HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20120104 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, January 4, 201t.
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. South Aspen Street PUD — PUD Amendment
B. Miscellaneous Code Amendments
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Appointment of Chair and Vice -Chair
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 24
• P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: South Aspen Street Subdivision /PUD — Amendment to existing approvals,
Resolution No. , Series 2011— Public Hearing
MEMO
DATE: December 6, 2011
MEETING
DATE: January 4, 2012 (please bring exhibits F and G from 12/6/11 or contact staff)
APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
c/o David Parker Commission require the Applicant to
substantially revise the plans prior to continuing
REPRESENTATIVE: to City Council.
Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC
SUMMARY:
LOCATION: The Applicant requests of the Planning and
Parcels 1, 2 and 3, South Aspen Street Zoning Commission a recommendation of
Subdivision (adjacent to Aspen Street approval to amend the existing entitlements.
between Dean and south of Gilbert
Street) = _ Off, . !
CURRENT ZONING & USE t ,. , t y ,
Located in the Lodge (L) zone district - `�'�•FC '
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) {
'' p
overlay.,
Parcel t`= 1
PROPOSED LAND USE: • + 1.4
The Applicant is requesting to amend the �, _ , r
existing entitlements for the properties :
y Parcel ? *r.
from a total of 31 on -site residential : z' p 3a
multi - family units (14 free- market units �� ` ' -, i '`
and 17 affordable housing units) to 24 ' ,
on -site residential multi - family units (14
free- market units and 10 affordable 'fir Parcel 3
housing units) and 8 off -site residential �f � ;.
multi - family affordable housing units. ''s`
+
The off -site units are proposed to be
located at the Airport Business Center. ' i ° r }y "
:e rlw .3+
Vicinity map of the site
Page 1 of 9
1
P2 A� ,
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant has requested a combined review, in which all final decisions are granted by City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation to council. The
following land use recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission are being
requested:
• Resident Multi - family Replacement requirements for the amendment of the approval
granted pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.530 (City Council is the final review
authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
• Growth Management Review — Substantial Amendment for the amendment to a
development order authorizing development allotments .ursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.470 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
In 2000, an amendment first went to the Growth Management Commission (at that point
in time The Planning and Zoning Commission) and the recommendation of the
Commission was forwarded to City Council for final review. Since the code has been
amended and there is no growth Management Commission, the review will be a
recommendation from the Planning Commission with final decision making by the City
Council as is outlined in the city's current regulations.
• Subdivision - Other Amendment for the amendment of the subdivision approval pursuant
to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after
considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
• Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment for the amendment of a site specific
development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final
review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Special Note: The existing townhome project is entitled under the October 1, 2000, Land
Use Code which means the land use regulations in effect are from 2000 unless otherwise
noted.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC, was granted approvals to develop thirty one
(31) residential multi - family units on parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the South Aspen Street Subdivision
via Ordinance No. 32 (Series of 2003). Since the initial approval, the vested rights associated
with the project have been extended on a number of occasions as the property owner worked
towards entitling a lodge project (Lodge at Aspen Mountain) on the site rather than the
townhomes. The latest extension, Resolution No. 96 (Series of 2009), permits the vested rights to
be extended until January 28, 2016 with the caveat that the purpose of the extension is to enable
the development of a lodge project and that "a six month period of inactivity shall constitute a
withdrawal of the application."
Page 2 of 9
3
Since passage of the resolution, new ownership has taken over the property and the six month
period of inactivity has occurred (March 1, 2011), resulting in a vesting period that will expire on
March 1, 2013. As a result of the upcoming 2013 vested rights expiration date, the present
owners are proposing to amend the existing approvals.
The new proposal reduces the number of dwelling units on the property from 31 to 24 residential
multi - family units by reducing the number of affordable housing units on the site, locating
additional affordable housing units off -site at the Airport Business Center (ABC) and proposing
a cash -in -lieu payment. In summary, the new proposal contains:
• A free - market building containing five (5) dwelling units and one affordable housing
building containing ten (10) dwelling units on Parcel 1. Additionally an underground
garage to accommodate SkiCo parking (per an agreement with SkiCo) and some parking
for the affordable housing is located on Parcel 1.
• Three (3) free market triplexes containing a total of nine (9) residential units on Parcels
2 and 3 are proposed with an underground garage accommodating parking for one of the
triplexes. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to merge Parcels 2 and 3 into one lot.
• Eight (8) affordable housing dwelling units at the Aspen Airport Business Center.
• A cash -in -lieu payment for 3.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
Table 1, below, outlines the proposed dimensional requirements for the project. The
highlighted cells are the proposed standards that exceed permitted requirements for the
underlying zone district based upon the 2000 code.
Table 1: Com • arison of Pro. • sed vs. Re uired Dimensional Re • uirements
i i ( 3 -r �' Tr a's` '
' -
Minimum Lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Parcel 1:
Size 42,549 s• . ft.
Parcel 2:
61,969 s•. ft.
Lot 1,100 sq. ft. per 1 bedroom per 3,000 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. per
Area/Dwelling bedroom (81 1,000 sq. ft. (free - market bedroom (54
Unit bedrooms on residential) bedrooms on
89,127 sq. ft. of 89,127 sq. ft. of
lot area for net lot area for
densi ) densi calc.
Minimum Lot 60 Feet 60 Feet 30 Feet Parcel 1:
Width 60 Feet
Parcel 2:
60 Feet
Page3of9
4
•
r : d i i b .,,� st ) i ➢
is j u+ €s .r 3 i
Si4 'fl 3iigl � # t£
�� I 4 r
t t , � iy :1
Minimum Front 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 15 Feet
Parcel 2:
9' -6"
Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 2 Feet
P4/0 2a ✓ %'
� L
Minimum Rear 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet 41 rare 1:
Yard Setback
Parcel 2:
10' -4"
28 Feet 28 Feet 28 Feet
28Feet
Percent Open 27% 25% N/A > 27%
Space
Floor Area • .83:1 1:1 1:1 < .83:1
Ratio (FAR)
Max. Multi- N/A N/A 1,500 sq. ft. N/A
Family Unit
Size
Minimum Off- 30 2 spaces per 1 space per unit 12
Street Parking Affordable dwelling unit or Affordable
housin_ 1 space per housinL
28 dwelling unit if 28
Free Market a studio or one Free Market
housing bedroom housin_
30
SkiCo
Land Use Reviews:
The following land use reviews are the reviews that were required in 2000 and under which the
entitled townhome project is currently vested. Current standards are provided as background
information and, in some instances, to provide a basis for evaluation.
Demolition or Replacement of Multi - Familv Housing:
For approximately twenty years, the City has required a certain amount of affordable housing to
be developed when existing free - market multi - family residential dwelling units are demolished.
The basis for this requirement was the observation that as existing multi - family units (which had
Page 4 of 9
5
often served as housing for local working residents) were demolished and replaced, the new
units no longer housed Local working residents.
At the time of the original application only Parcel 3 contained multi - family residential units (the
Mine Dump Apartments). In 2000, when this project was originally submitted to the city, the
multi - family replacement requirement was somewhat different than today's standards. The
regulation required that fifty percent (50 %) of the bedrooms be replaced, fifty percent (50 %) of
the net livable area be replaced, and that fifty percent (50 %) of the replacement net livable area
be above grade. Today's standards provide two options for mitigation with the one closest to the
2000 standard requiring the same replacement of bedrooms and net livable area, but today fifty
(50 %) of the dwelling units must also be replaced.
Table 2: Multi - Family Relacement Requirements
Redroams Net Livabie Area Above Grade Net iF
(sq, IL) Livable Area
Mine Dump 23 7,722 N/A 16
Apartments
2000 12 3,861 1,930 N/A
Requirements
Existing 43 19,538 17
Approval
Proposal: Onsite 12 6,630 4,308 ** 10
Proposal: AABC 24 9,656 9,656 8
Proposal Total 36 16,286 13,964 18
Notes:
* * Staff has estimated the above grade net livable area square footage by subtracting 3 of the on-
site affordable housing units from the total due to the location of grade in comparison to finished
floor.
-
Staff Comment: As outlined above in Table 2, both the existing approval and the new proposal
meet or exceed the minimum mitigation required in the 2000 Land Use Code by providing on-
site affordable housing that meets or exceeds the minimum required 12 bedrooms, exceeds the
3,861 sq. fi. of net livable area and exceeds the 1,930 sq fi. of above grade net livable area
required.
The 2000 code required multi family replacement units to be located on -site unless it was
determined that units "on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhoods plans or
would be an inappropriate planning solution due the site's physical constraints." The 2003
approval provides all of the required replacement multi family units on site including affordable
housing units on site that exceed the mitigation requirements.
Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing:
The proposal is to amend the existing approvals by reducing the number of affordable housing
units on- site, provide some affordable housing off -site at the ABC, and provide a cash payment
in lieu. Overall, the proposed eighteen (18) affordable housing units will house 42.5 employees
as outlined in Table 3, below. Since the total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) housed
under the new proposal is less than the entitled project, the Applicant is offering to pay a cash -in-
Page 5 of 9
6
lieu fee between the difference in FTEs which is 3.5 FTEs or $475,356.00 at a Category 4 fee
rate (which is the current income category used when calculating cash in lieu).
Table 3: Affordable Housin:, Em .lo ees Housed
} F P
�. f y - h 3 i .
;At a 9
a ka 1 a , > - a P
aet wY, 3_ �. ,a`!'" � x i t ...
1 bedroom 4 8
(on -site
2 bedroom 0 0 2
on -site)
3 bedroom 13 39 8 MEM
off -site) 13 x 3
Totals 17 46 18 42.5
The existing entitlements permit the 17 affordable housing units to be rentals rather than for -sale
units. These 17 units were deed restricted at a mix of Category 1, 2 and 3 and permitted to be
rental units. The bulk of the units are 3 bedroom,units whereas the current proposal provides a
more even split of one bedroom to three bedroom units. Categories of the new units are proposed
to not exceed an average of Category 3. APCHA, which supports the proposal, has requested that
all units be no higher than Category 3; however, all of the on -site units are smaller than the
minimum net livable area required for Category 3 and 4 (700 s.f./ 1- bedroom & 950 s.f./ 2-
bedroom), rather the on -site units meet Category 1 and 2 size standards (700 s.f./ 1- bedroom &
950 s.f./ 2- bedroom). All of the units are proposed to be for sale rather than rental unit.
Table 4: Net Livable Area of the pro posed Affordable Housing
: . p 9 17 ' F 9p� y � 4
eft vs% S ;4, 1 y L .. Y i �: v "1/4.. r p r L� {. 1 S t. �'�i+S�H tit IC' T tSr
On -Site 1 2 bedroom 852 1 and 2
2 2 bedroom 854 1 and 2
3 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2
4 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2
5 1 bedroom 628 1 and 2
6 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2
7 1 bedroom 608 1 and 2
8 1 bedroom 634 1 and 2
9 1 bedroom 604 1 and 2
10 1 bedroom 630 1 and 2
Off -Site 4 units 3 bedroom 1,200 3 and 4
4 units 3 bedroom 1,214 3 and 4
The 2003 approval found the addition of 17 on -site affordable housing units met both the city's
needs for affordable housing and, at the time, APCHA found that the proposal met their
guidelines. In determining the need for and type of affordable housing preferred, the current
APCHA guidelines have a number of policy statements with regard to preferred mitigation
options with the development of deed restricted housing that include:
Page6of9
7
• The board has prioritized the following mitigation options in order of preference: 1) on-
site housing — where affordable housing used for mitigation purposes with regard to the
construction or redevelopment of a site be either next to or attached to the development,
2) off -site housing, and 3) cash -in -lieu.
• With regard to the types of units to construct, APCHA's priorities for the private sector
are: For -sale units with an average sales price no higher than Category 3, consisting of
one and two bedroom units; as well as Category 3 and 4, for sale, 3 bedroom units.
Staff Comment: There is little guidance in the 2000 code with regard to permitting affordable
housing units outside of city limits or for providing a cash payment in lieu of housing; however,
the current code in effect does provide additional guidance in the form of two growth
management reviews: Provision of required affordable housing units outside city limits (section
26.470.090 (2) and Provision of required affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment (section
26.470.090 (3).
For off-site housing the standards include ensuring that the housing is within the Urban Growth
Boundary, that the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units, that any off-site units have
all necessary approvals. With regard to accepting a cash -in -lieu, consideration is given as to
whether providing housing on —site is impractical, whether a good faith effort to construct off-site
housing was made and whether the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units.
APCHA's listed priority for private sector development is to provide on -site housing, something
the existing entitlement provides and the proposed entitlement reduces.
Subdivision:
Subdivision review was originally required due to the development of multiple affordable
housing units on the three parcels. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting to merge parcels 2
and 3 into one lot.
Staff Comment.: In general, the Applicant meets the subdivision criteria.
Planned Unit Development:
All three parcels currently have a PUD overlay on them. Any development (or redevelopment) is
required to be reviewed and approved prior to development being allowed to commence. The
purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in
the development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a
greater variety in the type and character of the development, and a greater compatibility with
existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the
underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services.
Page 7 of 9
8
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity
to neighborhood and community goals and objectives."
