�, f v I mill ■
a� / `
a ie . iNt 4 ...7 1 111
3% 7 �
ill
\M
1SY
311 OM
April 5, 2011
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissioners and Planning Department Staff
While there are a number of concerns regarding the proposed Aspen Walk
project that I could address, I would like to focus on the areas of mass, scale
and design, which are inextricably linked.
To begin, I am an original Midland Park homeowner.
Over the past 33 years, I have seen a number of changes in my neighborhood
that I would like to mention as I believe they are germane to this discussion.
I have seen Midland Park mature as an association and neighborhood,
figuratively and literally. Over the past 20 years, in particular, I believe
there has been a remarkable stability to the Midland Park neighborhood. I
have seen my neighbors' children grow up and go to college and new
residents settle in with their young children. If I am so fortunate, I hope to
see a repeat of this cycle with this next generation.
I have also seen vast changes in the surrounding neighborhoods as well —
some good, others not so good. Are we now part of a trend, as has been
suggested whereby new super -sized single - family residences move into the
area with their lot line to lot line redevelopment? On one hand, we have
seen developments such as the multi - family Snyder Park complex
incorporate its wonderful location and surroundings with many open green
spaces into its very livable community. In other instances, yes, there has
been single- family redevelopment that has elected to go lot line to lot line
because variances were granted or the code allowed them to do so, and so
they did. Do I have to like it or agree with it? No, I don't and no, I don't.
The most recent draft of the Aspen Area Community Plan advocates renewed
focus on zoning rules for residential neighborhoods in both the city and
county where "allowable house size differs dramatically and can result in
sudden changes in neighborhood character." Time and time again
throughout this approval process the Planning Staff has voiced their
reservations with the Aspen Walk project because of its incompatibility with
the neighborhood. Again, in the Aspen Area Community Plan under the
heading of Managing Growth it states that "new development should be
compatible and in harmony with the massing, scale and character of the
neighborhood."
The Aspen Walk project may meet code requirements regarding height and
setbacks but it is not a single - family residence and thus, its impacts far
outweigh those of some of the more recently built single - family homes on
Midland and Park Avenues. The mass and scale of the Aspen Walk project
is more than twice the square footage of the existing property's livable
heated space — an increase, in fact of 130.28% - and is clearly out of scale
for and with the existing neighborhood. It is part of a trend? Perhaps. But
surely there are some trends worth halting or reversing. If not some of us
might still be wearing Nehru jackets, sporting beehive hairdos, and living in
pan- abodes.
Trends come and go and some endure — hopefully most that endure are the
worthy ones. I believe this project in its present form to be unworthy and if
it is allowed to progress as is, it may unfortunately endure and its impacts
will be felt by my neighborhood and other adjacent neighborhoods every
single day. It is my belief that those impacts will not be positive.
I strongly urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny approval of
this project as currently presented.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Judith Kolberg
501 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado
7 11-- 3 • P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Drew Alexander, Planner
RE: Lift One Lodge Final PUD & Timeshare Review — Public Hearing
DATE: April 5, 2011
SUMMARY:
Tonight's hearing is the first in a series of meetings to review the final application for the Lift
One Lodge. This project has been in the planning process since 2006 and has undergone
several changes. The project was granted conceptual approval by City Council in late 2009.
Tonight's hearing will provide an orientation to the project. The presentation will cover the
history of the project, the changes the project has undergone, details on the uses, program and
architectural character of the proposal, and an overview of the reviews necessary. The
Commission will have a chance to ask questions about the project, its history, the conceptual
approval, why certain changes were made, etc.
The public hearing portion of tonight's meeting can be used to permit members of the public
to likewise orient themselves to the project and indentify items that they would like to know
more about. At the end of the meeting, the Commission should be familiar with the project
and have identified aspects of the proposal that need to be clarified and questions that need to
be answered. At the conclusion of tonight's review, staff will propose the public hearing be
continued to April 19
On the 19 a more detailed presentation of the project will be provided — getting into the
details of the architecture, massing, heights, parking, street vacations, zoning changes, etc.
