HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20111115 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, November 15, 2011
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 1245 Mountain View Drive, Residential Design Variance
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Aspen Area Community Plan, joint Public Hearing with Pitkin
County Planning and Zoning Commission
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 21
P1
MEMORANDUM
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Direct
FROM: Claude Salter, Zoning Officer
RE: 1245 Mountain View Drive - Residential Design Standards Variance, - Public
Hearing
DATE: November 15, 2011
APPLICANT /OWNER: Subject Property:
Michael and Cathy Tierney
REPRESENTATIVE: ;'C
Peter LaMorte, LaMorte and .;. �'``'
Company, Ltd. ? -;?;
LOCATION: Lot: 8, Block: 2, , =.ti„
• West Meadow Subdivision. " t y �,:e,,„:. I !r' i '
y
The property is located off ` ±' 1, ='.
Cemetery Lane on Mountain - : - - •'
�'`• �:
View Drive. � � � -
CURRENT ZONING:
R -15, Moderate - Density -
Residential
SUMMARY: 46:51,_
The Applicant requests a
variance from the Building
Elements Residential Design
Standard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval
of the requested Residential
Design Standard Variance.
Page 1 of 5
P 2 LAND USE REQUESTS:
The Applicant has constructed a new single - family residence at 1245 Mountain View Drive.
The original building plan met all the Residential Design Standards, during the course of
construction a change was made to the front door. The owners are seeking a variance from
the Building Elements requirement, as outlined below:
• Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section
26.410.020.D, Variances. The applicant is requesting variances from L.U.C. Section
26.410.040.D; Building Elements (requiring ...the entry door not be taller than eight
(8) feet). The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A variance from the Residential Design Standards shall be approved, approved with
conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by
the Planning and Zoning Commission under L.U.C. Sections: 26.410.020 D. Variances.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting a variance from the Building Elements, street oriented entrance
and principal window requirement for a new single - family home, specifically section
26.410.040.D1.a requires, "entry doors shall not be taller than eight feet."
In February of 2010, the homeowner applied for a building permit to demolish the existing
structure and build a new single - family home on the property. The plans were approved by
Zoning in March of 2010. The owner did not request a variance as the plans met the
Residential Design Standards. The project was built without change orders to the original
plan. However, during the final Zoning inspection the front door was larger than what was
approved on the original permit.
The owners are requesting a variance from the requirement which specifies the height of the
front entry door.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES:
All new structures in the City of Aspen are required to meet the residential design standards
or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code chapter 26.410,
Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards "is to preserve established
neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each
home...contribute to the streetscape."
Specifically the intent of the Building Elements standard is to, "ensure that each residential
building has street - facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to
the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions"
The Applicant's existing door meets two of the three requirements for entry doors. The
standard states that, "The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet
back from the front -most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8)
feet." The door is street facing and flush with the front -most wall of the building. Yet, the
height of the entry door is nine (9) inches taller than allowed by the standard.
The owner's proposal is to keep the existing door.
Page 2 of 5
P3
Below, are photographs taken of the completed project. The bottom photographs represent
the existing conditions for the requested variance.
ir
Wit
i s
it
There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to
grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2):
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in
which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider
the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine
if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific
constraints.
Staff Finding: Staff believes the requested variance meets the review standard `a' because
the proposed door is a supportable design given the pattern of development and considering
the relationship of the adjacent structures and immediate neighborhood. The custom door
does not appear to be out of character with the house or with the diverse neighborhood The
Mountain View neighborhood includes assorted building styles, including contemporary,
ranch style and eclectic single family homes. The neighborhood is predominately single
family homes.
The proposed design of the entry door is appropriate given the moderate variation in height
of the door. The door is less than 10% taller than required by the standard. The color and
hardware of the door serve to diminish the difference between the standard of eight feet (8)
and the custom door. The door is the same color as the siding of the house which minimizes
Page
,
F4 the difference in height of the door. The handle is of moderate size and location which serve
to make the door design consistent with the residential use; which is the context of the
neighborhood
Below, is a photographic representation of adjacent structures in the neighborhood.
_
ms s . r. . - ::.
1 j " f • h? ' + v ' r : 122 51• 4
'at � r II. I ' .