A PUD allows variation in the site's dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and
innovation, but does not allow variation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants are
requesting to amend the vested approval to reduce the number of dwelling units on the site and
change the configuration of improvements on the site. The dimensional requirements that are
requested to be varied from the underlying zoning are related to the Minimum Setback
requirements.
Staff Comment: Staff is supportive of affordable housing development within Aspen and
recognizes the importance and need for it within the community; however, staff believes that the
Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of the PUD criteria.
Staff is concerned that the new design does not relate well to the traditional townsite grid,
particularly with regard to the triplexes. Additionally, the additional curb cuts and meandering
"street" do not reinforce a traditional circulation pattern that is common for lot and block
development and may comprise pedestrian and vehicular safety. The use of retaining walls does
not sensitively develop the site in relation to the existing topography. All of these items are not
compatible with the original townsite and surrounding area.
A PUD allows the density of a project to be increased when it "serves one or more goals of the
community as expressed in the AACP ", when the site's physical capabilities can accommodate
the density, and when it results in a development pattern compatible with the area. A PUD can
also be reduced when there are insufficient public facilities or critical hazards present.
In 2003 the City Council approved a project with more density (number of units) than what is
currently being proposed. Although providing affordable housing units on -site meets the intent of
the AACP, the removal of density does not. The city has limited sites available for inftll
development, and proposing to locate some affordable housing off-site at the ABC does not
encourage inftll projects to integrate more housing into the traditional townsite and does not
reach the optimum development potential that a previous council approved on the site. Although
within the Urban Growth Boundary, the provision of affordable housing at the ABC does not
assist in lessening a resident's reliance on the automobile or develop a project in a more
compact form.
Staff is supportive of the Applicant potentially changing the exterior architecture of the
development as well as amending the unit types (studio, one - bedroom, etc.) of the affordable
housing; however, staff is not supportive of moving density from this site to the Airport Business
Center.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, housing
authority, building department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed
application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when
appropriate.
Page 8 of 9
9
RECOMMENDATION: At this point and time, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission require that the applicant make substantial revisions to their plans before retuming
to the Commission that are more in line with the existing entitlements with regard to affordable
housing being provided on -site and improve the development's relationship to the traditional
town grid. With this present current configuration, Staff recommends denial of the proposal if no
changes are made.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Amendment for the South Aspen Street PUD."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A — PUD Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B — Subdivision Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C — Affordable Housing (GMQS) Review Criteria
EXHIBIT D — Resident Multi - Family Replacement Program Review Criteria
EXHIBIT E — Development Review Committee Comments, November 2011
EXHIBIT F — Application
EXHIBIT G — Proposed Architectural Drawings
Page9of9
10
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2011)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
— OTHER AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR THE
SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1,
2, AND 3 SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDISVION/PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel IDs: 273513139001, 273513139002, 273513139003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Hass Land Planning,
requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Planned Unit
Development — Other Amendment, Subdivision Other Amendment, Growth Management
Review — Substantial Amendment and Resident Multi - family Replacement to amend the existing
entitlements associated with the South Aspen Street Subdivision /PUD via a combined review;
and,
WHEREAS, an application was submitted for an amendment to the existing entitlements
for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, which proposes on Parcel 1 a free - market fiveplex
residential building, an affordable housing building containing 10 dwelling units and an
underground parking garage. While Parcel 2 and 3 are proposed to be subdivided into one lot
containing three free - market triplexes or nine residential dwelling units. Additionally the
Applicant will provide eight affordable housing units off -site at the Airport Buisness Center and
provide a cash payment -in -lieu; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and Public
Works Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies reviewed the proposed amendment and provided
recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, after reviewing relevant section of the land use code, the Community
Development Director recommended denial of the land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on December 6, 2011 the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City
Council approve the PUD Amendment and associated land use requests by a to L -D
vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for PUD
Other Amendment and related land use reviews are met.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the PUD — Other Amendment and associated land use
reviews with the conditions listed below.
Page 1 of 4
11
Section 1:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the following land use reviews:
Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment, Subdivision - Other Amendment, Growth
Management Review — Substantial Amendment and Resident Multi - family Replacement
requirements to amend the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD.
The amended development plan permits Parcel 1 to be developed with a free - market building
containing five (5) dwelling units and one affordable housing building containing ten (10)
dwelling units. Additionally an underground garage to accommodate SkiCo parking (per an
agreement with SkiCo) and parking for the affordable housing is provided.
Parcels 2 and 3 are combined to create one lot. On this newly created lot three (3) free market
triplexes containing a total of nine (9) residential units with an underground garage
accommodating parking for one of the triplexes is permitted.
Additionally eight, three- bedroom affordable housing units, known as the Pacific Avenue
Condominiums, will be developed at the Airport Business Center as part of this amendment. A
cash payment -in -lieu of $475,356.00 is accepted.
Section 2: Building
The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building
permit is submitted. No building permit shall be issued for any component of the South Aspen
Street development until building permits are issued for the related affordable housing units to be
developed at the Airport Business Center.
Section 3: Engineering
Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21
and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Prior to
City Council review:
a) A conceptual drainage report shall be submitted to the Engineering department to verify
compliance with Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements (URMP).
b) A new traffic analysis shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to City Council Review if
the Applicant intends to request a waiver of the traffic impact fee of $147,500.00.
c) The project is located within the Blue Mudflow Zone. As a result, prior to Council review, the
project will need analyze and mitigate any mudflow impacts as outlined in the URMP.
d) The project is located in a snow slide area, as a result, prior to Council review the project will
need to analyze and mitigate any snow slide impacts.
e) Prior to Council review, the plans for the Dean Avenue access need to be completed including
profiles and cross sections. The cross sections need to show how the proposed grades will tie into
existing grades. Additional cross sections are needed at each curb cut.
Page 2 of 4
12
f) Prior to Council review, the plans for Juan and Gamisch cross sections need to show how the
proposed grades will tie into existing grades. Additional cross sections are needed at each curb
cut.
According to the City of Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 21.16.060, only one driveway cut per
lot is permitted for residential, commercial and lodge districts; any changes to that requirement
will need City Council approval.
The project is located in a landslide hazard area, as a result the project must not impact any slope
movement as analyzed by inclinometers. To ensure there has been no impact, the project must
continue to measure the inclinometers until 1 year after the project completion.
The parking on Gammisch will not be permitted.
The original plans for the site showed a detached sidewalk on Juan Street. The new plans will
need to be revised to depict a detached sidewalk on both sides of Juan Street.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
All of the affordable housing units shall meet the APCHA Guidelines. All the units shall be `for
sale' units sold through the lottery system, unless the "protected" tenants from the original Mine
Dump Apartments have a priority for the on -site units. The Applicant may choose three purchasers
for the affordable housing units that qualify via APCHA's guidelines.
All deed restrictions shall be recorded coincident with the recordation of the condo plat and prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The Certificate of .Occupancy for the free - market
portion shall not be issued until the Certificate of Occupancy for all of the deed restricted units
have been executed (both on and off- site).
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office. A "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System
Agreement" are required for this application.
Page 3 of 4
13
Section 8: 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 9: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees
The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of
building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 10: Parks
A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. An
approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes
place. Final layout of plantings require Park Department approval. The project team should
investigate the possibility of additional street tree plantings along the east side of Garmisch
Street. The sidewalk along the south side of Juan Street was detached from the curb in the
original approvals and is now shown as attached. Landscaping in the ROW standards requires
that sidewalks should be detached when space is available, all plantings within the detached
green space should conform to COA right of way planting requirements. Prior to City Council
review an amended landscape plan shall be submitted for review by staff incorporating notes
from the November 2011 Development Review Committed meeting.
Section 11:
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 12:
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 Commission at its regular meeting on December 6, 2011.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Jim True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Page 4 of 4
14
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP).
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the development is consistent with the AACP. While a number
of general elements related to the location of development are met, the project does
not meet some of the AACP's overarching goals. Specifically, staff is concerned
about the proposal to relocate some of the affordable housing to the Airport Business
Center (ABC). The 2000 AACP states that "development of affordable housing
within the traditional town site should be encouraged" and notes that "when
employees have the ability live near where they work, their reliance on the
automobile lessons and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's
social fabric." The approved project places all of the housing on -site, while the new
proposal moves many of the units outside City limits. Staff does not find that this
meets the intent of the AACP.
In addition, the proposed site plan, curb cuts, and landscape retaining walls do not
promote the kind of pedestrian feel that is called for in the land use code or the
AACP. Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan
are met, but that the Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of
the AACP.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The neighborhood consists of a variety of multi - family residential development and
some lodging. The proposal is for multi - family residential development with a mix of
free - market units and affordable- housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 13
15
Staff Finding
Staff has serious concerns related to the number of curb cuts and the curvilinear
nature of the street being proposed on parcels 2 and 3. The proposal, particularly
parcels 2 and 3, does not relate well to the traditional townsite grid, nor the approved
Lift 1 Lodge. That project is well related to the traditional street grid, and staff
believes that pattern should be carried through the rest of the area. While the area is
relatively built -out, staff is concerned that an approval which increases setbacks and
fails to relate to the street could negatively impact the future streetscape and set an
inappropriate precedent. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is
exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination
with, final PUD development plan review.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has received approval for the development by meeting city
requirements with regard to demolition or replacement of multi - family residential
dwelling units. Under the current proposal, the application requires fewer allotments
for the affordable housing component (from 17 to 10), as less units are being
proposed on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040,
above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized
The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a
PUD. The proposed dimensional re. uirements are listed below:
ai 1 $, .i Ip :
- I. . ? t ,IiX zit ao- a b`
I4 R e "k�";^� 6 .s. atilt "" s x ■ I - � t �, a a "g
e c k " I E "[
E . �'Sr" w:a a.4
.� "r !�,� r�''�.£' Y Em w, � ✓� o-, ,� ... . r �'..,�.... ., �.. -' �,d.
Minimum Lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Parcel 1:
Size 42,549 sq. ft.
Parcel 2:
61,969 sq. ft.
Lot 1,100 sq. ft. per 1 bedroom per 3,000 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. per
Area/Dwelling bedroom (81 1,000 sq. ft. (free - market bedroom (54
Unit bedrooms on residential) bedrooms on
89,127 sq. ft. of 89,127 sq. ft. of
lot area for net lot area for
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 13
16
r % • :3i �i i .tn '5 �. § �i c r
� q. ya ;+ .r 4 ii
densi densi c alc.
Minimum Lot 60 Feet 60 Feet 30 Feet Parcel 1:
Width 60 Feet
Parcel 2:
60 Feet
Minimum Front 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 15 Feet
Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 2 Feet
Parcel 2:
1' -6"
Minimum Rear 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 5 -7"
Parcel 2:
10' -4"
Maximum 28 Feet 28 Feet 28 Feet
t 28Feet
Percent Open 27% 25% N/A > 27%
Space
Floor Area .83:1 1:1 1:1 < .83:1
Ratio (FAR)
Max. Multi- N/A N/A 1,500 sq. ft. N/A
Family Unit
Size
Minimum Off- 30 2 spaces per 1 space per unit 12
Street Parking Affordable dwelling unit or Affordable
housin_ 1 space per housin_
28 dwelling unit if 28
Free Market a studio or one Free Market
housing bedroom housin:
30
SkiCo
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
Exhibit A — PUP Review Criteria
Page 3 of 13
17
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
Although there are examples of multi - family residential development within
the neighborhood, most of the surrounding development works with the
existing topography with buildings that step with changes in grade. Staff is
concerned with the extent of retaining walls being proposed with this
development, and believes that the site plan is inappropriate in this context.
Staff finds this criterion is not met.
b. Natural or man -made hazards.
Staff Finding
The project is located within the Blue Mudflow Zone. As a result, prior to
Council, the project will need analyze and mitigate any mudflow impacts as
outlined in city standards. The Applicant has agreed to meet these
requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
Staff Finding
Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already
been impacted by development and/or previous grading. However, the
proposed development includes many retaining walls that are the result of the
development not working with the topography. Staff finds this criterion not to
be met.
d. Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
The applicant proposes to relocate much of the affordable housing to the
ABC. Staff believes this is inappropriate, and could have the effect of
increasing traffic in the general Aspen Area. The property is near the
commercial core, making it well within walking distance for the project's
residents. This allows a resident to have less reliance on the automobile.
Staff finds this criterion is not met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and
quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the
character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 13
18
Staff Finding
Under the Parks, Open Space & the Environment chapter of the AACP one of the
Policies notes that the city should "encourage infill projects that integrate more
housing into the existing urban fabric." Adding open space to this project contradicts
the policy of encouraging more infill housing. In addition, more open space is
inappropriate given the general neighborhood character. Staff believes the previously
approved project meets this standard, but that this proposal does not. Staff finds this
criterion is not met.
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non- residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core
and general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
The current proposal of off - street parking exceeds the land use codes parking
standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of
a PUD may be reduced if:
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
Adequate public facilities exist to serve both the proposed development and the
entitled development that was approved in 2003. Staff finds this criteria not
applicable.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 13
19
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of
ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or
avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the
natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and
consequent water pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality
in the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain
or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding
At this time, Staff does not find that significant natural hazards on the site are present
that would necessitate a density reduction. The property had existing development on
it prior to demolition and is vested with an approval that permits higher density on the
site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and
the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development
patterns and with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific
area plan to which the property is subject.