This should also provide staff and the applicant time to follow -up on questions from the first
meeting. Staff will present findings on review criteria and comments provided by referral
agencies as well as a recommendation. At the conclusion of the meeting on the 19 staff will
propose continuation of the hearing to May 3''
BACKGROUND:
This neighborhood has had multiple development applications proceeding through
development review in the past few years. The owners of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain
project, the Lift One Lodge project, the Aspen Skiing Company, and the City of Aspen
jointly initiated a master planning process in early 2008 — the Lift One Neighborhood Master
Plan COWOP. That process incorporated a citizen task force and developed a master plan
for the entire neighborhood. The master plan was not adopted and that process was
eventually terminated.
Page 1 of 4
P2
Prior to entering into the neighborhood master planning process, the Lift One Lodge project
had received positive recommendations for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Historic Preservation Commission for their Conceptual PUD application. The Conceptual
application was not forwarded to City Council, but rather tolled for the term of the master
planning effort.
After the neighborhood master planning effort was terminated, the Lift One Lodge PUD
application was re- activated and forwarded to City Council. Obviously, the 2006 PUD
application did not incorporate the newer ideas of the master planning exercise as it was
prepared prior to that effort. Some of the new ideas were off - property items and could not be
accommodated on the smaller land area. Some of the ideas were still valid and were
integrated into the PUD application. The Conceptual application for the Lift One Lodge was
approved by City Council through the adoption of Resolution No. 52, Series of 2009.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This application is subject to the Land Use Code in effect at the date of initial submission —
November, 2006. Many of the required P &Z reviews have been combined with City Council
review. The Code provides this option to ensure clarity of entitlements and minimize
conflicting approvals. The project remains subject to all review criteria and public noticing
requirements. This project requires the following reviews:
Final Planned Unit Development: An application for Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.445.030 (B)2, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve
with conditions or disapprove of the PUD after receiving a recommendation by the Planning
Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body.
Timeshare: An application for Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.590.040,
requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or
disapprove of the Timeshare use plan after receiving a recommendation by the Planning
Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body.
Subdivision: An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.480.040(C)1, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with
conditions or disapprove of the Subdivision after receiving a recommendation by the
Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the fmal decision - making body.
Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning]: An application for Amendment to the
Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the City
Council, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an
amendment to the Zone District Map after receiving a recommendation by the Planning
Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body.
Page 2 of 4
P3
Growth Management Review — Incentive Lodge Development: An application for the
development of new lodge units, commercial space, and associated free - market residential
pursuant to Land Use Code Section Sec. 26.470.040.C.3. The Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City
Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Growth Management Review — Essential Public Facility: An application for the
development of an essential public facility (the museum) pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040.D.3. The City Council is the final review authority, who may approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the proposal.
Growth Management Review — Affordable HOusina: An application for the development of
new affordable residences pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.C.7. The Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Special Review for Average Lodge Unit Size: An application for Special Review to consider
the average lodge unit size, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.190.E. The Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Conditional Use for Restaurant and Bar: A conditional use application to consider the
restaurant and bar (within the lodge) pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425.050. The
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Conditional Use for Dormitory Units: A conditional use application to consider dormitory
style housing units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425.050. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mountain View Plane Review: An application to the effects of the project on the Wheeler
Opera House designated view plane Land Use Code Section 26.435.050. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
Page 3 of 4
P4
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Condominiumization: An application for condominiumization, pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.480.090, requires the Community Development Director approve a plat for
recordation to affect a condominium form of ownership. This review has been combined
pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the fmal review authority. The plat will
be presented for administrative approval and recordation upon substantial completion of the
improvements.
Right -of -Way Vacations: Pursuant to C.R.S. 43 -2 -303 the City Council may vacate a public
right -of -way upon adoption of an Ordinance. City Council is the final review authority.
Extended Vested Rights: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.010, City Council may
grant a period of statutory vested rights in excess of the minimum three -year period. City
Council is the final review authority.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission receive the presentation and become familiar with the
application. And, then continue the hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to continue the public hearing on Lift One Lodge to April 19`
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Lift One Lodge Application
B — Lift One Lodge Application Appendix — by reference only. The City Clerk has a
copy and there's a copy in ComDev. A table of contents for the appendix is in the
main application.