4 .• 12407 4
4 r i' k f V1 s :71 t f r Ve • Iii •
.60,' `� } Mi'rf V - �"�Y ` ! ' +Yz f 11_°, -
s
Q , F: 1 S2. • r ' ■ ;Fr ,v . wMC .. ,235
f [ 6, 1315 t R•. A
t '
a �� 1 9A 1 ^ 5 , - 12L5 t , � 1 , ' X
�1 �! "a.!^ r .01t_ . . y, " • . 1227, , Mai
R fir h , F • .0 ,, -. . ^ --."- ' A '''. I , r: .1.
it I, _ .•
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In reviewing the proposal; Staff believes that the request does meet the variance review
standard, noted above that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 D, Variances.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Page 4 of 5
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): P 5
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, approving a variance request from
the Building Elements requirement of the Residential Design Standards to maintain a custom
door at 1245 Mountain View Drive.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
Exhibit B: Application
Page 5 of 5
P6
Resolution No.
(SERIES OF 2011)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING ELEMENTS RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STANDARD TO MAINTAIN THE ENTRY DOOR AT 1245 MOUNTAIN
VIEW DRIVE, SUBDIVIDION WEST MEADOW BLOCK: 2 LOT: 8, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273501309018
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Michael and Cathy Tierney, represented by Peter LaMort, LaMorte and Company, Ltd.,
requesting Variance approval from the Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window
Residential Design Standard to maintain the entry door at 1245 Mountain View Drive; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 D. Variances, the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed
public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director;
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Variance from Residential
Design Standard — Building Elements (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.D.1.a); and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 15, 2011, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No_, (Series of 2011), by a _ to ( — )
vote, approving a Residential Design Standard Variance; 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,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds applicable development standard 26.410.020.D.2.a (Provide an
appropriate design or pattem of development considering the context in which the development
is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in
the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with
adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is
necessary to determine if the exception is warranted;) and that the approval of the development
proposal, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Land Use Code and the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
II
P7
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 Commission:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance from the following Residential
Design Standard:
L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.D.1.a, Building Elements — Street oriented entrance and principal window.
(Requiring the entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the
front -most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet.) A variance is
granted to permit the entry door to be nine (9) inches taller than required by the standard.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has determined the variance request meets the review
criteria outlined in L.U.C. Section 26.410.020(D)(1)(a). This approval shall permit the Applicant
to maintain the existing entry door located at 1245 Mountain View Drive as represented at the
public hearing held November 15, 2011 and as illustrated in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
Section 2:
The building permit application to develop the above - mentioned residence shall include a copy
of the final P &Z Resolution. All other requirements to develop a single family residence shall be
submitted as part of the building permit application including but not limited to: adopted building
and fire codes, relevant standards within the Aspen Municipal Code such as engineering and
water system standards, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, etcetera.
Section 3:
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 4:
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.
Section 5:
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.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on November 15, 2011.
P8
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Jim True, special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
I I
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Existing North Elevation
I I
III
P9
Exhibit A
1245 Mountain View, Existing North Eleveation
al
_ I I
0
_mss an y _ / ..
its tali I ° 1U t
_ A
0
9
Ili — v k_ B �- E
11.110110
P10
Exhibit A: Staff Findings
Section 26.410.020 (D)(2): Residential Design Standard Variances
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints.
Staff Finding Staff Finding.: Staff believes the requested variance meets the review standard 'a'
because the proposed door is a supportable design given the pattern of development and
considering the relationship of the adjacent structures and immediate neighborhood. The custom
door does not appear to be out of character with the house or with the diverse neighborhood.
The Mountain View neighborhood includes assorted building styles, including contemporary,
ranch style and eclectic single family homes. The neighborhood is predominately single family
homes.
The proposed design of the entry door is appropriate given the moderate variation in height of
the door. The door is less than 10% taller than required by the standard. The color and
hardware of the door serve to diminish the difference between the standard of eight feet (8) and
the custom door. The door is the same color as the siding of the house which minimizes the
difference in height of the door. The handle is of moderate size and location which serve to make
the door design consistent with the residential use; which is the context of the neighborhood.
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
& PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, November 15, 2011, 5:30PM
Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena St.
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. Aspen Area Community Plan
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
MEMORANDUM
TO: City & County Planning & Zoning Commissions
FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 9, 2011
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, November 15, 2011
5:30 — 7:30 pm, Sister Cities
RE: Joint Public Hearing on the AACP (document released
11.8.2011)
BACKGROUND: The P &Zs have been meeting to finalize review of the 2011 Aspen Area
Community Plan. A revised draft was released on September 15, 2011. The P &Zs have met to
make final changes, which are incorporated into a new document released on November 8, 2011.
Staff used track changes in the document to make it easier for the P &Zs and the public to follow
the changes made since September. A copy of the revised draft is available online at
www.aspencommunityvi sion.com.
The meeting on November 15 is scheduled as the final hearing on the AACP (for
recommendation by City P &Z and adoption by County P &Z). Tentatively, November 22 " is
scheduled to continue the review if needed. In an effort to notify the public that the vote is
coming on November 15 staff will have a letter to the editor in the papers on the 14 or 15
special ads will be in the papers on November 11 14, and 15 and staff did a special grassroots
show on the AACP that should begin airing by November 11
P &Z ADOPTION PROCESS: Staff has received a few emails related to the adoption of the
AACP in the City and County. The City and County adopt plans differently — City Council
adopts the plan in the City after considering a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning
Commission, while the County P &Z adopts the plan in the County and the BOCC ratifies the
plan.
Given the differences in adoption between the City and County, Staff proposes the following two
possible processes for the P &Zs to complete their work on the 2011 AACP. Having reviewed
these options previously, the County P &Z expressed interest in Option 1 because it results in
completion of Planning & Zoning Commission work in 2011 and facilitates concurrent City and
County P &Z recommendation and adoption of one draft Plan:
Page 1 of 2
1. County P &Z adopts the joint P &Z draft Plan at the same time the City P &Z makes their
recommendation to Council to adopt; and in the event that substantive changes are made
to the plan to facilitate Council adoption, County P &Z can direct Staff to bring the Plan
back for amendment to accommodate changes.
2. City P &Z makes their recommendation to Council; County P &Z delays their adoption
until Council completes their and adoption; Upon Council adoption, County P &Z
chooses to adopt draft adopted by Council (to avoid multiple adopted drafts;) or to adopt
the draft endorsed by the City P &Z (in which case there will be two different drafts for
the City and the County respectively).
3. A third option offered by a P &Z Commissioner, is for City and County P &Zs to draft one
resolution to adopt the Plan as a guiding document, to be forwarded with a
recommendation to City Council to adopt and to BOCC to ratify.
Staff believes that Options One and Three are the most efficient adoption processes, but all three
are valid ways to proceed. Staff has attached two draft Resolutions for P &Z review. One is a
joint resolution with both P &Zs adopting the plan. The second is a City P &Z Resolution that
recommends City Council adopt the AACP as a guiding document. Staff would like to hear
from the P &Zs how you would like to adopt the plan, and if you have any suggested changes to
the draft resolutions. The draft Resolutions are in Exhibit A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A.1: Draft Resolution — Joint Adoption of the 2011 AACP
Exhibit A.2: Draft Resolution — City P &Z Recommendation to City Council regarding adoption
of the 2011 AACP as a guiding document
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit A.1
11.15.2011 P &Z Meeting
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AND THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADOPTING
THE 2011 ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No , Series of 2011
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. , Series 2011
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commissions ") have the
responsibility to review comprehensive plans (hereinafter referenced as a "community plan ");
and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission has the final authority
to adopt community plans for Pitkin County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section
26.212.010(R) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, has the authority to adopt community plans
for the City of Aspen that are guiding in nature; and
WHEREAS, in 1993 the Commissions joined together in the development and adoption
of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (referred to as "the 1993 AACP); and
WHEREAS, in 2000 the Commissions joined together in the development and adoption
of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (referred to as "the 2000 AACP ") which encompassed
the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary (referred to as the "UGB "); and
WHEREAS, in 2008 City and County Planning staff prepared the State of the Aspen
Area: 2000 — 2008 report (referred to as "the Existing Conditions Report ") outlining the
conditions in the Aspen Area UGB; and
WHEREAS, in 2008 the City of Aspen commissioned a study with Economic Research
Associated (ERA), a consulting firm, who produced a White Paper on the Aspen Economy
(referred to as the "Economic White Paper ") outlining a history of the Aspen economy since
1970; and
WHEREAS, in from October 2008 — Feb 2009, the public provided extensive input on
an update to the 2000 AACP through small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey
(collectively referred to as "round 1 of public input "); and
WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from Feb 2009 through September
2010 to draft an update to the 2000 AACP using round 1 of public input, the Existing Conditions
Report, the Economic White Paper, and comments from the public as well as City and County
staff; and
City P &Z Resolution J Series 2011
County P &Z Resolution Series 2011
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2010 a draft of the AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, from October 2010 - January 2011 a second round of public was held,
which included small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey (collectively referred
to as "round 2 of public input "); and
WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from January 2011 - March 2011 to
review round 2 of public input; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2011 a second draft AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings
to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update
on April 12, 2011, April 26, 2011, May 10, 2011, May 19, 2011, May 24, 2011, May 26, 2011,
May 31, 2011, June 2, 2011, June 9, 2011, June 10, 2011, June 16, 2011, July 7, 2011, July 12,
2011, July 14, 2011, July 21, 2011, July 26, 2011, July 28, 2011, August 9, 2011, August 11,
2011, August 12, 2011, August 18, 2011, August 25, 2011, September 8, 2011, and September
13, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011 a third draft AACP update was released for public
review, and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 8, 2011, continued from
September 22, 2011, September 29, 2011, October 11, 2011, the Commissions voted to adopt the
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Commissions find that the 2011 AACP furthers the goals of the Aspen
Area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Commissions find 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 AND PITKIN
COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS THAT:
Section 1:
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissions hereby approve the
2011 AACP as presented at the joint public hearing held on
APPROVED by the Commissions at a public hearing on
City P &Z Resolution _, Series 2011
County P &Z Resolution Series 2011
Page 2 of 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION:
James R. True, Stan Gibbs, City P &Z Chair
City of Aspen Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION:
John Ely, County Attorney Joe Krabacher, County P &Z Chair
ATTEST:
County Clerk
City P &Z Resolution , Series 2011
County P &Z Resolution , Series 2011
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A.2
11.15.2011 P &Z Meeting
RESOLUTION NO. _ ,
(SERIES OF 2011)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2011 ASPEN AREA
COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commissions ") have the
responsibility to review comprehensive plans (hereinafter referenced as a "community plan ");
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.212.010(R)
of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, has the authority to recommend City Council adopt
community plans for the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.208.010(I) of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, has the authority to adopt community plans that are guiding or regulatory in
nature for the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in 1993 the Commissions joined together in the development and adoption
of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (referred to as "the 1993 AACP); and
WHEREAS, in 2000 the Commissions joined together in the development and adoption
of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (referred to as "the 2000 AACP ") which encompassed
the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary (referred to as the "UGB "); and
WHEREAS, in 2008 City and County Planning staff prepared the State of the Aspen
Area: 2000 — 2008 report (referred to as "the Existing Conditions Report") outlining the
conditions in the Aspen Area UGB; and
WHEREAS, in 2008 the City of Aspen commissioned a study with Economic Research
Associated (ERA), a consulting firm, who produced a White Paper on the Aspen Economy
(referred to as the "Economic White Paper ") outlining a history of the Aspen economy since
1970; and
WHEREAS, in from October 2008 — Feb 2009, the public provided extensive input on
an update to the 2000 AACP through small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey
(collectively referred to as "round 1 of public input "); and
WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from Feb 2009 through September
2010 to draft an update to the 2000 AACP using round 1 of public input, the Existing Conditions
Report, the Economic White Paper, and comments from the public as well as City and County
staff; and
City P &Z Resolution , Series 2011
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2010 a draft of the AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, from October 2010 - January 2011 a second round of public was held,
which included small group meetings, large group meetings, and a survey (collectively referred
to as "round 2 of public input "); and
WHEREAS, the Commissions met in work sessions from January 2011 - March 2011 to
review round 2 of public input; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2011 a second draft AACP update was released for public
review; and
WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings, the Commissions held public hearings
to make edit the draft and to solicit public comment and input on the draft of the AACP Update
on April 12, 2011, April 26, 2011, May 10, 2011, May 19, 2011, May 24, 2011, May 26, 2011,
May 31, 2011, June 2, 2011, June 9, 2011, June 10, 2011, June 16, 2011, July 7, 2011, July 12,
2011, July 14, 2011, July 21, 2011, July 26, 2011, July 28, 2011, August 9, 2011, August 11,
2011, August 12, 2011, August 18, 2011, August 25, 2011, September 8, 2011, and September
13, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011 a third draft AACP update was released for public
review, and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 8, 2011, continued from
September 22, 2011, September 29, 2011, October 11, 2011, the City of Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission voted to ( - ) to recommend City Council adopt the 2011
Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the 2011 AACP furthers the
goals of the Aspen Area community and that it is in the best interest of the community that the plan
be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSIONS THAT:
Section 1:
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissions hereby recommends
the Aspen City Council adopt the draft 2011 AACP as a guiding document.
APPROVED by the Commissions at a public hearing on November _, 2011.
City P &Z Resolution _, Series 2011
Page 2 of 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION:
James R. True, Stan Gibbs, City P &Z Chair
City of Aspen Special Counsel
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
City P &Z Resolution , Series 2011
Page 3 of 3
73-0yt Pita Ii- --zs -1i
Aspen Area Community Plan by the
numbers
by Curtis Wackerle, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Thursday, March 41, 7011
Printer - friendly version
Email this Story a r
More than half a million dollars
have been spent on the Aspen
Area Community Plan (AACP)
update in four years by the local www.bluetent.com
government, and that's not
including nearly 10,000 hours of
staff time..�a,.
An analy is by the city of Asoen's
community develnnment
denartment of Asnen Area
Community Plan costs hrinns the
total so far to $515,000, The
breakdown is as follows:
• State of the Aspen report — $190,000: Released in 2008, this massive
document analyzed all building permit activity since the last AACP rewrite in
2000. Community development director Chris Bendon said the cost was high
because consultants had to go through an antiquated software system, permit
by permit. That was followed by an extensive "build -out analysis" of
remaining undeveloped land in Aspen.
• Economic white paper — $60,000: Also released in September 2008, the
report details the "ups and downs of the local economy since the 1970s,"
according to the aspencommunityvision.com website, where the document, as
well as the State of the Aspen Area report, can be found.
• Initial nuhlir nroress — 6750,000: The public outreach process, for which the
city and county won multiple awards, started with small group meetings,
surveys, large -group "clicker sessions," and the associated meeting room
rental and food costs — all with the idea of gauging community sentiment on
growth and development policies. Pitkin County picked up one -third of the
costs, while the city paid two- thirds.
• Additional survey — $15,000: The survey, which went out early this winter
and saw its results released to the public this month, was requested by Mayor
Mick Ireland as a cross reference against results of a clicker meeting in the
fall.
The cost analysis also includes an estimation that 9,700 hours of staff time
have been devoted to the AACP. Many city and county planning department
employees have had a hand in this, but a majority of the work has fallen to
Jessica Garrow and Ben Gagnon with the city. Assuminn about $45 an hour for
wages and benefits. it comes to 6446.500,
That does not include the thousands of hours volunteer members of the city
and county planning and zoning commissions have spent working on the
document.
The latest draft of the AACP revision was released this week. That draft goes
back to the P &Z commissions for more input and a potential vote in the
upcoming months. Then Aspen City Council and Pitkin County commissioners
would weigh in. Those bodies are shooting for late summer or early fall for
adoption hearings.
curtis@aspendailynews.com
Bor* eft
Community plan likely to be advisory r ISI
by Curtis Wackerle, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Printer - friendly version
Email this Story
But land use code amendments
could be adopted concurrently
with AACP approval process
The Aspen Area Community Plan
should be adopted as a strictly
advisory document, but done so
with concurrent land use code
amendments that still give City
Council control over the scale and
mass of buildings.
That was the direction that came
out of a work session Tuesday, when council members also expressed their
preference in coming to a vote on the AACP in no more than a half -dozen or
so meetings.
"I don't want to repeat the work that the planning and zoning commissions
have done for the last three years," Councilman Steve Skadron said.
The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z), which is working
with the Aspen P &Z on the document, has recommended that the AACP be
advisory, as opposed to regulatory, Aspen Community Development Director
Chris Bendon said.
City staff and the plannina commissions are working on identifvina "gaps"
between the current land use code and the 2000 AACP, which the city uses
like a reaulatory document. Planning staff will compile a list of these areas,
and City Council will consider whether or not there should be code chances to
address each of the Gaps.
The code chanoes would have to be adopted concurrently with the MCP
revision nth .rwise, "it opens a window of onnortunitv during which
something could be done that is contrary to the desire of council." Aspen
Mayor Mick Ireland said.
Staff has divided up the chapters and policy statements of the AACP into
various categories of action, including "more data needed," "community goal"
and land use code change needed. The document can be viewed by going to
www.aspenpitkin.com and clicking on a link on the right -hand side of the
page.
curtis@aspendailYnews.com
6•Orf s1/
From the Summer /Fall 2011 newsletter "The Local Weather" by BJ Adams and Company
ij *ADAMS AND COMPANY
Real Estate on Higher Ground PLACES THAT MATTER TO US
ASPEN - Corner of Hunter and Hopkins • 970.922.2111 PL T HAT MATTER TO US Ask any local about buildings around the valley which
SNOWMASS VILLAGE - Next to Alpine Bank - 970.923.2111 they treasure, and few will hesitate to rattle off a list.
www.aspensnowmassproperties.com = email @bjac.net There are, of course, the iconic structures like The
o matter where I am, whether seeing Wheeler, The Sardy House, and The Courthouse,
these structures in real time, or in one of but here are some other interesting choices
. the pictures I've taken of them, they are
touchstones and bring me a real sense of Pr he Benedict Building on Ute Avenue — an
serenity. They are a lovely example of pure 1. unassuming structure, but one which is totally
beauty in the valley. integrated with the nature surrounding it. This is not
- Kathryn Rabinow, professional photographer an architectural gem, by any means, but you feel the
1piwspiog uuAi'tpeejolenyy soloyd place very strongly — it thoroughly resonates with a
C L ! z _. •' 1 .c,, i .., - r: • •
o . 0 0 a; '.., tr sense,of value and soul.
o , .. f t i. s r I 1 - '' Also, the Mountain Rescue building, the sweet
�'' ` + L'Auberr a cabins on Main Street, and especially the
now ! I pair of tiny, meticulously -cared for "carriage
A ' C , o Qj -C i t
' ' pk houses" facing each other in the alley off of S.
:'. a i td t . t „ .5 o Monar acro from the pet shop , ` n u o , t p p — per sq inch,
�� !4 there's a ton of thought and attention which went into
j r _, -0 N • ,_ :, a ; 1 their restoration. Aspen's alleys throughout town are
, * !' - .2 . ' } . . , .� " � * ; ' w. actually an untapped treasure trove of small
o m restoration possibilities and could be a potential whole
t Y 1 ' s . a ; Shendan's Camp Coke Ovens new pedestrian network reflecting the unpretentious
�, �, jY (off of Castle Creek Road) side of Town. There is something very powerful in the
humility of these diminutive structures."
I. ''t 1. a 3 c � John Cottle, managing partner, CCYArchitects
r € > °o
t o / 5 , � o a, d -.. .
W 4 Y E O f0 ,4 r I * 4 J1 / \ et1
o ' z -gY sL a 8 , . 1 , ,.'
d o v .� 1 r -, �! "'V
r 1 z - g b m The Hut in Upper Hunter Creek Valley
n u " One of the Monarch Alley Cabins
E-, , g v = ny collection of small Victorians in the
` € 2 West End. I love their color and charm.
f' ` a •= The funky Main Street Bakery budding —
i ¢ - foot splashy, noYbi�, `hey're beautiful in their
!1- F =_= g v o s sparefuncfionalrty, utterly charming in its simplicity, peeling
Q v , i . z 3 ,. o — Dawn Sher)
he personal trainer plaster and crooked windows. How many
■ 1 = . , �__ , „„,,2.1„- s . a, r thousands of old Aspen souls have crossed its
u.
O 1 I a a ° 3 o The purple Aspen Times building on worn out threshold and graced its crowded tables
q z
�� _;` I i a c o Aspen's Main Street — it reminds me of over the years? — a BJAC favorite
1 9 a O 1 1 la o N o .', our town's heritage and a.stmpler time in the 0 • • f ° s ; old mining days. .:,..11114.4 I .1 ., • : �'•• € 5 > - - Todd Shaver, investmentadvisorand money • ,, A F'
0 _ I' $ ;: ' i • -5 manager; host of the weekly, and wildly popular, ` E
1 CI
W v Aspen Business Luncheon
• '' , - 21 Mt+, 1 -E.! o
E 1 Vf .
• C � . O i -—
Main Riii Street Bakery