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density
and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as
identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be
avoided or those characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a
higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as
long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density
provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established
as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD
Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD
are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding
No increase in the maximum density is proposed, rather a reduction in density is
requested. In 2003 the City Council approved a project with more density (number of
units) than what is currently being proposed. Although providing affordable housing
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 13
20
units on -site meets the intent of the AACP, the removal of density does not. The city
has limited sites available for infill development, and proposing to locate some
affordable housing off -site at the ABC does not encourage infill projects to integrate
more housing into the traditional townsite and does not reach the optimum
development potential that a previous council approved on the site. Although within
the Urban Growth Boundary, the provision of affordable housing at the ABC does not
assist in lessening a resident's reliance on the automobile or develop a project in a
more compact form.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity
of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
There are no significant natural or manmade features on the site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
The parcels currently proposed to be redeveloped are located within the original
townsite. There are no significant view planes, or open spaces adjacent to the
property that should be considered as part of the redevelopment.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and
engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
The proposed development is moving away from a more traditional grid development
design and creating a more suburban design with the site plan of the free - market
component along Aspen Street. The additional curb cuts and driveway along Aspen
are not typical of traditional block development. Staff does not find this criterion met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 13
21
•
Staff Finding
The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that
additional information will be required to show appropriate fire department access.
The Applicant will meet this prior to council review.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable
requirements. This has been included as a condition of any approval. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Staff Finding
According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be
handled) to maintain historic runoff. Staff finds this criterion will be met.
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
Staff Finding
Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape
with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has provided a landscape plan on the site. The Parks Department has
requested some changes to the plan. As part of the review before City Council, an
amended landscaping plan will be submitted. Staff has serious concerns about the
number of retaining walls in the proposal, and is concerned that this detracts from the
exterior spaces. Rather than working with the site's natural topography the proposal
relies on a number of retaining walls to manipulate the grade. Staff fmds this
criterion is not met.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 13
22
2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
There are no significant natural or man-made features that require preservation. Staff
finds this criterion to not be applicable.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan prior to City Council review,
incorporating Park Department comments. This will ensure existing landscaping is
preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a
character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale
and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of
non- or less - intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
Aspen's "design history ranges from Victorian to Bauhaus, from 50's "ski instructor" to
postmodern, to contemporary." Staff believes the proposed architecture is an
improvement over the heavy timber design approved in 2003.
Both the entitled development and the proposal under consideration are subject to the
Residential Design Standards. As noted in a staff memo in 2003, the proposal did "not
meet all of the residential design standards. However, because the proposal is being
reviewed as a site specific development plans by means of going through the PUD review
process, a waiver from the Residential Design Standards may be granted as part of the
PUD." It was also noted that a waiver was appropriate as the design standards were
geared towards single family and duplex development rather than the multi - family
development that was being proposed.
Since that approval in 2003, the design standards have been modified to have only certain
design standards be applicable to multi - family development. Multi - family development
is required to meet:
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 13
23
• Building orientation. This standard requires the front facade of' a building to be
parallel with the street. The middle and upper triplexes do not meet this standard.
• Garage setbacks. This standard requires a garage accessed from the street to be set
10 feet behind the front facade of the building. All garages provided at grade meet
the requirement. Staff is concerned with the garage access to the upper triplex as
it is forward of the building along Aspen Street.
• Street oriented entrance and principal window and First Story element. Multi-
family units are required to have one street facing door for every four units and
front units must have a principal window as well as have a first story element
(often provided in the form of a porch). Additional review of these two criteria is
required as some of the porch elements are unclear on the plan.
• Windows. Only one non - orthogonal window per facade of each building is
permitted. Only the affordable housing building meets this standard.
• Lightwells. Light wells are not permitted beyond the frontmost wall of the street
facing facades of a building. The fiveplex does not meet this standard.
Staff finds this criterion not to be met.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will
be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and
general aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-
lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call
inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential
development.
Staff Finding
The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. A more detailed plan
will be provided as part of the Final PUD.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation
area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following
criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space,
or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features
of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is
available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of
the PUD.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 10 of 13
24
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas
is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling
unit owner within the PUP or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential,
commercial, or industrial development.
Staff Finding
Parcel 1 will contain a landscaped park area as was approved in the original approvals.
The applicant is proposing that it be managed by the HOA. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur
an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities
associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and
determined there is adequate service for this development. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
At this time no adverse impacts are anticipated. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding
No oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are proposed. Staff
finds this criterion is not applicable.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does
not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 11 of 13
25
and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The .
proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to
a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that all structures and uses have access to a public street. The
application proposes to install sidewalks along the property. However, staff is
concerned about the access drive proposed and the number of curb cuts in the project.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
The original application proposed one driveway access for Parcel 2 and 3 off of
Aspen Street, the proposed application now proposes 3 driveway access points. Staff
believes a reduction in access points is important and will improve the safety and
pedestrian accessibility of the area.
Additionally, three driveway access points are not consistent with the purposes, goals
and objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). In the
AACP, it discusses "improving safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mass transit riders,
and automobiles in the Aspen area."
The spacing of driveways is an important element in roadway planning, design and
operation. Access points are a major source of accidents. Their location and spacing
affects the safety and functional integrity of the roadway. Too many closely spaced
driveways increase the accident potential, not only for the roadway but also for any
sidewalks in the area.
Research has shown that accident rates generally increase with both the frequency of
access and the average daily traffic; however, the greatest increases resulted from
increasing the number of access points per mile.
Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access
to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated
public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 12 of 13
26
Staff Finding
The proposed development will not require any trail easements. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted
specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks along the property but there are no
specific trails or paths that are required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
Staff Finding
There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or
for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding
There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create
an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts
of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan
is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
Staff Finding
No phasing is proposed as part of this development. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 13 of 13
27
EXHIBIT B
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the development is consistent with the AACP. While a number of
general elements related to the location of development are met, the project does not meet
some of the AACP's overarching goals. Specifically, staff is concerned about the proposal to
relocate some of the affordable housing to the ABC. The 2000 AACP states that
"development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged"
and notes that "when employees have the ability live near where they work, their reliance on
the automobile lessons and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's
social fabric." The approved project places all of the housing on -site, while the new proposal
moves many of the units outside City limits. Staff does not find that this meets the intent of
the AACP.
In addition, the proposed site plan, curb cuts, and landscaping do not promote the kind of
pedestrian feel that is called for in the land use code or the AACP. Staff believes that a
number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan are met, but that the Applicant does
not go far enough in meeting some elements of the AACP.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
Staff Finding
The neighborhood consists of a variety of multi - family residential development and some
lodging. The proposal is for multi - family residential development with a mix of free - market
units and affordable- housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
Staff has serious concerns related to the number of curb cuts and the curvilinear nature of the
street being proposed on parcels. The proposal, particularly parcels 2 and 3,does not relate
well to the traditional townsite grid, nor the approved Lift 1 Lodge. That project is well
related to the traditional street grid, and staff believes that pattern should be carried through
the rest of the area. While the area is relatively built -out, staff is concerned that an approval
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 1 of 3
2
which increases setbacks and fails to relate to the street could negatively impact the future
streetscape set an inappropriate precedent. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding
At this point in the review, staff does not believe the application is in compliance with all of
the requirements of Title 26 (such as the •Residential Design Standards). Staff finds this
criterion is not met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The sloped site contains no overly
steep topography and no extreme geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the
inhabitants of the proposed development. The engineering department is requiring additional
study with regard to any mudflow impacts and slope movement. In addition, Staff believes that
there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to
be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of
the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 2 of 3
29
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.530, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is providing the required multi - family replacement affordable housing units as
required by the Land Use Code in effect in 2000. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash -in -lieu of providing
(and, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be
met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
(Ord. No. 44 -2001, § 2)
Staff Finding
The proposed project is has already been entitled and the amendment proposed requires less
allotments than what was originally granted. Staff finds this criterion met.
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 3 of3
30
EXHIBIT C
Section 26.470.070 (J), Affordable Housing Growth Management Quota System Exemption
Section 26.470.070 (J), Affordable Housing, of the regulations provides that, "All
affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City
Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition
procedures]." Review is by City Council. The section goes on to state that:
The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a
determination of the city's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's
compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their
location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of
bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed
development, and the proposed price categories which the dwelling units are to be deed
restricted.
Staff Finding
The 2003 approval found the addition of 17 on -site affordable housing units met both the city's
needs for affordable housing and, at the time, APCHA found that the proposal met their
guidelines. These seventeen units were deed restricted at a mix of Category 1, 2 and 3 and
permitted to be rental units.
The current proposal requests to develop 18 affordable housing units, with 8 of the units located
at the Airport Business Center. Categories of all of the units are proposed to not exceed an
average of Category 3. APCHA has requested that all units be no higher than Category 3;
however, all of the on -site units are smaller than the minimum net livable area required for
Category 3 and 4, rather the on -site units meet Category 1 and 2 size standards. All of the units
are proposed to be for sale rather than rental unit. Additionally a cash- payment in -lieu is
proposed.
In determining the need for and type of affordable housing preferred, the current APCHA
guidelines have a number of policy statements with regard to preferred mitigation options with
the development of deed restricted housing that include:
• The board has prioritized the following mitigation options in order of preference: 1) on-
site housing — where affordable housing used for mitigation purposes with regard to the
construction or redevelopment of a site be either next to or attached to the development,
2) off -site housing, and 3) cash -in -lieu.
Exhibit C - GMQS for Affordable Housing Review Criteria
Page 1 of 2
31
• With regazd to the types of units to construct, APCHA's priorities for the private sector
are: For -sale units with an average sales price no higher than Category 3, consisting of
one and two bedroom units; as well as Category 3 and 4, for sale, 3 bedroom units.
Today's affordable housing standards provide more specificity with regard to the development of
affordable housing, both in form and location. With regard to form the units need to meet the
ACHA guidelines, be designed so that 50% of the finished floor of each unit is above grade, and
be deed restricted as for sale units.
There is little guidance in the 2000 code with regard to permitting affordable housing units
outside of city limits or for providing a cash - payment in lieu of housing; however, the current
code in effect does provide additional guidance in the form of two growth management reviews:
Provision of required affordable housing units outside city limits and Provision of required
affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment.
For off -site housing the standards include ensuring that the housing is within the Urban Growth
Boundary, the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units and the off-site units have all
necessary approvals. With regard to accepting a cash -in -lieu consideration as to whether
providing housing on —site is impractical, that a good faith effort to construct off -site was made
and that the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units.
APCHA's listed priority for private sector development is to provide on -site housing, something
the existing entitlement provides and the proposed entitlement reduces. Staff does not find this
criterion met.
Exhibit C - GMQS for Affordable Housing Review Criteria
Page 2 of 2
32
EXHIBIT D
Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi- Family Replacement Program
Section 26.530.050, Housing replacement requirements
A. Minimum Replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi-
family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of
no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or
converted. The replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty
(50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A
minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The
replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the
requirements of section 26.530.060, below.
Staff Finding
Both the existing approval and the new proposal exceed the minimum mitigation required in the
2000 Land Use Code by providing more affordable housing than the required 12 bedrooms,
3,861 sq. ft. of net livable area (total) and 1,930 sq. ft. of above grade net livable area. Staff
finds this criterion from the 2000 code to be met.
Since 2000, the Demolition or Replacement of Multi- Family Housing standard has been
amended, allowing multiple options to meet the mitigation requirements. Under today's code the
on -site affordable housing would not mitigate the proposed free market residential; however, the
combined on -site and off -site affordable housing proposal meets the current Demolition or
Replacement of Multi- Family Housing standard by providing 100% replacement of bedrooms,
dwelling units and net livable square footage of the former Mine Dumps Apartments.
B. Location of replacement housing. Multi - family replacement units shall be developed
on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that
replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans
or would be an inappropriate planning solution due o the site's physical constraints. When
either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of
units on -site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may
replace the remaining units of -site, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the
owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be
provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount of a cash -in -lieu shall be
computed using the formula set fourth at Section 26.620.020.
Staff Finding
The 2000 code required multi - family replacement units to be located on -site. The 2003 approval
provides all of the required replacement multi - family units on site in addition to the extra
affordable housing units on site. The current proposal of on -site affordable housing meets the
minimum multi - family replacement requirements. Staff finds this criterion from the 2000 code
to be met.
Exhibit D — Multi- Family Replacement Review Criteria
Page 1 of 2
33
C. Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for
occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement
units are built on -site or off -site, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities requires by
the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built off -
site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off -site
development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving
redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place.
Staff Finding
As outlined in the 2003 approvals for the townhome development and included in the draft
resolution, no Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) shall be issued for the free -market component of
the project unless C.O.s are issued for all of the affordable housing units both on -site and off-
site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Section 26.530.060, Rental and resale restrictions
Replacement units shall be deed restricted in a form and substance acceptable to the City
Council. Such deed restricted units may only be rented or sold to tenants or buyers who
meet the city's qualifications in effect at the time of sale or rental, and at sale process or
rental which are also in compliance with the city's current regulations. The owner shall be
entitled to select tenants or purchasers subject to the aforementioned qualifications. The
mix of affordable housing units, as between category affordable housing and resident
occupied, may be determined by the owner, provided that no less than twenty (20) percent
of the bedrooms qualify as category 1 and 2 and no more than twenty (20) percent of the
units are available as resident occupied units.