C — April 5 Project Summary
D — Conceptual and Final Review Comparison
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit C 5
LIFT 1 LODGE: FINAL PUD /TIMESHARE APPLICATION SUMMARY
Introduction and Required Reviews pg. 2
The Project Site pg. 3
• Parcel A pg. 3
• Parcel B pg. 3
• Parcel C pg. 3
• Parcel D pg. 3
• Parcel E pg. 4
• Existing Utilities pg. 4
Proposed Development pg. 5
• Lot 1 (Timeshare Lodge) pg. 5
• Lot 2 (Skiers Chalet Steak House /Affordable Housing) pg. 6
• Lot 3 (Ski Corridor) pg. 6
• Lot 4 (Willoughby Park/Skiers Chalet Lodge and Ski Museum) pg. 6
Growth Management Allotments pg. 7
Affordable Housing pg. 7
April 5, 2011
Page 1
P6
Applicant: Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC
Represented by: Vann Associates, LLC
City Council is the final review authority for all requests and the June 2005 printing of Title 26 shall
be the reference Land Use Code.
REQUIRED REVIEWS:
• Final PUD
• Final Timeshare
• Growth Management
• Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
• Subdivision
• Condominiumization
• Conditional Use
• Commercial Design Review
• Special Review
• Mountain Viewplane ESA
• Street and Alley Vacations
• Extension of Vested Property Rights
*Note: Some of the more detailed information typically submitted at final PUD (e.g., the PUD
agreement, subdivision plat, final grading and drainage plan, construction management plan, etc.)
will be submitted on a certain date following City Council approval.
The final PUD /timeshare approval ordinance will specify the various additional documents, plans,
engineering drawings, etc. to be submitted for subsequent review and staff approval. It is also
anticipated that the Applicant's final PUD /timeshare approval, and all associated approvals, will
vest upon adoption of the City Council approval ordinance
•
April 5, 2011
Page 2
P7
THE PROJECT SITE:
The Lift 1 site consists of three privately owned parcels of land, referenced in the application as
Parcels A, B, and C. The site also includes two City owned parcels of land that include portions of
Hill Street, Gilbert Street and South Aspen Street right -of -ways, and are known as Parcels D and E.
• Parcel A:
o Contains 7,700 square feet of land, inclusive of the vacated alley, and is owned by
the applicant.
o Legally described as Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14, Block 9, and the portion of the vacated
alley between Lots 1 and 14 and the west twenty feet of Lots 2 and 13, Block 9, of
the Eames Addition.
o Parcel A is the former site of the Holland House Lodge which was demolished by
the Applicant in 2008. The Holland House contained twenty lodge units and a one
bedroom dwelling unit which at one time was occupied by the lodge's owner.
• The demolition of the Holland House's dwelling unit is subject to the
affordable housing mitigation requirements of the City's Resident Multi-
Family Replacement Program.
• Parcel B:
o Contains approximately 9,756 square feet of land area, inclusive of the vacated alley.
o Legally described as Lots 4 and 11, less the west twenty -two feet thereof, and Lots 5
through 10, Block 9, of the Eames Addition.
o Parcel B currently contains the former Skiers Chalet Lodge, a small outdoor pool
and patio, and a paved parking area.
• Parcel C:
o Contains approximately 5,383 square feet of land area and is owned by the
Applicant.
o Legally described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8, or the Eames Addition.
o Parcel C currently contains the former Skiers Chalet Steak House restaurant
building, and outdoor patio, one of the original Lift 1 towers, a portion of the lift's
cable system, and an old outhouse.
• The former restaurant contains approximately 2,429 square feet of net
leasable commercial area and eight lodge units.
• The restaurant building is a designated property on the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures.
• Parcel D:
o Contains approximately 6,823 square feet of land area inclusive of the alley.
o Legally described as Lots 3 and 12, and the west twenty -two feet of Lots 4 and 11,
Block 9, of the Eames Addition.
o Commonly referred to as "Lift 1 Park"
o Owned by the City.
April 5, 2011
Page 3
P8
o Parcel D currently contains one of the original Lift 1 towers, portions of the old lift's
cable system, and a piece of the rock retaining wall which surrounds the adjacent
Skiers Chalet Lodge's parking area.
o Parcel D is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Parcel E:
o Contains approximately 35,810 square feet of land area, inclusive of the Juan Street
right -of -way and the alleys in Blocks 7 and 8.
o Legally described as Lots 1 through 14, Block 7, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 8, of
the Eames Addition.
o Also known as Willoughby Park
o Owned by the City
o Currently, Parcel E contains the old Lift 1 base tower, and old outhouse, two sand
volleyball courts, and a parking lot with space for approximately 40 cars.
o Also a designated landmark
• Through a long -term lease, granted in 1995, the Historical Society is
permitted to construct "a building to be used primarily as a community
museum related to the history of the Aspen area, including the theme of
skiing and/or facility to support the skiing related activities of the Aspen
Valley Ski Club."