Staff Finding
In 2003, the approved PUD permitted all of the affordable housing units to be rental units and are
required to have a deed restriction on the units meeting APCHA guidelines. Today, the Applicant is
proposing that the units be for -sale units meeting APCHA guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
Exhibit D — Multi - Family Replacement Review Criteria
Page 2 of 2
34
November ZZO 11 11 .
Project: South Aspen Street PUD
City of Aspen - Development Review Committee Comments
Engineering Department
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Drainage:
General note: The applicant stated in DRC that the design for the site will meet the Urban
Runoff Management Plan Requirements (URMP). Staff was not able to determine
whether or not the site.will meet these requirements. A full review will be completed
when there is enough information to review.
Additionally, as recommended in the 2002 Geologic evaluation performed by CTL
Thompson, the drainage plan should allow for a 40 — 50 percent sediment loading in
additional to the water volumes determined. Design of site drainage should ensure that
blockage of the site drainage from debris / mudflow and overflow do not occur.
A conceptual drainage plan and report is needed so that Staff can determine whether or
not the application meets the URMP requirements.
A final compliant drainage plan must be submitted prior to final plat.
Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet the Drainage
Principals:
1. Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process
2. Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
3. Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
4.. Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
5. Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
6. Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the
environment.
7. Use a treatment train approach.
8. Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
Traffic Impacts:
The current approvals for the application require a traffic impact fee of $147,500. During
DRC the applicant stated that they will request to have this fee waived. Before the fee can
be waived, Staff needs to determine what traffic impacts there are currently and how
these impacts will be mitigated.
At the time of the original approvals Staff determined that Aspen Street could handle the
additional 136 trips on a capacity basis, however the pavement section would not be able
to handle the trips. Since the applicant wants the traffic impact fee waived, a new analysis
must be performed.
35
As part of this analysis Staff will be looking at the impacts from a quality of service point
of view. In particular, the additional trips will impact the pedestrian experience along
Aspen Street. To mitigate this impact Staff recommends that the sidewalk along Aspen
Street is relocated so that there is a separation between the traffic on Aspen Street and the
pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk.
Driveway Access
The original application proposed one driveway access for Parcel 2 off of Aspen Street,
the proposed application now proposes 3 driveway access points. Staff will only permit
one driveway access as the original plans depict.
According to the City of Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 21.16.060, only one driveway
cut per lot is permitted for residential, commercial and lodge districts.
Additionally, three driveway access points are not consistent with the purposes, goals and
objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). In the AACP, it
discusses "improving safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mass transit riders, and automobiles in
the Aspen area."
The spacing of driveways is an important element in roadway planning, design and
operation. Access points are a major source of accidents. Their location and spacing
affects the safety and functional integrity of the roadway. Too many closely spaced
driveways increase the accident potential, not only for the roadway but also for the shared
use path along Cemetery Lane.
Research has shown that accident rates generally increase with both the frequency of
access and the average daily traffic; however, the greatest increases resulted from
increasing the number of access points per mile.
Mud Flow / Landslide / Snow slide Hazard
The project is located within the Blue Mudflow Zone. As a result, prior to Council, the
project will need analyze and mitigate any mudflow impacts as outlined in the URMP.
The project is located in a landslide hazard area, as a result the project must not impact
any slope movement as analyzed by inclinometers. To ensure there has been no impact,
the project must continue to measure the inclinometers until 1 year after the project
completion.
The project is located in a snow slide area, as a result, prior to Council the project will
need to analyze and mitigate any snow slide impacts.
Dean Avenue Access
The Deane Avenue Access off of Garmisch Street has been altered from the original
plans. The original plans had a continuous access which extended to Aspen Street. The
new plan shows this access terminating into subgrade parking. As a result the new plan
will have more impacts to Garmisch Street.
Jb
Prior to Council, the plans for the Dean Avenue Access need to be completed including
profiles and cross sections. Additionally the impacts to existing parking for Timber Ridge
Condo on the Dean Avenue access need to be quantified.
Juan and Garmisch Street
The profile of these streets has changed from the original plan. Please explain these
changes and why they were made.
The cross sections need to show how the proposed grades will tie into existing grades.
Additional cross sections are needed at each curb cut.
The parking on Garmisch will not be permitted. It is located within the site triangle of the
Dean Street Access, additionally the slope is excess of 11% making it difficult to
maneuver in the Winter.
The original plans for the site showed a detached sidewalk on Juan Street. The new plans
will need to be revised to depict a detached sidewalk on both sides of Juan Street.
Construction Management — A construction management plan must be submitted in
conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned
sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan
shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust,
and erosion/sediment pollution.
Excavation Stabilization — Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the
ROW, the excavation of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan
prior to building permit submittal.
Fee in Lieu —This project is considered a Major project and is subject to the Fee in Lieu
please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code.
Parks Department
1) The amended parking and entry design for the affordable housing structure
significantly impact the large cottonwood tree located on dean street. The Parks
Department cannot support the current design because of these impacts and the
developer's intention and staff supported protection of the tree. Staff requests greater
detail on the actual grades and proposed surfaces, construction impacts and excavations.
Significant changes to the design of this area are required before the Parks Department
can support this portion of the development.
2) Tree Protection: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each
individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A
formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg
permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage
of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on
site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920 -5120)
before any construction activities are to commence.
37
3) Additional Tree Protection Measures:
• Roots: The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on
call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Roots 2" or greater
shall be professionally pruned with the on call tree service. Root trenching will be
required around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line.
This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member
of the contractor's team.
• Excavation: All excavations adjacent to the drip zone will be required to be
vertical excavation only, with no over digging. Excavations will be soil stabilized in
a manner that prevents over excavation of the site. This will require a one sided pour
for all foundation walls located within these protection zones. Any excavation
adjacent to the large cotton wood tree located adjacent to the affordable housing site
is required to be a vertical excavation, see below for details. Due to the proximity and
nature of the excavation the applicant will be required to fence off a larger protection
zone past the drip line of the tree. This protection zone located within the non-
excavated area shall be twice the width of the drip line. Approval of all protection
zones is required. -
• Mulching: Six inches of mulch is required to be placed within the zone of
vegetation protection. The mulch shall be maintained at a level of 6 inches during the
entire project.
• Irrigation: Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the
project. The Contractor will supply water to the trees at a rate which is appropriate for
proper health. Additional watering will take place along the edge of the roots
cutting. The contractor will be required to place a burlap protection cover over the cut
roots. The contractor will irrigate the burlap with an appropriate amount of water
in order to keep the burlap moist.
• Access: Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all
times.
4) Landscaping and Sidewalk Landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way
will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements.
• ROW requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, if a system
is not in place one will need to be added.
5) All sidewalks, parking areas and walkways adjacent to protected trees shall be
designed and built in a manner that reduces the impact to existing trees and root systems.
All hard surfaces located within the drip line of trees to be saved shall be built on grade in
a manner that allows for the sub -grade prep and sidewalk to float Over the roots
preventing any excavation into the soil. All work in protection zone is to be
accomplished without machines, handwork only. These requirements are subject to the
City of Aspen tree code.
38
6) An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or significant
property changes take place. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior
to submission of the building permit. Please contact the City Forester at 920 -5120.
7) The project team should investigate the possibility'of additional street tree
plantings along the east side of Garmisch Street.
8) The sidewalk along the south side of Juan Street was detached from the curb in the
original approvals and is now shown as attached. Landscaping in the ROW standards
requires that sidewalks should be detached when space is available, all plantings
within the detached green space should conform to COA right of way planting
requirements.
Zoning
1. The use of two codes is confusing and does not aid in the transparency of
comparison between the existing approvals and the new proposal.
2. Please address the RDS variances which will be required with this proposal.
3. Trash enclosures South Aspen Street PUD Amendment: With regard to trash
enclosures in rear yard. Please note the current code does not exempt trash
enclosures from setback requirements.
4. Allowed Projections into Setbacks Wildlife - resistant Trash and Recycling
enclosures located in residential zone districts shall be prohibited in all yards
facing a Street. These facilities may be placed within non -street facing yards if the
enclosure is the minimum reasonably necessary in both height and footprint, is an
unconditioned space not integrated with other structures on the property, and
serves no other purpose such as storage, garage space, or other purposes unrelated
to protecting wildlife. Wildlife - resistant trash and recycling enclosures located in
commercial, mixed -use, or lodging zone districts are not exempt from setback
requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements for
Utility/Trash/Recycle areas.
5. The current the Lodge Zone district does not have a requirement for public
amenity space:
a. Public Amenity section 26.575.030(B) Applicability and requirements
states, "Exempt from these provisions shall be development consisting
entirely of residential uses."
6. Dimensional Requirements' table page 11: Under the `Maximum Multi- Family
Dwelling Unit Size' row; the 2011 Lodge Zone district column lists 1,500 sq ft of
net livable area. With an increase of not more than 500 additional; sq ft applied
per unit. Under the column `Proposed PUD under Lodge zone district there is, "no
requirement "? Please clarify and provide information on the net livable size of the
units.
39
7. Section III Proposed Development, page 7, the second paragraph claims, "the
applicant has designed the amendment proposal to comply w /current codes with
respect to dimensional requirements, calculation methodology and measurements"
and Page 13 claims the height and FA are calculated per current code. Would the
applicant consider using one code?
Building Department
We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and
codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concems that
may require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to
schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either
email me at denism@,ci.aspen.co.us or call at 970 - 429 -2761.
1) We have adopted the 2009 edition of the International Codes. The two of the
triplexes will be reviewed to IRC the upper most triplex and rest of the buildings
will be reviewed to the IBC.
2) Provide an address scheme for the site to be reviewed prior to permit submittal.
3) We have questions about the exiting from the basement parking facility.
4) The original submission had proposed all type B accessible units. This proposal
eliminates more than half of those. The applicant may consider a type C visit able
unit that is now an option in the ANSI standard.
5) We recommend a pre construction meeting when the project plans are further
developed to discuss the stabilization, fire resistive, energy code, etc.
Housing
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular
meeting held November 16, 2011, and is recommending approval with the following
conditions:
1. All the units shall be sold through the lottery system, unless the "protected"
tenants have a priority for the on -site units. If this is the case, the List of those
tenants will need to be provided to APCHA and each of the tenants will be
required to qualify under the Guidelines at the time of marketing the units.
2. To allow the developer the priority to pick three owners of on -site units as long
as they qualify in the top priority per Part VII of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Employee Housing Guidelines.
3. All of the units, on -site and off -site, will be ownership units.
4. Due to the mix of free - market and affordable housing units on -site, APCHA
recommends that the condominium declaration for the on -site units be modeled
after the documents provided for the AspenWalk free - market/affordable - housing
project. The condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by
APCHA prior to recordation.
40
5. The existing Pacific Avenue AH housing units include a playground that will be
adjacent to the new Pacific Ave units. The developer must explore the provision
of cost sharing for the maintenance and insurance of the playground and if an
agreement can be reached, to include it in the new condo declarations.
6. The applicant and APCHA staff shall meet prior to deed - restricting the on -site
and off -site units to determine categories for the units. All AH units shall be no
higher than Category 3.
7. The Board recommends use of the housing credit certificate program for the
additional 3.5 FTE's versus the cash - in - lieu mitigation; however, if the cash -in-
lieu fee is accepted, the fee shall be based on the amount stated in the
Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines in affect at the time of
building permit.
8. A capital reserve study shall be prov for both on s ite and off site affordable
housing projects at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
9. All deed restrictions shall be recorded coincident with the recordation of the
Condo Plat and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The
Certificate of Occupancy for the free - market portion shall not be issued until the
Certificate of Occupancy for the deed restricted units have been executed.
10. All AH units shall include a complete suite of standard appliances; i.e.,
refrigerator /freezer, stove /oven, microwave, garbage disposal, dishwasher, and
clothes washer and dryer hookups.
Sanitation
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections
(roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line
according to specific ACSD requirements.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required
where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
41
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may
impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office
can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to
the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned
reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an
additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection
system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected
over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements
needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned
capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will
be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would
be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the
area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line).
A "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" are required for this
application. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items.
The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once
detailed building and utility plans are available.
V2) P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: AACP "gap issues" Code Amendments
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2012
MEETING PURPOSE:
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved an update to the Aspen Area Community Plan
(AACP) in November, 2011. One change in the document related to the authority the document
should have in land use case review. Staff recommended, and the P &Z voted, that the document
should be "guiding" in nature, meaning that development applications should not be subject to
the specific language of the AACP. This direction has also been supported by City Council.
No action is request at this meeting. Staff would like to get feedback from the Planning &
Zoning Commission regarding the proposed code amendments to the AACP Review Criteria.
The public hearing for the code amendments is scheduled for January 10, 2012, with a possible
continuation date to January 17, 2012 if needed.
BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW:
Since 2000, the P &Z, HPC and City Council have often relied on certain language in the 2000
AACP as part of their review of development applications, often regarding the need for new
development to be compatible in mass, scale etc. with the surrounding neighborhood. While the
land use code contains similar language /criteria for some review processes, such
language /criteria is not included for all types of reviews. These "gaps" in the code have resulted
in review boards citing the 2000 AACP to retain authority over "compatibility" and related
issues. With the new AACP identified as "guiding" only, staff is recommending inserting
"compatibility" language into the land use code where it is not currently present, so that review
boards retain the authority they have grown accustomed to, in all type of land use review.
There are currently sixteen (16) review criteria in the Land Use Code that call for general
compliance or consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Because the updated AACP is
to be used in a guiding capacity, these references need to be amended. Staff proposes replacing
these general statements with much more specific review criteria to ensure review boards retain
their authority. These review criteria are outlined in more detail below.
In addition, staff recommends adding criteria to the Land Use Code related to neighborhood
outreach prior to the submission of development applications. Such public outreach is
referenced in the 2000 AACP, and staff believes it is a step that should be part of the regular land
use process.
Page 1 of 6
P2
Finally, staff recommends some changes to the review procedures related to Commercial Design
Review to ensure review authority is maintained. HPC and P &Z reviewed a code amendment
related to this in 2009. P &Z approved Resolution 17, Series of 2009, recommending City
Council adopt a code amendment changing the nature of Commercial Design Review and
Conceptual HPC Review. This is attached as Exhibit L. Staff is not proposing any changes to
this language, but has attached the language to ensure P &Z has an opportunity to review the
previously recommended language.
CODE AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The following is the review procedure for amendments to the land use code:
• Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, City Council is the final review authority
following a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission for all code
amendments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Each proposed code amendment is outlined below. The amendments have been limited to
strictly address maintaining the existing authority the P &Z, HPC, and City Council currently
have when reviewing development proposals. The full text of the existing code sections, as well
as the proposed redlines, is attached in Exhibits B - K.
The proposed amendments do not address other substantive changes that are called for in the
2011 AACP — a separate P &Z meeting has been scheduled for Feb 7, 2012 to prioritize those
potential code amendments.
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH - EXHIBIT B
The 2000 AACP includes language that has been used by City Council to request an applicant
conduct enhanced public outreach:
• "The genuine character of our community should be measured by the quality of our
human interactions, not by the physical look or man -made artifacts or the magnificent
beauties of surrounding nature around us... We must elevate the best interest of people
and we must demonstrate our good will toward each other and all comers." (pg 7 -8 of
2000 AACP).
• "...the character of the built environment in Aspen is maintained through public outreach
and education about quality design, historical context, and the influence of the existing
built and natural environments." (pg 42 of 2000 AACP)
Staff has added a section to the Common Development Review Procedures, section 26.304, to
require all major projects to conduct a form of enhanced public outreach. The proposed
language is written to require that any project being reviewed by City Council, or any project
deemed by the Community Development Department to be significant, must conduct some form
of public outreach prior to the first public hearing. The applicant has a choice of a number of
public outreach methods, including holding a meeting, conducting a survey, or preparing a
"enhanced" public notice that includes more detailed information than current noticing
requirements.
Page 2 of 6
P3
P &Z should consider if enhanced public outreach should be a requirement, or if it should be a
suggestion for all development proposals.
Exhibit B includes proposed new section.
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND ZONE DISTRICT MAP - EXHIBIT C
The current code requires code changes or rezoning proposals to meet nine review criteria in
section 26.310, including the need to be consistent with the AACP. Staff proposes to replace this
criterion with the following: "Whether the proposed amendment furthers a recognized
community goal or objective." This language is common in other communities, and reflects the
broad -based nature of debate when it comes to code amendments. Staff believes this revised
language provides the ability for P &Z and City Council to review a potential code amendment or
rezoning against community opinion and broad city policies. Exhibit C includes the full Review
Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
VARIANCES - EXHIBIT D
Land Use Code section 26.314 includes a provision to enable property owners with a clear
hardship to request a variance from underlying dimensional requirements. This ability is
required under state and case law. This section on variances currently includes two references to
the AACP, which staff proposes eliminating. The aspirational nature of the AACP does not
translate well to reviewing on- the - ground dimensional variances. Staffs experience is that the
AACP is not a useful tool in the variance review process. Exhibit D includes the full Review
Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
CONDITIONAL USES - EXHIBIT E
Land Use Code section 26.425 includes six criteria to review applications for Conditional Uses,
including one requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff proposes amending this criterion to
state: "The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title." When
reviewing uses that are appropriate or inappropriate for a specific location, the intent of the zone
district, as well as the compatibility of the use with the immediate area (currently a review
criteria) inform the review process in a more meaningful way than consistency with a community
plan that is not site - specific. Staffs experience is that the AACP is not a useful tool in the
conditional use review process. Exhibit E includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the
proposed changes.
ESA-8040 GREENLINE REVIEW - EXHIBIT F
Any development within 150 feet of the. 8040 elevation line is required go through a heightened
review with P &Z to ensure it is sensitive to the natural environment and visual quality of the
mountainside. One review criteria references the AACP Parks, Recreation, and Trails Plan.
Staff received feedback from the Parks Department, and they have an adopted plan containing
more specific information than the AACP, . which they use to guide their 8040 Greenline
referrals. Staff has proposed replacing the AACP reference with the Parks Department plan.
Exhibit F includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
•
Page
P4
ESA — STREAM MARGIN REVIEW - EXHIBIT F
Any development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River is required go through a heightened
administrative review with P &Z to ensure it is sensitive to the natural environment and quality of
the river. One review criteria references the AACP Parks, Recreation, and Trails Plan. Staff
received feedback from the Parks Department, and they have an adopted plan containing more
specific information than the AACP, which they use to guide their Stream Margin referrals.
Staff has proposed replacing the AACP reference with the Parks Department plan. Exhibit F
includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) — EXHIBIT G
SPAs provide flexibility when special circumstances exist on a parcel, and the process requires
creative land planning techniques while allowing use and dimensional variations. The first SPA
review criteria calls for consideration of "Whether the proposed development is compatible with
or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use,
density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space."
There is also a review criterion requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff believes that with
some additions, the first SPA review criteria provides the ability to review the mass, scale,
neighborhood compatibility, and design quality: "Whether the proposed development is
compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in
terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, while
emphasizing quality construction and design." This change strengthens the existing SPA review
criteria and reflects how the AACP has been used to review SPAs.
Exhibit G includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) — EXHIBIT H
PUDs provide flexibility in the planning process and encourage flexibility and innovation in
development. They allow changes to the underlying dimensional requirements if they will result
in greater compatibility with the surrounding land uses and development. The PUD criteria are
very detailed, and cover topics ranging from architectural design to transportation to site access.
The existing criteria are quite comprehensive, and allow flexibility and discretion in P &Zs and
Council's review. The full review criteria are attached in Exhibit H - some specific sections that
address compatibility the neighborhood include Sections 26.445.050 B.1, B.2, C.1, C.2, and E.1.
There is one criterion requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff suggests amending that
criterion to reflect the mass and scale criterion in SPA: "The proposed development shall be
compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in
terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture."
In addition, a criterion to allow changes to the maximum density of a project is included in the
PUD section. Staff proposes eliminating the AACP language. In staff's experience, the general,
aspirational Language of the AACP does not provide meaningful direction in this instance.
Finally, there are three review criterion related to Architectural character. Staff proposes adding
similar Language as the SPA change to ensure quality construction and design are included in all
PUDs.
Page 4 of 6
P5
Exhibit H includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - EXHIBIT I
Any project that creates new net livable or net leasable space is required to go through the
Growth Management Quota System. There is one criterion requiring consistency with the
AACP. In staff's experience, the AACP has not an effective tool in the GMQS review process.
Staff suggests amending that criterion to reflect the fact that the GMQS review is mostly
concerned with uses (what goes on inside the building), not mass and scale (what the building
looks like): "The proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of land uses in
the surrounding area."
In addition, each year City Council meets to discuss if any unused Growth Management
allotments should be rolled -over to the next year.. One criterion requires consistency with the
AACP, which staff proposes to change to reference and relevant adopted plans. The Civic
Master Plan is currently the only adopted plan that could be used to review this criterion.
Exhibit I includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
SUBDIVISION - EXHIBIT J
Any project that creates new units of land is required to go through the subdivision process.
There is one criteria requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff suggests amending that
criterion to reflect the mass and scale criterion in the SPA section: "The proposed subdivision
shall be compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space."
In addition, one criterion allows changes to Engineering standards if the proposed engineering
design is compatible with the AACP. Staff proposes eliminating the language. The Engineering
Department is supportive of the change, as they have far more comprehensive review standards
than any language contained in the AACP.
Exhibit J includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
OFF- STREET PARKING - EXHIBIT K
The off - street parking section of the Land Use Code includes review criteria for commercial
parking facilities. One criteria requires that the location, design, and operating characteristics of
the facility be consistent with the AACP. Staff recommends eliminating this criteria. In staff's
experience, the general, aspirational language of the AACP does not provide meaningful
direction in this instance.
Exhibit K includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Staff requested input from the Parks and Engineering Departments, as certain criterion
referenced their plans and work program. Their comments were incorporated into the proposed
changes.
Page 5 of 6
P6
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments. A Resolution for the proposed
Code Amendments will be included in the January 10, 2012 packet.
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B — Neighborhood Outreach
EXHIBIT C - Amendments to the Land Use Code and Zone District Map
EXHIBIT D — Variances
EXHIBIT E — Conditional Uses
EXHIBIT F — ESA — 8040 Greenline Review and Stream Margin Review
EXHIBIT G — Specially Planned Area (SPA)
EXHIBIT II - Planned Unit Development (PUD)
EXHIBIT I — Growth Management
EXHIBIT J- Subdivision
EXHIBIT K - Off - Street Parking
EXHIBIT L — P&Z Resolution 17, Series 2009, Code Amendment on Council Call -Ups
Page 6of6
P7
Exhibit A - Staff Findings
Sec. 26.310.040.Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District
Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendments will clarify language in the code. Because the
updated Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is being adopted as a guiding document,
references to the AACP in the Land Use Code in Review Criteria need to be amended. The
proposed amendments eliminate out of date language, replace certain references to the AACP
with more specific review criteria, and improve to clarity of the code. Staff finds this criterion to .
be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendments are intended to better reflect the concepts in the
AACP. When reviewing a development proposal, the AACP is used to evaluate the mass, scale,
and compatibility of a new building. Instead of referencing the AACP, the proposed
amendments create more specific review criteria. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
P8
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendments are intended to better reflect the concepts in the
AACP, which include direction that development should be consistent and compatible with the
community. When reviewing a development proposal, the AACP is used to evaluate the mass,
scale, and compatibility of a new building. Instead of referencing the AACP, the proposed
amendments create more specific review criteria, including changes that more specifically
require development to be compatible with the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding: The updated AACP is being adopted as a guiding document, requiring all
references to the AACP in Review Criteria to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Finding: The updated AACP is being adopted as a guiding document, requiring all
references to the AACP in Review Criteria to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B P9
Chapter 26.304
COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
Sections:
Sec. 26.304.010 General
Sec. 26.304.020 Pre - application conference
Sec. 26.304.030 Application and fees
Sec. 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach
Sec. 26.304.040 Initiation of application for development order
Sec. 26.304.050 Determination of completeness and review by the Community Development
Director
Sec. 26.304.060 Review of a development application by decision - making bodies
Sec. 26.304.070 Development orders
Sec. 26.304.075 Building permit
Sec. 26.304.020.Pre- application conference.
A. General. Prior to the formal filing of a development application, unless waived by the
Community Development Director, the applicant shall confer with a member of the staff of the
Community Development Department to obtain information and guidance regarding the format
and processing of the development application. The purpose of such a conference is to permit
the applicant and the Community Development Department staff to review informally a
proposed development and determine the most efficient method of development review before
substantial commitments of time and money are made in the submission of an application. The
Community Development Director may decide as part of the pre - application process to hold pre -
application work sessions with decision- making bodies if it is determined that such work
sessions would provide the Community Development Department or the applicant with
additional information or guidance necessary to the preparation or processing of an application
for development.
•
B. Issues of discussion. Issues that may be discussed at the pre - application conference may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Proposed development. The applicant should describe the general nature of the proposed
development including, if applicable, proposed land uses and their densities; proposed
placement of buildings, structures and other improvements; character and location of
common open space or treatment of public uses; preservation , of natural features;
preservation of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; protection of environmentally sensitive areas; proposed off - street parking and
internal traffic circulation and total ground coverage of paved areas and structures.
1
2. Review procedure. The Community Development Department staff member shall
identify procedural review requirements for the proposed development and applicable
review standards and terms of this Title that apply to the review of the proposed
development. This should include identifying those stages of the common review
procedure which apply, which decision - making body or bodies will review the
Page 1of5
P10
development application and the approximate length of the development review
procedure.
3. Referral agencies. The Community Development Department staff member shall identify
the City, State and Federal agencies that are required to review the proposed
development, provide the applicant with persons at these agencies to contact about
review procedures and generally describe the information which will be needed to satisfy
the concerns of the relevant City, State and Federal agencies.
4. Application contents. The Community Development Department staff member shall
establish the contents of the development application required to be submitted for the
proposed development. This should include descriptions of the types of reports and
drawings required, the general form which the development application should take and
the information which should be contained within the application.