• The current deadline for obtaining a building permit for the museum is
December 1, 2015.
• Existing Utilities:
o South Aspen Street:
• Six inch waterline
• Twelve inch waterline which turns east above the project site in the
unimproved Hill Street right -of -way.
• Eight inch sanitary sewer (upper street)
• Twelve inch sewer (lower street)
o Other:
• Natural gas lines
• Electric
• Telephone
• Cable TV
• Fire hydrants
April 5, 2011
Page 4
P9
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The Applicant proposed to combine Parcels A, B, C, D, and E into four separate lots. Parcels A, B
and C; the vacated portions of the Hill Street and Gilbert Street right -of -ways; a portion of the
vacated South Aspen Street right -or -way; and the vacated alley in Block 9 will be platted at Lot 1 of
the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD. The remaining portion of the proposed South Aspen Street
vacation will be platted Lot 2. Parcels D and E, and a portion of the existing Juan Street right -of-
way located adjacent to Parcel E and the Dolinsek property, will be platted as Lots 3 and 4
respectively.
• Lot 1 (Applicant owned):
o Contains 40,508 square feet inclusive of the vacated right -of -ways square feet of
land, inclusive of the vacated alley.
o Proposed zoning is Lodge PUD
o Will contain the timeshare lodge with 176 fractional ownerships, or roughly 8
interests per lodge unit
• Two connected, mutli -level structures
• The lodge and subgrade parking areas will consist of nine separate levels
• Twenty -two lodge units with a range in size from 1,790 — 2,548 sq. ft. of
livable area, and will contain 84 separate keys
• Fifteen 3- bedroom suites
• Seven 4- bedroom suites
o Average lock -off or "key" size is 537 sq. ft.
• Five free - market residential units
• Will be condominiumized and sold
• Size varies from 2,030 — 3,673 sq. ft. of livable area
o Total floor area of free - market is 13,013 sq. ft.
• Business center
• Ski storage and tuning area
• Rooftop garden
• Pool and deck
• Restaurant and bar
• Open to lodge guests, unit owners, and general public
o Parking garage (provides parking for majority of development)
• Total of 155 off -street parking spaces
• 42 spaces for the lodge units, or 0.5 per key
• 6 spaces for the 5,989 sq. ft. of net leasable
• 13 spaces for the 5 free - market and 8 affordable housing units (on
Lot 2)
• 50 spaces for general public for replacement of lost parking along the
street
• 44 additional spaces will be made available to lodge members
o Architectural Character and Dimensions
• Using "mountain architecture"
• Low stone base
April 5, 2011
Page 5
P10
o Wood, synthetic, cementitious materials make most of the
building's body
o Top is mostly timber columns and trellises
o Roof structure will be utilizing green
• Building Heights
o 32% of structure ranges in height from 42 feet or less
o 47% of structure ranges in height from 42 feet — 48 feet
o 20% is greater than 48 but less than 55 feet
o Less than 1% is greater than 55 ft. with the max height being at
57, which is at a chimney on the buildings east wing.
• Lot 2 (Applicant owned):
o Contains approximately 3,562 square feet (consists entirely of a portion of the
vacated South Aspen Street right -of -way)
o Proposed zoning is AH(PUD)
o Will be the site of the relocated Skiers Chalet Steak House.
• The Steak House will be converted to affordable housing for the project.
• This will include eight dormitory units with shared bathrooms and a
common kitchen/dining area.
• The eight units will contain approximately 2,697 square feet of net livable
area.
• 16 employees will be housed in the converted steak house/
• Each employee will have approximately 168 square feet of net livable area,
which exceeds APCHA's requirement of 150 sq. ft. per employee.