5. Application copies and fee. The Community Development Department staff member
shall identify the number of copies of the development application that are required to be
submitted for the proposed development, along with the amount of the fee needed to
defray the cost of processing the application and an estimate of the number of hours of
staff review time associated with the fee.
6. Written summary. Following the conclusion of the conference, the applicant shall be
presented with a written summary of the meeting. One (1) copy of this written summary
should be submitted back to the Community Development Department at the time of
submission of the development application. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 5 [part])
6,7.Neighborhood Outreach. The Community Development Department staff member shall
identify if a neighborhood meeting or other neighborhood outreach, as outlined in Sec
26.304.035, is required prior to submission of the development application.
Sec. 26.304.035. Neighborhood Outreach
A. Purpose. In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development review process,
the City may require certain development applications to conduct public outreach prior to fling a
development application. The applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the
public about the application prior to the first public hearing. At least ten (10) calendar days shall
have passed between the date of any neighborhood outreach and the public hearing for the
application.
B. Applicability. A neighborhood meeting shall be required on any development proposal that is
subject to City Council review unless the Community Development Department determines as a
part of the pre - application conference that the development proposal is limited in nature. In
addition, the Community Development Department may make a determination that
neighborhood outreach is required for significant development applications reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission.
Page 2 of 5
P11
C. Appropriate forms of public outreach. The applicant may choose to do' one or more of the
following forms of public outreach. Community Development Department staff may, as part of
the pre- application conference, suggest certain forms of public outreach that would be most
appropriate for a development application.
I. Information meeting. The applicant may hold a neighborhood meeting to gain input
from neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open and accessible to the general
public and held in a location in proximity to the proposed development or in a publicly
accessible building such as City Hall or the Public Library. The applicant or applicant's
representative shall attend the neighborhood meeting and be available to answer
questions from the public. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and
coordinating the neighborhood meeting. Renderings, modeling, or other visual
representations of the project within its context is required. Notice of a neighborhood
meeting shall be posted and mailedpursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.b -c. The
applicant may choose to conduct additional noticing to ensure the public is aware of the
meeting.
2. Survey. The applicant may conduct a survey of the community to gain input from
neighbors and citizens. The survey must include a summary of the proposal, including
basic use -type information, building height, and renderings. The applicant shall be
responsible for coordinating the survey. The survey should be conducted to ensure
statistical validity.
3. On -line meeting. The applicant may conduct an on -line meeting to gain input from
neighbors and citizens. The meeting must be open to the general public. The applicant
or applicant's representative shall attend the on -line meeting and be available to answer
questions from the public. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and
coordinating the on -line forum. Renderings, modeling, or other visual representations of
the project within its context is required. Notice of an on -line meeting shall be mailed
pursuant to Section 26,304.060.E.3.c. The applicant may choose to conduct additional
noticing to ensure the public is aware of the on -line meeting.
4. Enhanced Public Information. The applicant may provide detailed information on the
project in the form of a project website, a detailed public notice mailing, etc. that explains
the proposal, outlines the review process. provides visual rendering or maps, or any other
information that will describe the project in layman's terms. The applicant shall be
responsible for coordinating the information.
5. Individual Outreach. The applicant may conduct individual or small group meetings
with neighbors of the project. The applicant shall be responsible for organizing and
attending the meetings. At the meetings, the applicant should provide a summary of the
.ro.osal includin. basic use- se information buildin. height and renderings.
6. Any other form of public outreach that will provide neighbors a genuine opportunity
to understand the developmentproposal and provide comments to the application.
Page 3 of 5
P12
F. Summary of Public Outreach. A written summary of the public outreach shall be prepared
by the applicant and submitted as part of the Land Use Application. Any documentation that was
presented to the public should also be included in the Land Use Application.
Sec. 26.304.060. Review of a development application by decision - making bodies.
E. Public notice. •
1. General. Whenever a notice of a public hearing is required, notice shall be pro Vided to
the public, pursuant to the terms of this Section. •
2. Content of notice. Every notice shall include the name and address of the applicant, the
type of development application sought, date, time and place of the hearing, the address
and legal description of the subject property if applicable, a summary of the development
application under consideration and identification of the decision - making body
conducting the hearing and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the
public of the nature of the application.
3. Manner of notice. Every notice shall be given in one (1) or more of the following
manners, as specified in this Title for each type of development:
a. Publication of notice. Publication of notice shall be provided by the applicant or the
Community Development Department at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public
hearing through publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper.
of general circulation in the City.
b. Posting of notice. Posting of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain a
copy of the form from the Community Development Department. The notice shall be
posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, by posting a sign in a
conspicuous place on the property subject to the development application. The sign
shall be made of suitable, waterproof materials, shall be not less than twenty -two (22)
inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high and shall be composed of letters not less
than one (1) inch in height.
c. Mailing of notice. Mailing of notice shall be made by the applicant, who shall obtain
a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department. The mailing
shall contain that information described in Paragraph E.2 above. At least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be sent by first class, postage prepaid
U.S. mail or hand delivered, to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet
of the property subject to the development application. The names . and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing.
d. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the Official Zoning District Map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
Page 4 of 5
P13
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation or otherwise,
the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of and
the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area
• of the proposed change, shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be
available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for
fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
e. Notice to mineral estate owner. An applicant for surface development shall notify
affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled
for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall
certify that notice has been provided to the mineral estate owner.
•
•
•
Page 5 of 5
•
•
P14
h( c
•
Chapter 26.310
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
Sec. 26.310.010 Purpose . '
Sec. 26.310.020 Procedure for amendment
Sec. 26.310.030 Application
•
Sec. 26.310.040 Standards of review
Sec. 26.310.050 Temporary suspension of building permits — pending ordinance
Sec. 26.310.060 Notation of Planning and Zoning Commission resolution on Official
Zone District Map
Sec. 26.310.070 Recordation of designation •
Sec. 26.310.080 Placement on City's Official Zone District Map
Sec. 26.310.085 Disputes about zoning of a property
Sec. 26.310.090 Time limitations
Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
• In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District
Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
I B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Arca
Community Planfurthers a recognized community goal or objective.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Page 1 of 1
P15
Chapter 26.314
VARIANCES
Sections:
Sec. 26.314.010 Purposes
Sec. 26.314.020 Authority
Sec. 26.314.030 Authorized variances
Sec. 26.314.040 Standards applicable to variances
Sec. 26.314.050 Procedure for variance approval
Sec. 26.314.060 Conditions
Sec. 26.314.070 Expiration
Sec. 26.314.080 Appeals
Sec. 26.314.440. Standards applicable to variances.
A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the
appropriate decision - making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of the Aspcn Ar a Community Plan and. this Title 26 and the Municipal Code;
and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a There are special conditions and circumstances which are • unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the Aspcn Arca Community Plan and the terms of this Title and the Municipal
Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district.
B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision -
making body shall make a fording that all of the following circumstances exist:
1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to
surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a. —c.
Page 1 of 2
P16
2. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief, and to
deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship such that the property
would be rendered practically undevelopable, as distinguished from mere inconvenience.
4. The temporary off -site storage or construction staging can be undertaken in such a
manner so as to minimize disruption, if any, of normal neighborhood activities
surrounding the subject parcel. •
5. If ownership of the off -site parcel subject to the proposed variance is not vested in the
applicant, then verified written authorization of the parcel's owner must be provided.
6. Adequate provision is made to restore the subject parcel to its original condition upon
expiration of the variance, including the posting of such financial security as deemed
appropriate and necessary by the appropriate decision - making body to ensure such
restoration.
Page 2 of 2
E1411 4,1 7 .
Chapter 26.425
CONDITIONAL USES
Sections:
Sec. 26.425.010. Purpose.
Sec. 26.425.020. Authority.
Sec. 26.425.030. Authorized conditional uses.
Sec. 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
Sec. 26.425.050. Procedure for review.
Sec. 26.425.060. Application.
Sec. 26.425.080. Amendment of development order.
Sec. 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the p urposes, goals, objectives and standards of the
Aspen Arca Community Plan, with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be
located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title; and
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses or enhances the mixture of
complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development; and
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use
minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
and
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not
limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency
medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; and
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for
increased employees generated by the conditional use; and
F. The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning and Zoning
Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use that are necessary to maintain the
integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use complies with the purposes
of the Aspen Arca Community Plan, this Chapter and this Title; is compatible with surrounding
land uses; and is served by adequate public facilities. This includes, but is not limited to,
imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting,
signage, off - street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public facilities
Page 1 of 2
.�r
P18
to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation
and duration of the conditional use.
•
•
Page 2 of 2
EY3n1bi+
P19
Chapter 26.435
DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA)
Sections:
Sec. 26.435.010. Purpose.
Sec. 26.435.020. Authority.
Sec. 26.435.030. 8040 Greenline review.
Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review.
Sec. 26.435.050. Mountain view plane review.
Sec. 26.440.060. Application.
Sec. 26.435.070. Procedure for approval of development in ESA.
Sec. 26.435.080. Application.
Sec. 26.435.090. Conditions.
Sec. 26.435.100. Amendment of an ESA development order.
Sec. 26.435.030.8040 Greenline review.
C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one
hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth
below.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located, is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the
parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and
revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a
location acceptable to the City.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in
the City.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with
the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural land features.
Page 1 of 4
•
•
P20
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend
into the open character of the mountain.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development. •
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be
properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure
adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
11. The recommendations and adopted policies of the Aspen Arca Community Plan:
Parks /Recrcation/Trails Plan Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the
proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55- 2000, § 7)
Sec. 26.435.040.Stream margin review.
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques
on or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development; and
2. The recommendations and adopted policies of the Aspen Arca Community Plan:
Parks /Rccrcation /Open Spacc /Trails Plan Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring
Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a
recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access
within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded •
"Fisherman's Easement;" and
- 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said
envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
Page 2 of 4
P21
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during
construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside
of the designated building envelope; and
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration
or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; and
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100 -year flood plain; and
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside
of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100 -year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork
River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community
Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and
method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A "; and
}
F l'1 doFr r
Urepr04 4I4s
het Oft
I ei� A
ad.idd 1 ,
:1 a:1
1 ' ", 4=1
FigurR "A'
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
•
Page 3 of 4
P22•
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting
plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
•
•
•
Page 4 of 4
f 14
P23
Chapter 26.440
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA)
Sections:
Sec. 26.440.010. Purpose.
Sec. 26.440.020. Applicability.
Sec. 26.440.030. Designation of Specially Planned Area (SPA).
Sec. 26.440.040. Procedures for review.
Sec. 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA).
Sec. 26.440.060. Application.
Sec. 26.440.070. SPA agreement and recordation.
Sec. 26.440.090. Amendment to development order.
Sec. 26.440.050.Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA).
A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and
a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider
the following:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of
development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height,
bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space, while emphasizing quality construction
and design.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Arca
Comprehensive Plan.
56. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood.
67. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20 %) meet the
slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2.
74. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Page I. of 2
P24
The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and
suitability of the proposed development and its conformity to the standards and procedures of
this Chapter and Section; provided, however, that in the review of the conceptual
development plan, consideration will be given only to the general concept for the
development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of
the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished.
B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the requirements of
the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from those requirements may be
allowed based on the standards of this Section. Variations may be allowed for the following
requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum
front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash
access area, internal floor area ratio, number of off - street parking spaces and uses and design
standards of Chapter 26.410 for streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall
be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan.
•
Page2of2
abiblir P25
• •
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Sections:
Sec. 26.445.010. Purpose.
I Sec. 26.445.020. Applicability.
Sec. 26.445.030. Procedures for review.
Sec. 26.445.040. General provisions.
Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
Sec. 26.445.060. Application materials.
Sec. 26.445.070. Recording a final PUD development plan.
Sec. 26.445.080. Notice of PUD designation.
Sec. 26.445.090. Placement of PUD designation on Official Zone District Map.
Sec. 26.445.100. Amendment of PUD development order.
Sec. 26.445.110. Enforcement of PUD development order.
Sec. 26.445.020. Applicability.
1 Before any development shall occur on land designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the
official zone district map or before development can occur as a PUD, it shall receive final PUD
approval pursuant to the terms of this Chapter. However, in no event shall adoption of a final
development plan be required for the construction of a single detached- or duplex- residential
dwelling on a separate lot, in conformance with the General Provisions of this Chapter, Section
26.445.040 below. All land with a PUD designation shall also be designated with an underlying
zone district designation most appropriate for that land.
A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the
property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land equal to or
greater than twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial,
tourist or other development purposes.
•
A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the
property owners of any proposed development in the City that is on a parcel of land less than
twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for multi- family residential, commercial,
tourist or other development purposes if, prior to application, the Community Development
I Director determines the development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted
goals of the Aspcn Arca Community Plancommunity and that the provisions of the Planned Unit
Development land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue
of this determination, the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and
shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this Chapter. •
If the Community Development Director determines the proposed development is not suitable to
be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, the property owner may appeal the decision to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission, by Resolution and after considering a
recommendation made by the Community Development Director, may determine that the
I development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the Aspcn Arc
Community Plancommunity and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use
Page 1 of 7
•
•
P26
•
review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this, determination,
the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to
demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this chapter.
•
A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be applied
for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay
(LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone
District. (Ord. No. 10 -1999, § 2 (part); Ord. No. 52 -1999, § 1)
Sec. 26.445.050.Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
• associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain .
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
•
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Arta Community Plan
compatible with or enhance the mix of development in- the immediate vicinity of the
j . parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in
the surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from
GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development
and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan
review. •
B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: , The final PUD development plans shall
establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described. in General
Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone
District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During
review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements
shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and
compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the
surrounding area.
• b) Natural or man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep
slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
Page 2 of 7
P27
d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding
area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical
resources.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open
space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD
and of the surrounding area.
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the
following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including
any nonresidential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for
pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive
techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient
infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced
if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service
the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural
hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or
the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due
to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development
pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's
physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if:
Page 3 of 7
P28
•
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in tho Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan, as
applicable, to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists .
no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5,
above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with
and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern,
land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate
than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD
conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as
•
otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD
Development Plan.
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be
reflected in the final PUD development plans.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and
ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are
preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and
vistas:
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural
context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and
pedestrian movement.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service
vehicle access.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to
accommodateany programmatic functions associated with the use.
Page 4 of 7
P29
D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed
landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the
following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well - designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and
interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is
appropriate.
E. Architectural character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to
existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for_ anel
indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and
cultural resources and emphasize quality construction and design.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of
the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive
mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate
manner that does not require significant maintenance.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns.
The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind
to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is
proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features,
buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is
prohibited for residential development.
G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a
common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the
proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1
Page 5 of 7
P30
1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation
area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and
proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief
to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses
and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in
perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD
or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent
care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with
a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development.
H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development
does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does
not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed 'utilities and public facilities associated
with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts . on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the
necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided' appropriately and
where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement.
I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The
purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly
burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail
facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the
development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street
either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not
create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such
surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to,
the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and
the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for
appropriate improvements and maintenance.
Page 6 of 7
P31
•
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans, as
I applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private
ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and
emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within
the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
1
J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The
purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary
burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are
mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be
defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the
following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of
initial phases from the construction of later phases.
4
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to
be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing
and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts
associated with the phase. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §24)
4
Page 7 of 7
P32 Py(hloi+
•
Chapter 26.470
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS)
Sections:
Sec. 26.470.010. Purpose.
Sec. 26.470.020. Applicability.
Sec. 26.470.030. Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments.
Sec. 26.470.040. Exempt development.
Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements.
Sec. 26.470.060. Administrative applications.
Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
Sec. 26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
Sec. 26.470.090. City Council applications.
Sec. 26.470.100. Calculations.
Sec. 26.470.110. Growth management review procedures.
Sec. 26.470.120. Community objective scoring criteria.
Sec. 26.470.130. Reconstruction limitations.
Sec. 26.470.140. Amendment of a growth management development order.
Sec. 26.470.150. Appeals.
Sec. 26.470.030. Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual allotments.
F. Accounting procedure. The Community Development Director shall maintain an ongoing
account of available, requested and approved growth management allocations and progress
towards each development ceiling. Allotments shall be considered allocated upon issuance of a
development order for the project. Unless specifically not deducted from the annual
development allotment and development ceilings, all units of growth shall be included in the
accounting. Affordable housing units shall be deducted regardless of the unit being provided as
growth mitigation or otherwise. After the conclusion of each growth management session and
year, the Community Development Director shall prepare a summary of growth allocations.
The City Council, at its first regular meeting of the growth management year, shall review,
during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the
Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via
adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried
forward and added to the annual. allotment. The City Council may carry forward any portion of
the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none.
The City Council shall also consider the remaining development allotments within the
development ceilings, established pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.C, and shall reduce the
available development allotment by any amount that exceeds the development ceiling. The
public hearing shall be noticed by publication, pursuant to Subparagraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. The
City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried
forward:
Page 1 of 3
P33
I 1. The goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan community as articulated in
any adopted plans.
2. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period.
3. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed
development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure
capacity, construction impacts and community character.
4. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that
have not yet been built. (Ord. No. 21 -2005, §1; Ord. No. 12- 2006, § §1, 2; Ord. No. 14,
2007, §1)
Sec. 26.470.050. General requirements.
A. Purpose: The intent of growth management is to provide for orderly development and
redevelopment of the City while providing mitigation from the impacts said development and
redevelopment creates. Different types of development are categorized below, as well as the
necessary review process and review standards for the proposed development. A proposal may
fall into multiple categories and therefore have multiple processes and standards to adhere to and
meet.
. B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi -year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet
this standard.
I 2. The ro osed develo ment is consistent with the As en Arca Community Plan compatible
I P p p p
with or enhances the mix of land uses in the surrounding area.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60 %) of the employees generated
by the additional commercial e r lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A,
Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The
employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen /Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
Page 2 of 3
P34
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §2)
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural
or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least
thirty percent (30 %) of the additional free - market residential net livable area, for which the
finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ( "voluntary units ") may be deed - restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall
be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment
of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee /Square
Footage Conversion. (Ord. No. 6 — 2010, §2)
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste
4 disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
9
Page 3 of 3
E*Iiik
P35
Chapter 26.480
SUBDIVISION
Sec. 26.480.010. Purpose.
Sec. 26.480.020. Applicability and prohibitions.
Sec. 26.480.030.. Exemptions.
Sec. 26.480.040. Procedures for review.
Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards.
Sec. 26.480.060. Application.
Sec. 26.480.070. Subdivision agreement.
Sec. 26.480.080. Amendment to subdivision development order.
Sec. 26.480.090. Condominiumization.
Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following
standards and requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be : • - - • - - • . . - - - -
Plan.compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel in terms of density. height. bulk, architecture. landscaping
and open space.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the area.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements
of this Title.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,
rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or
other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Page 1 of 2
. P36
•
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for
the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See,
Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an adopted
specific area plan, or the Urban Runoff Management Plan set forth in Title 28, the
Aspen Arcm Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas
and /or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements
of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing programSection 26.470.070.5, Demolition or
redevelopment of multi - family housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set
forth at Chapter 26.620.
F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) - zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City
• Attorney.. (Ord. No.. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § §29, 30)
•
Page 2 of 2
E c Di+ 37
Chapter 26.515
OFF- STREET PARKING
Sections:
26.515.010 General provisions
26.515.020 Characteristics of off - street parking spaces
26.515.030 Required number of off - street parking spaces
26.515.040 Special review standards
26.515.050 Cash -in -lieu for mobility enhancements
26.515.010. General provisions.
A. General requirements. All development shall be provided with off - street parking as
provided in this Chapter.
B. Requirements for expansion /redevelopment of existing development. No development
shall reduce the number of existing off - street parking spaces below the minimum number of
existing spaces required herein for that development, unless expressly exempted by this Chapter.
If existing development is expanded, additional off - street parking spaces shall be provided for
that increment of the expansion as if it is a separate development. An existing deficit of parking
may be maintained when a property is redeveloped.
C. Off - street parking calculation. All requirements for off - street parking for residential
dwellings and lodges shall be calculated based on the number of units. Requirements for off -
street parking for commercial uses shall be calculated based on the net leasable area of the
structure or use. Requirements for all other land uses not considered residential, lodging or
commercial shall be established by special review.
D. Required number of spaces when fractional spaces computed. When any calculation of
off - street parking results in a required fractional space, said fractional space may be paid through
a cash -in -lieu payment, or an entire space may be provided on the site.
E. Commercial Parking Facilities. When a parking facility is proposed to function as a
commercial parking facility, as such terms are used herein, review and approval shall be
according to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the review standards of Section 26.515.040,
Special review standards. Development of such a facility may also require conditional use
review in some Zone Districts. Also see definition of "Commercial parking facility," Section
26.104.100. (Ord. No. 17- 2005, § 1)
•
P38
26.515.020. Characteristics of off-street parking spaces.
A. General. Each off - street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one
half (81/2) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high with a maximum slope of
twelve percent (12 %) in any one direction. . Each parking space, except those provided for
detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street
or alley. Off - street parking provided for multi- family dwellings which do not share a common
parking area may be exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject to special
review pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the standards set forth at Section
26.515.040, Special review standards, below. Off - street parking must be paved with all weather
surfacing or be covered with gravel. For residential development, a grass ring or grass- paver-
type surface may be used. All parking shall be maintained in a usable condition at all times.
B. Location of off - street parking. Off - street parking shall be located on the same parcel as the
principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the lot occupied by the principal
use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary road, where one (1) exists
unless otherwise established according to this Chapter.
C. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off - street parking provided for
detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings are not required to have unobstructed access
to a street or alley, but shall not block access of emergency apparatus to the property or to
structures located on the property. This allows for "stacking" of vehicles where one (1) vehicle
is parked directly behind another.
D. State Highway 82 off - street parking. All parking required for uses fronting State Highway
82 shall, if an alley exists, be provided access off the alley and shall not enter from or exit onto
State Highway 82.
E. Restrictions on use of off - street parking areas. No off - street parking area shall be used for
the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, nor
shall any such activity adjacent to off - street parking spaces obstruct required access to off - street
parking areas. Parking spaces shall be used for the parking of vehicles and shall not be used for
nonauto related uses such as storage units or trash containers. Parking spaces may only be used
as a commercial parking facility if approved for such use. See Subsection 26.515.010.E and the
definition of commercial parking facility, Section 26.104.100. Commercial parking facilities
shall require special review approval and may also require conditional use approval in some
Zone Districts.
F. Surface parking. Surface parking is prohibited or requires conditional use review as a
principal use of a lot or parcel in some Zone Districts. For surface parking of eight (8) or more
spaces, parking areas shall include one (1) tree with a planter area of twenty (20) square feet for
each four (4) parking spaces. Planter areas may be combined, but shall be proximate to the
parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission may waive or modify this requirement
on a per case basis. Parking within structures is exempt from this landscaping provision.
P39
G. Restrictions on drainage, grading and traffic impact. Off - street parking spaces shall be
graded to ensure drainage does not create any flooding or water quality problems and shall be
provided with entrances and exits so as to minimize traffic congestion and traffic hazards.
H. Restrictions on lighting. Lighting facilities for off - street parking spaces, if provided, shall
be arranged and shielded so that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent
residential dwellings nor interfere with driver vision. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the
outdoor lighting regulations, Section 26.575.150.
(Ord. No. 17 -2005, § 1)
Sec. 26.515.030.Required number of off - street parking spaces.
Off - street parking spaces shall be provided for each use according to the schedule, below.
Whenever the off - street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a planned unit
development final development plan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned
unit development. Whenever the parking requirement shall be . established through a special
review, the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review standards,
below, shall apply. Whenever the parking requirement may be provided via a payment -in -lieu
the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.050, Cash -in -lieu for mobility
enhancements, below, shall apply. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a
property is redeveloped.
•
Use Aspen Infill Area All Other Areas
Commercial One space per 1,000 net Three spaces per 1,000 net
leasable square feet of leasable square feet of
commercial space. 100% commercial space.
may be provided through a
payment in lieu.
Residential — Lesser of one space per Lesser of one space per
Single - Family and Duplex bedroom or two spaces per bedroom or two spaces per
unit. Fewer spaces may be unit. • approved, pursuant to Chapter
26.430, Special review and
according to the review
criteria of Section 26.515.040.
Residential — One space per unit. Fewer One space per unit. Fewer
Accessory Dwelling Units spaces may be approved, spaces may be approved,
and Carriage Houses pursuant to Chapter 26.520, pursuant to Chapter 26.520,
Accessory dwelling units and Accessory dwelling units and
carriage houses. carriage houses.
Residential — One space per unit. Fewer Lesser of one space per
Multi Family (as a single spaces may be approved, bedroom or two spaces per
use) pursuant to Chapter 26.430, unit.
Special review and according
to the review criteria of
Section 26.515.040.
•
•
P40
Residential — One space per unit. 100% One space per unit. Fewer
Multi Family within a may be provided through a spaces may be approved,
mixed - use building payment in lieu. No pursuant to Chapter 26.430,
requirement for residential Special review and according
units in the CC and C -1 Zone to the review criteria of
Districts. Section 26.515.040.
Hotel/Lodge .5 spaces per unit. Fewer 0.7 spaces per unit. Fewer
spaces may . be approved, spaces may be approved,
pursuant to Chapter 26.430, pursuant to Chapter 26.430,
Special review and according Special review and according
to the review criteria of to the review criteria of
Section 26.515.040. No Section 26.515.040.
requirement for lodging units
in the CC and C -1 Zone
Districts.
All Other Uses (civic, Established by special review Established by special review
cultural, public uses, according to the review according to the review criteria
essential public facilities, criteria of Section of Section 26.515.040.
child care centers, etc.) 26.515.040.
For properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, fewer
spaces may be provided and /or a waiver of cash -in -lieu fees may be approved, pursuant to
Chapter 26.430, Special review and according to the review criteria set forth below.
For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as "lock -off units," each
separate "key," or rentable division, shall constitute a unit for the purposes of this Section.
For projects with parking requirements in multiple categories (residential, commercial, lodging
or other), the provision of on -site parking may be approved to satisfy the requirements for each
use concurrently, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and according to the review criteria
set forth below. (For example: A project comprised of commercial use requiring five [5]
parking spaces and lodging use requiring five [5] parking spaces may be approved to provide
less than ten [ 10] total parking spaces.) This shall not apply to parking which is provided
through a payment -in -lieu.