• Lot 3 (City owned):
o Contains approximately 6,823 square feet
o Proposed zoning is PUB(H)(PUD) — Public, Historic, Planned Unit Development
o Primarily serves as the ski corridor between the two timeshare lodge wings.
o The Applicant is also committing $600,000 for the installation of a platter lift that
will run through the ski corridor (the base will be on Lot 4, adjacent to the ski
museum).
o Underground garage
• A subsurface easement will be required on Lot 4 for the construction of the
parking facility.
• Lot 4 (City owned):
o Contains approximately 38,356 square feet, which is inclusive of the Juan Street
right -of -way which has historically been used as volleyball courts.
o Proposed zoning is PUB(H)(PUD)
o Will be the site of the relocated Skiers Chalet Lodge and adjacent pool house.
• The relocated Skiers Chalet Lodge, a three story structure will be converted
to a museum and operated by the Aspen Historical Society
• The Applicant will request historic designation of this structure after
relocation.
o The surface parking lot is intended to be removed, along with the volleyball courts
April 5, 2011
Page 6
P11
• The applicant has pledged $150,000 for the purposes of relocating the
volleyball courts.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENTS:
The Lift 1 proposal is requesting allotments for lodging units, free- market residential, and
commercial/net leasable square footage. Although the 2005 Land Use Code is the applicable
review document, the applicant has chosen to structure the allotment requests using currant code
language (primary difference is for lodge allotments).
• The following is a summary of. the Growth Management Quota System allotments being
requested:
o Lodge: 92 pillows
• 84 lodge new keys - 38 key reconstruction credit (from Holland House) = 46
keys
• Each key must receive allotments for two "pillows," therefore 92 pillows are
required.
o Free - market residential: 4 units (one credit from the Holland House)
o Commercial: 3,560 sq. ft. of net leasable area (2,429 sq. ft. credit from the Skiers
Chalet Steak House)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
The Applicant agreed in the Conceptual PUD/Timeshare approval to house 100 percent of the net
new employees generated by the proposed lodge. This doesn't allow for the typical methodology
for when affordable housing is provided on -site to satisfy multiple affordable housing requirements
concurrently.
Also, the Applicant agreed to house 40 percent of the employees on -site, and to locate the remainder
of the housing within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. The following is a breakdown of the
project's commitment to 100% affordable housing:
• Commercial/lodge requirement: 34.27 employees
• Four free - market residential units: 3.35 employees
• Total employee generation: 37.62 employees
16 of the employees will be housing in the converted Skiers Steak House affordable housing
building. The remainder of the employees (21.62) will be provided housing within the Urban
Growth Boundary. The specifics of this mitigation will be submitted prior to the recordation of the
proposed development' s find PUD/Timeshare documents.
April 5, 2011
Page 7
E,c,-1 D
P1
Conceptual Approval Final Submission
Units /Keys 27 Units / 107 Keys 22 Units / 84 Keys
Free Market Units 5 5
Affordable Housing:
% mitigated: 100% Mitigation 100% Mitigation
% on -site: Min of 40 % On Site Min of 40 % On Site
# housed on -site: 26.5 Employees 16 Employees
Commercial SkiCo Ticketing and Restaurant Restaurant
Dining Public Restaurant w/ Apres Ski Public Restaurant w/ Apres Ski
Deck, Beer/Boots/Brats, Member Deck, Member Dining
Dining
Free Market 5 units, total of20,395 s.f 5 units, total of 13,013 s.f.
Museum AHS Museum reusing Skiers AHS Museum reusing Skiers
Chalet Lodge Chalet Lodge
Floor Area- Total Museum: 4,320 s.f. Museum: 4,320 s.f.
Steakhouse: 2,594 s.f. Steakhouse: 3,184 s.f.
Lodge: 116,779 s.f. Lodge: 77,010 s.f.
Total 123,693 s.f. Total 84,514 s.f.
Room Size- Average Average Key: 612 s.f. Average Key: 545 s.f.
Parking- Lodge/Public 200 / 50 105/50
Snowmelt Yes, sidewalks and street Yes, sidewalks
No, streets- enhanced driving
surface and sanding with capture
basins
Ski Lifts New Lift 1A, New Surface Lift Funding for Surface Lift
Lift One Lodge Subdivision / PUD
Aspen, Colorado
PO55 AP `I TF . 5 ii.... D R C : Design Comparison Chart
mim'i'� 0216.11