(Ord. No. 17- 2005, §1)
26.515.040. Special review standards.
Whenever the off - street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the
following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
P41
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community
Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
special review application.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation
of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands,
the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests and employees.
•
2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in
an undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
B. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
Aspen Arca Community Plan.
12. The project has obtained growth management approvals or is concurrently being
considered for growth management approvals.
23. The location, capacity and operating characteristics, including effects of operating hours,
lighting, ventilation, noises etc., of the facility are compatible with the existing land uses
in the surrounding area.
34. Access to the facility is from an acceptable location that minimizes staging problems,
conflicts with pedestrian flow, conflicts with service delivery and elimination of on- street
parking.
45. The proposed style of operation is appropriate (manned booth, key cards etc.).
56. The massing, scale and exterior aesthetics of the building or parking lot are compatible
with the immediate context in which it is proposed.
1 I 67. Where appropriate, commercial uses are incorporated into the exterior of the facility's
ground floor to mimic conventional development in that Zone District.
(Ord. No. 17 -2005, §1)
P42
•
26.515.050. Cash -in -lieu for Mobility Enhancements.
A. General. The City conducted a parking facility analysis in the fall of 2001 and determined
the costs associated with developing new parking facilities to serve the demands of development.
While not all potential facilities represented the same potential expenditure, facilities considered
likely to be developed by the City required an expected twenty -five thousand dollars
($25,000.00) to forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) per space to develop in 2001 dollars.
Parking serving commercial and mixed -use development is a public amenity and serves the
mobility of the general population. As such, the mobility needs of the general population can be
improved through various means other than the provision of on -site parking spaces.
B. Cash -in -lieu. A cash -in -lieu payment, for those types of development authorized to provide
parking via cash -in -lieu, may be accepted by the Community Development Director to satisfy the
off- street parking requirements as long as the following standards are met:
1. Amount. In developments, where the off - street parking requirement may be provided via
a payment -in -lieu, the applicant shall make a one -time only payment to the City, in the
amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) per space. A prorated payment shall be
made when a portion of a space is required.
2. Time of payment. The payment -in -lieu of parking shall be due and payable at the time of
•
issuance of a building permit. All funds shall be collected by the Community
Development Director and transferred to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate
interest bearing account.
3. Use of funds. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the construction of a parking
facility, transportation improvements, including vehicles or station improvements,
transportation demand management facilities or programs, shared automobiles or
programs and similar transportation or mobility - related facilities or programs as
determined appropriate by the City.
4. Refunds. Fees collected pursuant to this Section may be returned to the then - present
owner of the property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees
have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the
Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which
case the time period shall be extended by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund,
the present owner must submit a petition to the Finance Director within one (1) year
following the end of the seventh (7 year from the date payment was received by the
City.
For the purpose of this Section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of
"the first payment in shall be the first payment out." Any payment made for a project for
which a building permit is revoked or cancelled, prior to construction, may be refunded if
a petition for refund is submitted to the Finance Director within three (3) months of the
date of the revocation or cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be
P43
•
accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of
the property and that the development shall not commence without full compliance with
this Chapter and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee.
5. Periodic review of rate. In order to ensure that the payment -in -lieu rate is fair and
represents current cost levels, it shall be reviewed periodically. Any necessary
amendments to this Section shall be initiated pursuant to Section 26.310.020, Procedure
for amendment.
(Ord. No. 17- 2005, §1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
P44 _�.��-, Q,�.r� _.. � yIC I ) a= 1 W10
I cF S, i jA:'i ti : , COCIE R; .3CLU - iiON
'vOS ra,,.A; ^ � * °tii� CO■1:211y, CO
I ESOLUTION No. 17
• (Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PI:ANI ING :1NiD ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING' THAT AMENDMENTS T() THE
FOJ.LOWING CBATTERS AND SECTIONS (W THE CITY Y 01e ASPEN LAND
USE CODE OF THE CITE' OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, MEET
.M'PI.ICABI.,E STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE T.0
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 2(4.412.040, - APPEALS, NOTICE; TO C11 Y
COUNCIL. AND CALL UP; 26.415.070.D3 - CONCEPTUAL 1)l {.VTi'•LOPMFNT
:,PLAN REVIEW; 26.415.070.)).4 — FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
• WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of
Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department
initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the provisions for City Council
"call -up" review of Conceptual Review approvals granted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Ptanning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26:310, applications to amend the text of Title •
26 of the Mtuiicipal 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 alter reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, ,
WIIEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended denial of
the proposed amendments to the City of .Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120 -
Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.412.040.13 - Appeals, notice to City
• Council and call up; 26.415.070.113 - Conceptual Development Plan Review;
26.415.070.D.4 -- Final Development Plan Review, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Cormnunity*Plan which, in part, calls to "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of •
design styles and to maintain and enhance the special character of our community"; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2009, continued to
June 16, 2009, continued to November 3, 2009 and continued to December 15, 2009 the •
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Sections 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up;
26.412.040.8 - Appeals, notice to City Council and call up; 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual
Development Plan Review; 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development Plan Review, as
described herein, by a 3 - 1 vote; and, •
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission folds that the
amendments ineet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and demerits of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
•
PIatniing & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 1 of 8
allow -raw Al mow 40.1._
P45
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 b°ing emoved i
I • re w " i thiougl looks like this. Text being added to the code is red with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT . RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.41.5.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council and Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call -up" of Historic Preservation'
Commission decisions, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.120. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or
disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for
major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the
City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316.
B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving,
approving with conditions or disapproving a t_'o nc otual Ddevelopment Plan application
for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or
relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City
Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call -up •
procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic t:orm of Ilk project with a copy of the approving
document..
C. Call -up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as
described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, a plications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accented by the City and no associated permits can shall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call -up period. If City Council exercises this call -u ) rovision. no a lications
for Final Development Plan Review shall be accepted by the City and no associated
permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in subsection
26.415.120.D. If the City Council does not call up the action within the call -up period.
the resolution of IIPC shall be the final decision on the platter.
D. City Council action on appeal 6F- call -up. The City Council shall. at a public
meeting consider the application , - • c - . _ - ' _ e noro. The
City Council may. at its discretion. consider evidence included in the record established
by the • Historic Preservation Commission or supplement the record with additional
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page2of8
•
•
P46
•
•
evidence or testimony as necessary. The Citv Council shall conduct its review of the
apt)iication under the ssantc criteria applicable to the reviewim.; body. shall °fnn the
de,,;..i o f 11K t31ess- tl3erc is a ti+ h tt-1i .
H has exsecdcd its j sdie fewer- i+btised its iii• c -,pion- The City Council's shall Rike
fit- action shall be as-- its- deem: . . • - • • ... - .. . -, • ..' ,
limited to:
1. Accepting the
1._Revcrsing the decision.
. . _ 'ens -c -ap e a4
. 32. Remanding the application to the HPC with direction from Council for rehearing
and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 10) •
3. Continulna the nieetintz to request additional evidence. analysis. or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call -uti review.
E. iAcklilioiwi Aciions. The rehearir and reconsideration of the application by the HPC.'
shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.1: Public Notice and shall be limited
to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The HPC decision is final and concludes
the call up review. Substantive changes. as defined in Section 26.415.070.E. 2 Substantial
Amendments. made to the application during the call up review and outside the topics
listed in the remand from Council shall he reviewed pursuant to Section 26.415.070.E
and shall require a new call up notice to Cite Council. The call up review shall be limited
onh to the changes approved in the Substantial Amendment application.
Section 2: Section 26.412.040.B. — Appeals, notice to City Council and 'Call -Up, which
section describes the process for City Council "call -up" of Commercial Design Review
decisions, shall be amended as follows: •
•
•
• 26.412.040.B. Appeals, Notice to City Council, and Call -Up.
1. Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community
Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation
Commission, as applicable, pursuant to this Chapter, may appeal the decision to the City
Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. •
2. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or
approving with conditions a development application for Ceonceptual Ddesign, the City
Council shall be promptly notified of the action to allow the City Council an opportunity
to avail itself of the call -up procedure set forth below. Notification shall consist of a
description in written and graphic form of the project with a copy of the approving .
document. Also see appeal procedures, Section 26.412.090 below.
3. Call -up. Following the adoption of a resolution approving or approving with -
conditions a development application for Commercial Design Review, the City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
• Page 3 of 8
P47
•
•
may order call -up of the action within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or
determination. Consequently, applications for Final Design shall not be accepted by the
• City and no associated permits east -shall be issued during the thirty-day call -up period. I f -
City Council exercises this call -up provision, no applications for Final Design shall be
accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council •
takes action as described in subsection 26.412.040.B.4. If the City Council does not call
up the action within the call -up period, the resolution shall be the final decision on the
matter. .
4. City Council action on call -up. The City Council shall. at a public nteetint;,
consider the application de novo. eft - ht eofd-- eslab'i °ebetare the per- td
Zed Cor"nis ion use - --P- sewatien --C fen- -a te- ---The City
Council may. at its discretion, consider evidence included in the record established by the
Historic Preservation.Commission or Planning and Zoning Commission. as applicable. or
supplement the record with additional evidence or testimony as necessary. The City
Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to
the reviewing body. . . - - . . . ` - - - . . - - - •
. - . ... ; a ess Or th2 • - • . '. .'
abused - its discretion — The City Council's =all take ch action shall be • _' a e
- - . • - - . .. . - _ . -et- limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
a_Reversing the decision.
b__.e.Remanding the application to the applicable Commission with direction from City
Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1) .
c. .Continuin ' the meeting to re uest additional evidence, analysis. or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call up review.
5. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the
applicable Commission shall be duly noticed pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E Public
Notice and shall be limited to the topics listed in the direction from Council. The
decision made by the applicable Commission is final and concludes the call up review.
Substantive chanties, as defined in Section 26.412:080 Amendment of Commercial
Design Review A , royal made to the a. lication during the call up review and outside •
the topics listed in the remand .from Council shall be reviewed pursuant to Section
26.412.080 and may require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review
shall be limited only to the changes approved in the Amendment application.
Section 3: Section 26.415.070.D.3 - Conceptual Development Plan Review, which
section describes the process for Review and approval of Conceptual Development Plans
by the Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009 •
De novo Code Amendment
Page 4 of 8
P48
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Developinent Plan Review.
a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following:
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and
orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site
characteristics.
(3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or additions) depicting their
form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the
primary features of all elevations.
(4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction
represented by samples and /or photographs. •
• (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context
surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at
least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or.
• • streetscape elevations.
(6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential
design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is
not being met.
•
b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and
a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing
shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.).3 Paragraphs a, b and.c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Laud
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the IIPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to • continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with .conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso 417 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 5 of 8 •
P49
(4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and
call -u . No a .lications for Final Development Plan shall be acce .ted b • the
•
City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes
action as described in said section.
c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows:
(1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval
of a Major development project or permission to proceed with the
development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to •
proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan.
(2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in
regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or
addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height,
scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the
proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final
development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses
to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been
approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing approval shall be
required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3.:
(3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development
plan approval, a development application for a final development-plan shall be
submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual
development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period
shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan.
. 1 he Cotn nunit Develo munent Director. ma taunt an extension of this
limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional
reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the
anpilicant__The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion
and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date •
for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided
a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to
• the expiration date.
Section 4: Section 26.415.070.D.4 — Final Development PIan Review, which section
describes the process for Review and approval of Final Development Plans by the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall be amended as follows:
26.415.070.D.4. Final Development Plan Review.
a. An application for a final development plan shall include:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page6of8
P50
(1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030.
(2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and /or addition(s) included as part
of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale.
(3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the
development, depicted through samples or photographs.
(4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics indicating how the final
development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a
condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. •
b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development
• projects are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be
complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing
before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided
. pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land
Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis
• report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
(3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a
certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall
issue a development order.
_(4 )4- -ice&+« 44PG--aett en-- will- be €c vary to t_! _ City. Council in
• aeeer aeee --with Section 26.115.130 and-- -ne- -i3 -
c, -. - y "call up" period by City
• Ceaei4 ha expired
(54) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of
plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must
be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues -
which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the
plans.
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
• De novo Code Amendment
Page 7 of 8
•
•
P51
FINALLY, adopted and approved this 15 day of December, 2009.
Stan Gibbs, Vice- Chairman
Attest:
Las/. ,
cki -f' Z ian, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
times R. True, Special Counsel .
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page8of8
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: Appointment of Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson
MEETING
DATE: January 4, 2012
At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a
Chair and Vice - Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re-
elected.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion "I
move to make a recommendation to appoint , as chairperson and
as vice - chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2012."
RESOLUTION NO. 3
Series of 2011
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice -
chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership- Appointment, removal, terms and
vacancies of the land use code; and
WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and
WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice - chairperson on February 1,
2011; and
WHEREAS, was elected chairperson and was elected vice -
chairperson; and
WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 4, 2013; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen,
Colorado, by this resolution that be appointed as chairperson and
be appointed as vice - chairperson.
DATED: January 4, 2012
Stan Gibbs,Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk