HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20120110 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, January 10, 2012
4:30 p.m. Council Chambers
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 217 - 219 South Third Street
B. AACP "gap issues" Code Amendments
VI. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 2
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 141
/
RE: 217/219 South Third Street — Planned Unit Development and Rezoning
Resolution No. Series 2012 — Public Hearing
DATE: January 10, 2012
i
NOTE: This property is subject to a lawsuit between the / 1 1 1 1 1
Applicant and the City of Aspen. The lawsuit regards / 1
the ownership of the "Upper Lot." Both the City and / i / 1 1
1 1 1 ' ° A
the Applicant claim ownership of this land. The Land
Use Code allows an applicant to pursue a land use .;
application by producing proof of ownership in the form
of a title commitment. The applicant in this case has !
produced a title commitment asserting its ownership of .o,f
"Upper Ate"
the Upper Lot." The City has agreed not to object to ..
the pursuit of the application despite its claim of �� l
ownership of the disputed property. If the application is
ultimately approved, the litigation would be deemed A lost / a -,
moot. The City's legal staff can provide further clarity
as requested by the Commission.
APPLICANT /OWNER: •
YLP West, LLC.
Suzanne Foster, representative. goat,
LOCATION:
217/219 South Third Street. •
CURRENT ZONING & USE:
The "Lower Lot" is zoned R -15 and contains a duplex. The lower lot is approximately 9,942
square feet. The "Upper Lot" is zoned Park and currently is unimproved. The upper parcel is
approximately 3,496 square feet and is bisected by the Midland Trail.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting Lot Split approval to divide the lower parcel into two single - family
home sites; Planned Unit Development approval to establish allowable floor area and setbacks
for the two home sites; and rezoning approval to rezone the property to add a PUD overlay (R-
15-PUD). The application proposes to dedicate the upper lot as open space.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development Plan and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map request. (Lot
Split review does not require a P &Z recommendation.)
Page 1 of 8
P2 4
r 111
.w
- Current Conditions
air+` t —
i rt. (14, - "* . - 1 . . 4 ::
- Vit .... _ - .. ,..' e , .4...... - Ifi , ,,,,,, -
41/trk t "14'.1. arlik.-ikt . f -
. ,,' i
Aw- • ?fiir --w ,..,,, .,,,,,,..__ . ,,,-,
, ,,,,:. ,., . .
.
y
' __ te .t Neighborhood
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Amendment to the Zone District Map — An application for Amendment to the Zone
District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and
Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend to City Council if the application
meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the
final decision - making body.
• Combined Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development — An application for combined
Conceptual and Final Planned Unit Development pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter
26.445, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend to
City Council if the application meets the standards for Final Development Plan. The City
Council is the final decision - making body.
Page 2 of 8
P3
• Lot Split — An application for Lot Split Subdivision requires City Council, at a public
hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards of Section 26.480.030.2. The
City Council is the final decision - making body. (The P &Z is not required to provide a
recommendation on this action.)
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Suzanne Foster representing YLP West , LLC, has requested approval to divide
the lower lot into two new lots. Each Lot would be approximately 4,971 square feet and contain
a single - family residence. The upper lot would be preserved as open space. Lot Split approval is
requested to accomplish the subdivision. The application requests PUD approval to recognize
the smaller -than- required lot sizes and to establish zoning dimensions. The application requests
rezoning approval to place a PUD overlay on the property.
Below is a detailed summary of the application and staffs response and recommendation on
each point:
Division of Lower Lot in two home sites:
Staff supports this request. The property is currently developed with a duplex and it can be
redeveloped with two units. The physical separation of the structures is preferred as it helps
reduce the massing of the project and is more in keeping with the modest home sizes in the
neighborhood. Also see zoning dimensions, below.
Preservation of Upper Lot:
Staff supports this request. The parcel is not an appropriate place for development. The lot is
affected by mine waste and does not have easy access to sustain development. The Midland
Trail bisects the property and this trail is heavily used by the public. There is a dispute
concerning the upper lot. Notwithstanding the ongoing legal arguments regarding ownership,
staff considers this parcel an important open space and public recreation trail link.
Floor Area:
Staff supports some increase to the Floor Area of the lower lot. The lower lot currently has an
allowable Floor Area of 4,145 square feet — 2,072.5 s.f. for each new lot if divided equally. The
application requests the two new lots on the lower property be allowed a Floor Area of 2,951
square feet each. This is based on the size of the new lots according to the R -15 zoning. As
rationale, the application suggests the upper lot could be . developed with a single- family home of
approximately 2,538 square feet of Floor Area and that this development is being vacated with
the open space dedication. Even with maximum slope- reduction taken into account, a house of
1,903 square feet of Floor Area could potential, be developed on the upper lot.
Note: Given the dispute regarding ownership of the upper lot, there is likely a similar argument
to be made regarding the Park zoning of the upper lot. If the applicant prevails in the lawsuit,
there is a potential the upper lot could be developed according to the R -15 Zone District and
contain a single- family residence of up to 2,538 square feet of Floor Area.
Page 3 of 8
P4
Staff is concerned about the amount of Floor Area being proposed for the new lots. The Floor
Area schedule for the R -15 zone is based on lots of 15,000 square feet or more. While a house of
2,951 square feet of Floor Area does not sound excessive, staff believes this could be out of scale
with the proposed lot sizes of 4,971 square feet. If these
were larger lots, staff would be less concerned.
A development across the street from this property
(pictured) provides useful guidance. Two 3,000 s.f. lots i
each contain a single - family residence of 2,400 square
feet of Floor Area. Even though these houses are
located in the R -6 Zone District, staff believes they are
compatible with the neighborhood. These lots are " . e
slightly smaller than proposed lots and contain slightly
less Floor Area.
Staff suggests a 2,707 square foot Floor Area limitation for the new lots. Staff arrived at this
number as follows — the existing lower lot could contain a duplex of 4,145 s.f. The upper lot
could potentially contain a house of 2,538 s.f. if the applicant prevails in the lawsuit. Or, it could
contain no development if the City prevails. Dividing the potential 2,538 s.f of the upper lot by
half and adding it to the Floor Area of the lower lot provides a total of 5,414 square feet.
Allocating this equally to the two new lots would result in an allowable Floor Area of 2,707 for
each new lot. Assuming the upper lot is permanently preserved, staff considers this a reasonable
outcome that will result in development compatible with the neighborhood.
Deck Floor Area:
The application requests additional deck allowance be provided for these two new lots as a way
to mitigate the "loss" of floor area by dedicating the open space. Staff does not support this
request. Decks in excess of the standard allowance could result in an aesthetic oddity. Plus staff
believes the 2,707 square foot Floor Area recommendation adequately recognizes the open space
preservation.
Setbacks:
The application requests 10 -foot setbacks on all sides of the property, including the 3` Street
frontage which would otherwise be 25 feet. Given the small sizes of the lots and the
neighborhood context, staff believes the 10 -foot setbacks are preferable. This would align the
new house on Lot 1 with the setback of the existing house to the north (the log cabin). Staff
believes the two houses across the street (pictured above) are good examples of appropriate
. development for this neighborhood — and each of these houses have a 5 -foot setback.
Man-Made Slopes:
The application requests the City accept a pre - development grade as the basis of development
rights. The City has already accepted the pre- development grade for this property and staff
believes it is acceptable for the PUD to continue to recognize this condition.
Covenant on the Open Space:
The application requests an easement on the open space parcel in order to maintain the
landscape. The Parks Department does not support this request and planning staff agrees — the
City's Parks and Open Space are well equipped to manage this landscape in an appropriate
Page 4 of 8
P5
manner. Furthermore, the application is unclear on the method of preserving the open space.
Staff does not support anything less than the City receiving an unconditional quit claim deed of
this upper parcel for open space and recreational purposes. Staff suggests an open space
easement be granted to a third party land conservation organization. The application requests
this and the City has done this in the past to alleviate concerns that the City could develop the
open space for other purposes in the future. Staff suggests the upper parcel continue to be
zoned Park.
Affordable Housing Waiver:
The application requests a waiver of the City's affordable housing requirements is recognition of
the open space dedication. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority does not support this
request and neither does planning staff. Staff believes the open space dedication is adequately
recognized through the Floor Area allowance. And, the open space benefit to the public does not
balance the affordable housing deficit represented by the waiver.
Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard:
The application requests waiver of the "secondary mass" standard of the City's residential
Design Standards. Staff supports this request. These two lots are somewhat constrained and the
bifurcation of the mass on the lower parcel achieves a reasonable level of separation between
structures. Referring to the example of the two houses across the street (picture above), these
parcel can be developed without the secondary mass and remain compatible with the
neighborhood.
OTHER ISSUES:
The City's referral agencies provided comments on this application and staff has included their
recommendations in the proposed resolution. Below, staff has highlighted .a few issues.
Alleyway:
The alleyway is currently compromised with an
encroaching structure associated with the parcel to the
north. In order to provide safe access, the City engineer
F .
is requiring 16 feet of unobstructed clear driving area, ,
plus a 1 -foot buffer for the historic structure. Staff has
included this as a condition of approval. Staff has also —
included a condition that the applicant install a - .
• protective bollard next to the accessory structure to
minimize damage to the structure from vehicles.
Sequence of Development:
These lots are somewhat constrained and construction staging areas will be minimal. The City
Engineer (who manages the City construction management program) suggests Lot 2 be
developed first using Lot 1 as the staging area. Staff has incorporated this as a condition of
approval.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:
The subject property is within a neighborhood with a variety of uses and densities. To the north,
across the alley, are three properties that are also zoned R -15 and contain single family
residences. All four of these lots, although designated R -15, do not meet the minimum required
Page 5 of 8
P6
lot size of 15,000 sq. ft., instead ranging from 7,500 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. Additional lots that
are zoned R -15 and are adjacent to Hyman Ave. and behind the Ice Garden also do . not meet the
minimum required lot size and are non - conforming.
„ tirt i ,..., ,. .,
4,, , , ,...,
, , , , „.
4044.
,i, ,,ki i!,,,,i i , - , i ,i._
, ., ,,., 1 4 'i ,-3, . ,;.yo
Nearby Scott Building Si. Moritz Lodge
40 i
f'
y ,,
±` / 1
___---_-_=.7 , 4 •
a
j •
....
W .
View looking west on Hopkins View looking east on Hopkins
Across Third Street the properties are zoned R -6, containing a number of residences and the St.
Moritz Lodge. In general the lots are smaller lots ranging from 3,000 to 7,500 sq. ft.; however,
there are a number of larger lots in the area that contain multi - family residential, a non-
conforming use in the R -6 zone district. The neighborhood character includes single- family
residences, duplexes, mixed -use properties, civic uses, lodging, and multi - family residences.
Page 6 of 8
P7
a' a
4' ; r 1* " ` r � x i t
,iir a j i b1y R r r ! � t 1 'r
a J p • ' r 8 4, o . R8 fi
"7'4 R ' 4 .1' , ,,,, ,s r ' . . #t i ' : 7 H'7,-‘ 1 ft .. : ; . -'.:-, ,1 , , , i . _ 7 ... *_ " ; 7!; - 7: : " t5 C
� ' Mixed Use r . ' ,,�. f 1 �_
f ' , . . ,*t."- AW :"-,..,..,,, .. .1. - f -r- . it/ * j , '
i R-6 I ,
• .. R -]5 lin'
,,..
'+ • r Y t Fr,
.: .....'',.'' .„''';.,_ . ,fi , , ' , i _•,4 t, air ' ba
F T
pre L
4fr ''i ' --- . # tz
io � lithe Cl ,i . �j WA'Y r. � - n
t ' k i 7 '4'4"14v6
J' r l - -1, a �. , 1 ', •K1. 16•; J
Existing Zone Districts
In looking at the purpose statement of the R -15 zone district, the 'paragraph states that the zone
district typically includes "additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of
the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the
Moderate- Density Residential (R -15) zone district." With regard to the R -6 zone, the purpose
statement notes that lands in the R -6 zone are "generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite,
contain relatively dense settlements of predominately detached and duplex residences, and are
within walking distance of the center of the City." A parcel, of land across from the Boomerang
Lodge was rezoned from R -15 to R -6 in 2006 as it was determined that the character, of the
neighborhood allowed for denser, smaller houses.
Staff believes the neighborhood contains a variety of uses, lot sizes, and building sizes. The
proposed parcel sizes are compatible with those already in the neighborhood. The proposed use
as single - family homes is consistent with uses already established in the neighborhood. The
proposed house sizes will be within the range of house sizes already existing. The proposed
setbacks align with adjacent development and are in keeping with existing setbacks in the
neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed development is compatible with existing
neighborhood character.
,
Page 7of8
P8
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission find the
application meets the review criteria for an Amendment of the Official Zone District Map and
Final Planned Unit Development and make a recommendation of approval to City Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , recommending approval of the
Planned Unit Development and Rezoning of the Foster property, commonly known as 217/219
South 3 Street." (please be specific regarding applicant requests and staff recommendations)
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A — Review criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B — DRC Summary
EXHIBIT C — Application
EXHIBIT D — Public Comment
Page 8 of 8
P9
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING AND PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR 219 SOUTH THIRD STREET, ASPEN,
COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-124-65-005
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the
property located at 217 and 219 South 3 Street from Suzanne Foster representing YLP West,
LLC, owner, for the following land use review approvals:
• Final Planned Unit Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445.
• Lot Split Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480.030.
• Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310. ; and,
WHEREAS, the subject Property is commonly known as 217 and 219 South 3 Street
and is legally described as:
Lots , P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting
therefrom that portion of Lots 0, P, and Q that lies south of the northerly
boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5
feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right
of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in
deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628.
WHEREAS, The application regards two properties: The "upper lot" is approximately
3,496 square feet, currently unimproved and bisected by the Midland Trail. The "lower lot" is
approximately 9,942 square feet and improved with two residences in a duplex configuration.
The applicant is requesting approval to split the lower lot into two development sites, each to
contain a single - family residence and to restrict the upper lot to open space. The application
requests Lot Split approval, Planned Unit Development approval, and rezoning approval to
rezone the property from R -15 to R -15 -PUD.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445.020, the Community Development Director
determined that the application has the ability to further goals of the Aspen Area Community
Plan and the provisions of Planned Unit Development best serve the interests of the community;
and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445.030.B.2, the Community Development Director
determined that the project could be reviewed as a consolidated conceptual and final review
finding that the full 4-step review would be redundant; 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 City
Utilities as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Final PUD approval
may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
P &Z Resolution No. , Series 2012.
Page 1 of 9
P10
recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Lot Split Subdivision
approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering
recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the
Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed
public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, during a meeting on January 10, 2012, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, considered the Application, received
presentation from the Applicant, considered the comments and recommendations of the
Community Development Director, considered comments and suggestions offered by members
of the public, considered questions and responses by staff or the Applicant, considered comments
and discussion by Commission members, and recommended City Council approve the
application, by a - • ( - ) vote, with the recommended conditions of approval listed
hereinafter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMNIISSION as follows:
The Foster Subdivision/PUD application is recommended for approval for all necessary land use
approvals including Planned Unit Development approval and Rezoning approval to create a three
lot subdivision with one lot dedicated as open space and the remaining two lots to contain a
single - family residence each, subject to conditions of approval listed herein.
Section 1: Foster Subdivision/PUD Plat & Final PUD Plans
Within six months following the date of final approval by the City Council, the record owners of
the underlying lands shall prepare and submit a Lot Split Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans
for the Foster Subdivision/PUD to be reviewed to ensure each item and condition of approval is
documented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and
the City Attorney prior to final signatures by the Mayor and recordation.
1.1 The Lot Split Subdivision Plat shall divide the land into the following parcels, as generally
depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A.
Foster Subdivision/PUD Lot 1: Single - Family Home
Foster Subdivision/PUD Lot 2: Single - Family Home
Foster Subdivision/PUD Lot 3: Open Space Parcel
1.2 The Subdivision Plat shall grant certain perpetual easements as follows: .
a. A perpetual public recreation, pedestrian access, and maintenance easement through the
center portion of Lot 3 proximate to the existing trail alignment for the benefit of the
general public. The easement shall be of a width and alignment acceptable to the City of
Aspen Parks Department. The easement shall permit the City of Aspen, or its designee,
to install, maintain, and operate a public trail and educational improvements.
P &Z Resolution No. _, Series 2012.
Page 2 of 9
P11
b. A perpetual open space easement across all portions of Lot 3 granted to the Aspen Valley
Land Trust, or similar land trust, for the benefit of the general public and subject to the
trail easement described above.
c. A perpetual alleyway easement on Lot 1 sufficient to provide a minimum 16 -foot width
of the alley free and clear of obstruction, including a 1 -foot buffer on the south side of
the existing accessory structure which is partially located in the alleyway north of the
subject property (17 feet total from the south face of the accessory building).
1.3 A Final PUD Development Plan set that includes:
a. An illustrative site plan showing the layout of the three lots as generally depicted in
Exhibit A. The plan shall illustrate setbacks (not building envelopes) on Lots 1 and 2.
b. A Utility Plan including profiles and sections acceptable to the City Engineer and the
City of Aspen Utilities Department. Individual service lines will need to be provided for
each house. Service will need to be from the 6" water line on the east side of South 3rd
Street, not the larger capacity transmission line. Service routing is preferred through the
alleyway. The applicant should be aware of new water service development standards
going into effect in early 2012.
c. A Drainage Plan and report acceptable to the City Engineer that complies with the City's
Urban Runoff Management Plan. The plan and report shall include a mudflow analysis.
The drainage plan shall include curbing along South 3 Street. Certain details specific to
actual development of each lot may be postponed until building permit submission, at the
discretion of the City Engineer. •
d. An Interpolated Natural Grade Plan.
e. The illustrative site plan shall include the following approved dimensional standards:
Dimensional Requirement Lot 1 Lot 2
4,971 square feet, as depicted 4,971 square feet, as depicted
Minimum Lot Size on recorded plat on recorded plat
Allowable Density Single - Family Home Single - Family Home
2,707 — staff recommended 2,707 — staff recommended •
Maximum Floor Area 2,951 square feet — applicant 2,951 square feet — applicant
requested requested
1
Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet. Measured from east 10 feet. Measured from north
lot line fronting 3 1-d street lot line fronting alleyway
10 feet. Measured from north 10 feet. Measured from east
Minimum Side Yard Setback and south lot lines, and west lot lines,
respectively. respectively.
P &Z Resolution No. , Series 2012.
Page 3 of 9
P12
Dimensional Requirement Lot 1 Lot 2
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet. Measured from west 10 feet. Measured from south
lot line. lot line.
All other Dimensional Per R -15 Zone District, as Per R -15 Zone District, as
Allowances/Limitations may be amended from time to may be amended from time to
time. time.
Notes:
• Staff recommended - The development of Lots 1 and 2 shall be allowed and limited by
the above dimensions as calculated and measured pursuant to the Land Use Code in
effect upon submission of a building permit and as may change from time to time.
• Applicant requested — The development of Lots 1 and 2 shall be allowed and limited by
the above dimensions as calculated and measured pursuant to the Land Use Code in
effect upon submission of a building permit and as may change from time to time. The
allowable deck area for improvements to Lots 1 and 2 shall be that which is permitted in
the Land Use Code, plus an additional 390 square feet of deck space per lot.
• Allowances and limitations for improvements within setback areas shall be pursuant to
the Land Use Code, as may change from time to time.
• Allowances and limitations for permitted uses, conditional uses, accessory uses, and
accessory structures shall be pursuant to the Land Use Code and the R -15 Zone District,
as may change from time to time.
Section 2: Existing Duplex Building
The existing duplex building ` need not be demolished prior to recordation of the lot split
subdivision plat. The building may continue, subject to the limitations of Section 26.312.030
non - conforming structures. The existing duplex structure shall either be demolished or brought
into conformance with this approval prior to or in conjunction with development of the first lot
of the subdivision to be developed. Upon demolition, all new construction shall be in
conformance with the dimensional requirements of this ordinance and non - conforming structures
may not be extended or continued.
Section 3: Development Agreement
Contemporaneously with the recording of the Lot Split Subdivision Plat, the record owners of
the lands within the Foster Subdivision/PUD shall prepare, execute and record a Development
Agreement meeting the requirements of Section 26.445.070.0 to be reviewed to ensure each item
and condition of approval is documented to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney prior to final signatures by the Mayor and
recordation. The Development Agreement shall set forth a description o f the proposed
improvements and obligations of the parties, including the following:
P &Z Resolution No. _, Series 2012.
Page 4 of 9
P13
a. The development of Lot 1 shall not commence until development of Lot 2 is substantially
complete. Construction staging for Lot 2 shall occur on Lot 1.
b. The residential floor area of the existing duplex structure to be applied as a
reconstruction credit. The credit shall be allocated to each lot in the development
agreement.
c. The installation and/or relocation of all utilities depicted and described in the Utility Plan
of the Final PUD Plans. The utilities shall be installed once, with service lines stubbed to
the new Lots.
d. The installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on the Drainage Plan of
the Final PUD Plans.
e. A sidewalk improvement agreement for the South 3 Street frontage.
f. The installation of a protective bollard (as approved by the engineering dept) adjacent to
the southwest comer of the historic structure currently located in the alleyway north of
Lot 1. The bollard shall be installed prior to development of either Lot.
Section 4: Rezoning
Contemporaneously with and effective upon the recording of the Lot Split Subdivision Plat and
Development Agreement, the Lots within this Subdivision, as described above and reflected in
the Subdivision Plat, shall be zoned as follows:
Lot 1: Moderate - Density Residential, Planned Unit Development (R -15 -PUD)
Lot 2: Moderate - Density Residential, Planned Unit Development (R -15 -PUD)
Lot 3: Park (P)
Section 5: Lot 3 Open Space Transfer — Staff Recommendation
Contemporaneously with and effective upon the recording of the Subdivision Plat and
Development Agreement, Lot 3 shall be transferred to the City of Aspen for open space and
recreational trail purposes. The applicant shall provide the City with an unconditional quit claim
deed or other transfer document acceptable to the City Attorney which does not limit the City's
ability to use and maintain the property for open space and recreational trail purposes.
Section 5: Lot 3 Open Space Transfer — Applicant Requested
Contemporaneously with and effective upon the recording of the Subdivision Plat and
Development Agreement, Lot 3 shall be transferred to the City of Aspen for open space and
recreational trail purposes. The applicant shall provide the City with a quit claim deed or other
transfer document acceptable to the City Attorney which reserves the right of the applicant, and
assigns, to install and maintain the landscape north of the pedestrian trail surface.
Section 6: Residential Design Standards
Lot 1 shall be subject to the City's Residential Design Standards in effect upon development.
The "secondary mass" standard shall not apply to Lot 1. The 3 Street frontage shall be
considered the front for design standards purposes. 'Vehicular access shall be from the alleyway
and the carport or garage shall be subject to the provisions for parcels accessed from an
alleyway. Additional exceptions from the design standards may be approved pursuant to Chapter
26.410, as may be amended from time to time.
P &Z Resolution No. , Series 2012.
Page 5 of 9
y I
P14
Lot 2 shall be subject to the City's Residential Design Standards in effect upon development.
The "secondary mass" standard shall not apply to Lot 2. The alleyway frontage shall be
considered the front for design standards purposes. Vehicular access shall be from the alleyway
and the carport or garage shall be subject to the provisions for parcels accessed from an
alleyway. Additional exceptions from the design standards may be approved pursuant to Chapter
26.410, as may be amended from time to time.
Section 7: Affordable Housing — Staff Recommended
Lots 1 and 2 of.the Foster Subdivision shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation
according to the Land Use Code in effect upon submission of a building permit for each Lot.
Credits towards the housing mitigation requirement, as may be permitted according to the code
in effect upon development of each Lot, shall be as defined and assigned to each Lot in the
Development Agreement.
Section 7: Affordable Housing — Applicant Requested
Lots 1 and 2 of the Foster Subdivision shall not be required to provide affordable housing
mitigation in recognition of the Lot 3 open space dedication.
Section 8: Construction Management Plan
The building permit application shall include a construction management plan meeting the City's
requirements in effect upon submission of a building permit. The Plan shall require Lot 2 be
• developed first with Lot 1 serving as a staging area. The plan must include designated
construction staging area(s) that minimize construction impacts to the public. Neither Lot will be
permitted to use the alley for staging, except for short duration deliveries. Limited use of the
South 3rd Street right -of -way for staging which does not affect traffic patterns may be allowed
by the City Engineer. The plan shall describe mitigation for parking, staging/encroachments,
truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution.
Section 9: Building Permit Submission Requirements
In addition to the standard submission requirements for a building permit, the Applicant shall
submit the following:
a. A signed copy of the final Development Order, City Council Ordinance, and the
Development Agreement.
b. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the final Development Order, City Council
Ordinance, and the Development Agreement have been read and understood.
c. A demolition permit application for the existing duplex structure shall be submitted prior
to or concurrent with the building permit application for the first Lot in the subdivision to
be developed.
d. A Construction Mitigation Plan according to the requirements in effect at the time of
building permit submission and Section 8.
e. An Excavation and Stabilization plan.
f. A Soils Report (testing for toxicity). Certain disposal and/or on -site coverage methods
consistent with EPA regulations may be required.
g. A tree removal plan and a tree protection plan. An approved tree permit will be required
before any tree is removed or impacted, under the drip line of the tree. Mitigation for
removals must be on -site or paid via cash -in -lieu or per City Code 13.20. Parks will
P &Z Resolution No. , Series 2012.
Page 6 of 9
P15
approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the
landscape estimates.
h. Detail civil plans for the installation and/or relocation of all utilities depicted and
described in the Utility Plan of the Final PUD Plans.
i. Detail civil plans for the installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on
the Drainage Plan of the Final PUD Plans;
Section 10: Building Permit Issuance Requirements
In addition to the standard requirements for issuance of a building permit, the following
conditions must be met prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Prior to issuance of a Demolition permit for the existing structure, the applicant shall obtain
approval of the construction mitigation plan and shall file an "Agreement to Terminate
Sewer Service Line" with the Sanitation District. The CMP shall be renewed prior to
issuance of an Access/Infrastructure permit for either Lot.
b. Prior to issuance of an Access/Infrastructure permit, the applicant shall obtain a tree
removal permit and shall install any required tree protection fencing.
c. Prior to issuance of an Access/Infrastructure permit, the applicant shall Sanitation District
fees. ACSD can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made
available to the district.
d. Prior to issuance of an Excavation/Foundation permit on either Lot, the applicant shall
install a protective bollard (as approved by the City Engineer) adjacent to the southwest
corner of the historic structure currently located in the alleyway north of Lot 1.
e. Prior to issuance of an Excavation/Foundation permit on Lot 1, the development of Lot 2
shall be substantially complete.
f. The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and school lands dedication fees applicable and per
the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submission, payable upon issuance
of the full building permit for the respective Lot.
g. The new structures shall comply with applicable adopted fire codes including policies
regarding fire suppression systems (sprinklers).
h. Payment of ACSD connection fees.
Section 12: Sanitation District Requirements
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. Below grade development may require
installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building.
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.
Any glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit a discharge of glycol to
any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have
approved containment facilities.
P &Z Resolution No. , Series 2012.
Page 7 of 9
P16
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet
vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
Section 13: Landscape in Right - of - Way
All landscaping and plantings within the City ROW must be approved by the City Parks
Department and the Engineering Department, pursuant to Chapter 21.20 of the Municipal Code.
Section 14: Representations Preserved
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by
other specific conditions.
Section 15:
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 16:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 17:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this
Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 18:
A public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 10 day of January, 2012, at 4:30 in the Sister
Cities Room, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2012.
Attest:
Jackie Lothian, City Clerk L.J. Erspamer, Chairman
Approved as to form:
Jim True, Special Counsel to the City of Aspen ,
Exhibit A — Proposed Subdivision Map
P &Z Resolution No. , Series 2012.
Page 8 of 9
P17
Exhibit A
Proposed Lot Split Subdivision Map
-o
a
w~ Q
O
EP" O
0
N
D 0
m
a
. `
r \`
a
ow
. ;
g MI Tux r"
•
. I A
31 95•09 . 1PW 60.00'
9
. 09 . WY 00.00' ----....5474.04------- .
r te " `,
c ? i 0 I Q I _ \_ j
o , ; �
Y IYE( ^� ki. L ' l
-g [Nil
........7./.1,. — -`
{'OL -11 I 4ig.I^ iSg Y$ 1 4 111 I '; I! [Nil
i ; laa• s ¢' bi I a " ° ,� 8 Y o I a
FI g s ".; o I 9,' j li ; R 23 i a r °- I � 3 Ira
? Iry.._ I
I MOWED i ? I ' g
IMLOM'CIMIL0i[
I , _ I z morosED6w5DweemELOrt j I V
L
E -
4 — ' i I
-
L- - - - - — 1— - - - - 1 ° -- ---- — 1
6 75'09'Irw —1 66.611'E9 - 613i• - .VO4 ..7.z ..7_,..... EI
PI )S•ow Il•w 1S0.00
ALLEY 8LOCK 39 I0070VE01
•
1
I
I
•
)
I
2
1 • I
I
y
P &Z Resolution No. , Series 2012.
Page 9 of 9
P18
EXHIBIT A
219 SOUTH 3RD STREET
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS
REVIEW CRITERIA
PUD pg. 2
Amendment to the Zone District Map (Rezoning) pg. 13
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 1/14
•
P19
STAFF FINDINGS: PUD
A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and
requirements (staff findings follow each requirement):
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff Finding
Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Outlined
below is the project's consistency with applicable individual policies and goals listed in
the 2000 AACP.
Managing Growth
The community goals listed in the AACP include:
• "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary..." The proposed development is within the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary. Staff finds the project meets this goal of the AACP.
Transportation
The community goals listed in the AACP include:
• "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking... by adding sidewalk
connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development
approvals, where appropriate..." The Midland Trail bisects the upper parcel.
Preservation of this trail connection is important as it is a heavily used recreation
amenity. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
• "Reduce the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area." The proposal
included dedication of the upper parcel as open space. This allows maintenance of
the trail and the potential that some may use this connection for commuting. Staff
finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
• "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by
transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and
bicycling." The proposed development is served by existing transit (one half -block
away) and is composed of compact mixed -uses conducive to walking and bicycling.
The site is ideal for utilizing existing transit and encouraging walking/bicycling.
Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
Housing
The community goals listed in the AACP include:
• "Encourage development to occur within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary
and emphasize 'good city form'. " The project is within the Aspen Growth Boundary
and within the Aspen infill area. The development also promotes "good city form"
by focusing development within areas already served with infrastructure. Staff finds
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 2/14
P20
the proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
Parks, Open Space, & the Environment
• "Buildings should be clustered and the property should be planned to allow for the
preservation of the most important open space and natural features." The proposal
preserves an important open space and trail connection — the Midland Trail — by
clustering development on the lower parcel. Staff finds the proposal meets this
policy of the AACP.
• "Look for opportunities to ensure the some portion of land on large development
projects is designed to retain significant areas of open space and trail connections."
The proposal is designed to retain an important trail connection and the upper parcel
as open space. Staff finds the proposal meets this policy of the AACP.
• "... housing should be clustered to and the property should be planned to allow the
preservation of the most important open space features." Staff believes the
application is clustering the development and preserving an important open space
feature. Staff finds the proposal meets this policy of the AACP.
• "Improve public access to parks and recreation facilities." Preservation of the
upper parcel as open space and securing public access to the Midland Trail achieves
this goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of single - family, multi - family,
lodging, commercial, full -time free - market housing, full -time affordable housing, part-
time free - market housing, and recreational facilities. The lots sizes and structures vary
from simple one story historic residential structures, to large modern new homes, to
multi -story apartment and lodging structures. Structures and lot sizes in the immediate
vicinity are both smaller and larger than proposed in the application for this property.
Most of the R -15 zones parcels in this neighborhood are less than 15,000 square feet in
size. The proposal for two moderately sized homes on parcels slightly less than 5,000
square feet provides a similar mix of uses, lot sizes, and home sizes consistent and
compatible with the existing uses and development in the neighborhood. The proposed
development allowance enable new development to be a size and character similar to
other new development in the neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed uses and
character of proposed development are consistent and compatible with the character of
existing land uses and development in the surrounding area.
•
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 3/14
P21
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the ability for surrounding
properties to develop in the future. In fact, the project will upgrade wet and dry utilities
for the development. The Project is will be required to improve the storm water
mediation that presently is unchecked. The proposed improvements to this property will
not hamper or adversely affect future development possibilities of surrounding
properties. Staff believes this proposal meets this criterion.
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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The property currently contains two residences and is proposed to contain two
residences. The lot split of a property allows the newly created parcels a development
right, subject to the standard mitigation requirements of the Land Use Code. Assuming
the new development provides this mitigation, staff finds this criterion met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD. 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 sues 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.
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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Generally, Staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards are appropriate for the
site for the above characteristics, as follows:
a.) See discussion from 1.A. above.
b.) The project's proposes to avoid development on the upper lot. The upper lot
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 4/14
P22
contains steep slopes and vehicular access would require significant grading. The lower
lot is flat, accessible, and appropriate for development.
c.) The proposed building site has already been impacted by existing or prior
development.
d.) My development on this property would likely increase the above impacts; however,
Staff believes these impacts would be slightly less than if the property, including the
upper lot, were developed to the maximum potential.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The scale and massing of the proposed development is compatible with that of the
neighborhood. The two new homes will be similarly -sized or smaller than recently
developed homes in the neighborhood. The lots sizes, amount of open space, and
character of the development will be similar to recent development that has occurred in
the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The development will be required to provide parking according to the standards of the
Land Use Code and no waiver or reduction has been requested. Staff finds the proposal
meets this review criterion.
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.
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 5/14
P23
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and
road maintenance to the proposed development.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole
expense. The City Engineer is requiring a 16 -foot clear path for the alleyway and staff
has included this as a condition of the final plat. Staff believes that no density
reductions are necessary.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
Staff believes the site is suitable for development. The upper lot is not appropriate for
development and the application intends to preserve this area as open space. The
intended density is the same as exists today — two units. Staff believes that the proposal
satisfies this criterion.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists
a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns
and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
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.
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 6/14
P24
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The proposal is for two houses where two unit currently exists. No increase in the
amount of density is proposed. Staff finds this criterion met.
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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The site is located near the base of Shadow Mountain, but is not proposing to impact the
mountainside in any way. The permanent preservation of the upper lot will enhance the
open space and trail infrastructure of the city. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The structures on the site have been clustered on the lower lot and the upper lot is
planned to be preserved. Staff finds this criterion met.
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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The residential design standards will require structures be oriented to public streets and
the application is not seeking a waiver of this requirement. Staff finds this criterion met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has requested a 16 -foot clear path for the
alleyway. Considering the shed /cabin located partially in the alleyway, this clear -path
requirement will likely require an easement on Lot 1. Staff has included this as a
condition of approval. With the condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met.
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 7/14
P25
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The Building Department will require the new improvements to comply with applicable
building codes. Staff finds this criterion 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The City Engineer will require the new improvements to comply with the City's Urban
Runoff management Plan. Staff finds this criterion met.
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The plan is for two single - family homes with setbacks between the structures. No
special programmatic functions are proposed and staff does not believe any special
provisions are necessary. Staff finds this criterion met.
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.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The landscape improvements to the properties will be required to comply with city
standards. These include tree removal permits and limitations on landscape within the
right -of -way. Staff finds this criterion met.
E. Architectural Character.
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character,
and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting
efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 8/14
P26
building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed
massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of
materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the
proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan
an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed
development. The proposed architecture of the development shall:
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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The new improvements will be required to comply with the City's residential design
standards, just like any other property in this neighborhood. Staff is recommending the
"secondary mass" standard not apply given the lots sizes and the character of the
neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion met.
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this standard is 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 be 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The project will be required to meet the City's outdoor lighting standards and the
application is not seeking a waiver. Staff finds this criterion met.
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:
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 9/14
P27
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH A CONDITION
The development is proposing dedication of the upper lot as open space. Staff is
recommending this be deeded to the City with an easement to a reputable land trust.
With a condition of approval, staff believes this criterion is 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.
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.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
Public infrastructure exists in the area. With a condition, staff finds this criterion met.
I. Access and Circulation.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does
not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed
access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way,
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY ? YES.
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 10/14
P28
All proposed lots and uses have access from public rights -of -way. Staff finds this
criterion 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The development of two home will replace the two residences currently on the property.
Adequate road facilities exist to accommodate this change and staff finds this criterion
met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
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.
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.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
There is an historic trail through the subject property — the Midland Trail bisects the
upper lot. The proposal is for this upper lot to be dedicated as open space and for the
trail to continue. This is consistent with this criterion and with the AACP. The proposal
does not include any special entry features or gates. Staff finds these criterion met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria 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.
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
•
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 11/14
P29
affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior
to the respective impacts associated with the phase.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The project is not proposed in phases. The City Engineer has highlighted the
construction staging issues that could occur and is recommending Lot 2 be developed
first with Lot 1 serving as its staging area. Staff has included this as a condition of
approval. With as a proposed condition, staff believe this criterion is met.
•
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 12/14
P30
STAFF FINDINGS: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING)
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone
district map, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
(26.310.040):
Note: The rezoning is to acknowledge a PUD overlay on the property. This is a function
of any PUD application.
a) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The rezoning is to acknowledge a PUD overlay on the property in compliance with PUD
standards of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion met.
b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard Al. Staff finds this criterion is met.
c) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering the existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The surrounding area provides a mix of uses and sizes of structures. The PUD overlay
will allow development similar in use and intensity as the surrounding development.
Staff considers the proposed zoning compatible with the surrounding zone districts and
existing land uses. Also see PUD review standard A.2. Staff finds this criterion met.
d) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
This rezoning standard is also covered under PUD review standards. The proposal is for
two houses to replace the two units currently on the property. Staff does not consider
this a change to have any substantive effect on traffic generation or road safety. Staff
finds this criterion met.
e) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? � YES.
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 13/14
P31
The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services
will be upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public
service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met.
1) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
No adverse effects on the natural environment as a result of this PUD Overlay have been
identified by staff or referral agencies. The improvements will be required to meet all
building codes, including drainage requirements. Staff finds this criterion met.
g). Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The PUD overlay will enable the project to be developed compatible with the
neighborhood's character. The proposed lot sizes, floor area, and setbacks are very
similar to those of surrounding properties. Staff believes this criterion is met.
h) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
This criterion does not require a change of condition for a rezoning to be approved; it
requires that changes •in condition be acknowledged. The potential that the upper lot
could be developed represents a change that supports the PUD Overlay. The overlay
will allow for preservation of the upper lot as open space and preservation of the trail
alignment through the property. Staff finds this criterion 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff does not foresee any conflict with the public interest and believes the requested
PUD overlay is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Staff
finds this criterion met.
Exhibit C — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Page 14/14
P32
EXHIBIT e l
219 So. 3 RD ST.
DRC SUMMARY
The following comments are not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive, but an initial
response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the Development Review
Committee meeting.
PARKS DEPARTMENT:
Landscaping and Sidewalk Landscaped area:
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are
not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department.
Tree Permit:
Per City Code 13.20 an approved tree permit will be required before any tree is removed
or impacted under the drip line of the tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be
approved prior to approval of building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City
Forester at 920 -5120. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site per City
Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree
removal permit based on the landscape estimates.
Upper Lot:
The City of Aspen Open Space Board supports the sterilization of the upper lot and the
transfer of ownership, via deed, from the Applicant to the City of Aspen. Open Space
Staff will work with the Planning Office and the Applicant to work out the details on the
conservation easement. Limiting development should be further defined so that it
prevents building development but doesn't prevent safety and educational improvements
to the Midland Trail.
Other Elements of PUD:
The City of Aspen cannot support the Applicant's request on page 5, section 6. B —
Covenant, which states "The owners of the lower lots shall be responsible for maintaining
appropriate landscaping north of the existing Shadow Mountain Trail " (also on Page
4, #2).
Currently, north of the existing trail (the Midland Trail) is the actual Midland Rail Road
Right -of -Way. The old right -of -way is a historically important part of the town's heritage
and should be maintained in its current state. Staff feels strongly that the current grade
changes between the trail and the proposed lots provide a necessary buffer. The trail
tread is several feet lower than the top of the historical rail road bed providing an earthen
barrier and buffer. In addition the existence of native landscaping located on the rail road
right -of -way and the distance of 45 feet from the edge of trail and property line supports
219 So. 3rd St. Page 1/4
Exhibit 17 — DRC Summary
P33
Staff's opinion that an appropriate buffer exists in its current state. Existing landscape
easements can remain in place providing a buffer between the trail and existing structure.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
Drainage:
General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
(URMP) Requirements. 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.
A 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.
Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter:
The property is located within the Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter Zone. Because the
abutting property to the north does not currently have sidewalk, the dept. will not require
the construction of a sidewalk at this time, however a sidewalk improvement agreement
will be required prior to building permit.
Curb and Gutter is also not installed on the abutting property however, the applicant will
be required to install the appropriate drainage improvements to handle the drainage from
the site and along 3` street. These improvements will be identified as part of the drainage
plan that will be prepared prior to the final plat.
Mudflow:
The site is located in the blue mudflow zone. As a result a mudflow analysis as required
by the URMP will be required prior to final plat.
Construction Management:
The constructability of Lot 2 will be challenging due to the limited staging area. Lot 2
must be developed first with Lot I serving as a staging area. In the alternative, the
applicant could submit a construction management plan prior to City Council review
demonstrating the constructability of these lots without this sequencing limitation.
219 So. 3rd St. Page 2/4
Exhibit t — DRC Summary
P34
The building permit application shall include a construction management plan meeting
the City's requirements in effect upon submission of a building permit. The plan must
include designated construction staging area(s) that minimize construction impacts to the
public. Neither Lot will be permitted to use the alley for staging, except for short duration
deliveries. Limited use of the 3 Street right -of -way for staging which does not affect
traffic patterns may be allowed by the City Engineer. 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 properties the excavation of the building the
City will require an excavation stabilization plan as part of building permit submittal.
Detention:
This project is considered a Major project and is subject to the Fee in Lieu (of detention)
Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code.
Soils:
The site may contain contaminated soils from mine tailings. As a result there is a concern
of the health and safety and welfare of the residents. Testing and mitigation is
recommended.
Access and Circulation:
The alleyway is currently constrained with encroaching improvements. The final plat
shall demonstrate a minimum 16 -foot width of the alley free a clear of obstruction and
include a 1 -foot buffer on the south side of the existing historic structure which is
partially located in the alleyway north of the subject property (17 feet total from the face
of the historic building). To achieve the minimum width, an alleyway easement on
portions of Lot 1 may be required.
The applicant shall install a protective bollard (as approved by the engineering dept)
adjacent to the southwest corner of the historic structure.
Utilities:
Since the alley will be used for the utility connections for both lots, the City will require
that the utilities are installed at the same time for both lots to minimize the disruption to
the alley.
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY:
The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held January 4,
2012 and recommended that the waiver of the affordable housing fee be denied. The
APCHA Board would prefer the mitigation be satisfied by utilizing the purchase of
housing credit certificates; however, if this is not possible, would recommend the
219 So. 3 St. Page 3/4
Exhibit 6_ — DRC Summary
P35
payment of the cash -in -lieu fee that is in effect at the time of building permit approval as
stated in the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines.
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.
An "Agreement to Terminate Sewer Service Line" will be required.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building.
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 an infrastructure /foundation or
building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed
plans have been made available to the district.
The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of
glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage
areas must have approved containment facilities.
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3
feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
CITY UTILITIES:
Individual service lines will need to be provided for each house. Service will need to be
from the 6" water line on the east side of 3rd Street, not the larger capacity transmission
line. Service routing will need to be decided, but will likely be preferred through the
alleyway. The applicant should be aware of new water service development standards
going into effect in early 2012.
FIRE MARSHAL:
A fire suppression system (sprinklers) will most - likely be required for these houses due to
proximity to each other. A final decision will be made during building permit review
according to the Fire District policies. No hydrant upgrades are necessary.
219 So. ,3r St. Page 4/4
Exhibit — DRC Summary
Page l of 1
P36
Chris Bendon _ 1
From: Steve Goldenberg [steve @goldenberg.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:14 PM
To: Bert Myrin forward; Stan Gibbs forward; LJ Erspamer forward; Jim DeFrancia forward; Jasmine
Tygre forward; PandZ; Cliff Weiss; Chris Bendon; Jackie Lothian
Subject: P &Z Foster application
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
1. This application includes a piece of property whose title is in dispute.
That dispute should be resolved before the application is considered.
2. The two private homes proposed have a combined FAR of 6,680 which
is 150% of what is allowed by right. There is no valid reason to make this exception.
3. There is no valid reason to allow the set back and other variances.
4. A brief site visit shows that the disputed piece of land could never be used for
a residence of any size or type.
5. It is not your job to bail out developers that got caught in the real estate crash.
Steve Goldenberg .... steve @goldenberg.com
430 W. Hopkins Ave..... phone & fax 970 - 925 -1294
Aspen, CO 81611.... cell phone 970- 379 -9778
Radio call .... WOSRG
Email secured by Check Point
•
1/5/2012
.............
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1 Attachment 2 — Land use application
2 Agreement to pay application fees
3 -6 I- Introduction and Proposed PUD
7 -9 II — Property description and summary of proposed development
10 -12 III — Amendment to official zone district
13 -22 IV — Consolidated PUD review
23 -24 V — Subdivision review, lot split
25 VI — Conclusion
26 Exhibit #1 — Proof of ownership
27 Exhibit #2 — Property description
28 Exhibit #3 — Authorization to act
29 -30 Exhibit #4 — Pre - Application summary
31 Exhibit #5 — Uniformity of street scape
32 Exhibit #6 — Reconstructed grade
33 Exhibit #7 — Vicinity map locating subject property
34 Exhibit #8 — Existing conditions
35 Exhibit #9 — Density allowed under existing conditions
36 Exhibit #10 — Proposed density under PUD
37 Exhibit #11 — Proposed site plan
38 Exhibit #12 — Dimensional Requirements
39 -40 Exhibit #13 — Results of Hazards Study
ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: 1 L-P Cde5f 1L-LC-
Location: a l9 5, d S - (e k Block. 31 v e Q j*2 S
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) a 5 _ tat.' -(05 - Od
APPLICANT:
Name: \I L P W e 'sr L L G /�
Address: f S: Ma/v. S ya.d\ey t P4 11O (off
Phone It a I S - t{ q '3 - ( i oG
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: SUzat.ne r
Address: S - mA,n S-1- -r-etk Lj Rcdlecl , f)ci 1 1
Phone #: a l S - 3 5 3- t 161
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
U GMQS Exemption ® Conceptual PUD
❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment ® Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text /Map Amendment
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment
❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
t D upl �x I
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
n ct'(• gin (Z e euu l-e u e.l Lot-
turn sk-i..c.--Lierv% Neu St 0.1 l z �ovr , l y h o m-e 5
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 11 1 10
) 2 Pre - Application Conference Summary
g Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
M Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
❑ 3 -D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model.
1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen ( "City ") and
Property Phone No.: a 15 s 5 3- 1 `t
Owner ("1 "): y Le, Wes nc Email: l`
Address of Billing
Property: a tci s 3ra -s Address: "1 S • 'Ma • gm S+
(subject of (a y4 e „ co . (1. ,
application) (send bills here) y �ad(z P4. 1
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications
and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand
that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these
flat fees are non - refundable.
$ t , 15 flat fee for ?n" - (-e 2
p $ flat fee for
$ flat fee for $ flat fee for
For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I
understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is
impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable
legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not
returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. 1 agree to remit payment within 30
days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non - payment.
I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. 1 understand that payment
of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the
processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated.
$ NO AD deposit for 3 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $315 per hour.
$ "9-.4 5 deposit for 1 hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit
amount will be billed at $265 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
L_ P, West
Chris Bendon
y
Community Development Director Name: S.. . v ne ly
City Use: Title: Vtca ?(-e i t A` e.( *
Fees Due: $ Received: $
Nnvemher, 2(11 I Lill- of Aspen 1 13(I S. Galena SL 1 (970) 920- 5090
a
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an application requesting that the Aspen City Council approve a lot split and land
preservation proposal at 219 South Third Street. 219 South Third Street is located at the
base of Shadow Mountain and its Pitkin County Parcel ID# is 2735- 124 -65 -005. The
property is currently zoned R -15.
219 South Third Street consists of two distinct lots of record separated by the Midland
Railroad ROW, which is owned by the city. The "upper lot" has a lot size of 3,496 sq. ft.
and the "lower lot" has a lot size of 9,942 sq. ft.
The Owner of both properties is YLP, West. LLC. (hereinafter, "the applicant) which
obtained deed to the property in 2009. Proof of the ownership of the property and a legal
description of the property are provided by Exhibits #1 and #2. Suzanne Foster, a
manager of YLP, West LLC is the project representative. A letter from the applicant
authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services and Ed Timmins, attorney, to act on behalf of
the applicant is provided in Exhibit #3
A pre - application meeting was held with representatives of the Community Development
Department prior to the submission of this application (see Exhibit #4, Pre - Application
Conference Summary). Based on this meeting, the applicant is hereby submitting the
following requests:
We propose that the City designate this property as a PUD. The PUD designation will
provide some flexibility to the applicant in terms of lot sizes and setbacks, allowing the
development to be clustered in the most appropriate part of the property. In exchange for
obtaining this flexibility, the applicant will preserve a critical portion of the property as open
space through a conveyance to the City or a covenant with a local land preservation trust.
The resulting density and floor on the property will be less than what is allowed today by
underlying zoning.
Since the property is less than 27,000 sq. ft. in size, Sec. 26.445.020 of the Land Use
Code requires the Community Development Director to find that the PUD application
would further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and serve the best interests of
the community. We have held a preliminary discussion of this proposal with the
Community Development Director and believe that these findings can be made.
Designating this property as a PUD will provide for public ownership of the Shadow
Mountain Trail as it passes through this property. It will also preserve the base of Shadow
Mountain as open space and avoid development in environmentally sensitive areas by
restricting development on the upper portion of the property and only allowing
3
development on the flat lower lot. These actions directly support the goals of the Aspen
Area Community Plan and further the best interests of the community.
The primary elements of the PUD, as shown on the PUD site plan, would be as follows:
1. Lower Lot. The PUD would split the lower lot into two approximately equal size lots,
so each new lot would be approximately 4,971 sq. ft. in size. A single family residence
would be permitted to be built on each of the two lots, replacing the existing duplex. Since
each lot would be smaller in size than is allowed under the R -15 zoning, this would require
a PUD variation of the minimum lot size requirements.
2. Upper Lot. The PUD provides that no development will occur on the upper lot.
Upon approval and recording of the PUD plan, the owner will, through covenant and quit
claim deed to the City, the Aspen Valley Land Trust or another recognized non - profit land
conservation organization, or by conservation easement granted to such an organization,
provide that no development shall occur on the upper lot, and that owners of the lower lots
shall be responsible for maintaining appropriate landscaping north of the existing Shadow
Mountain Trail to provide a landscaped buffer zone between the Trail and the lower lots.
3. Floor Area. After the lot split, the floor area permitted on each of the lower lots would
be the floor area permitted by right for that lot in the R -15 zone. Since each lot would have
an area of 4,971 sq. ft., the allowable floor area for each lot would be 2,951 sq. ft. The
upper lot would have no floor area allowed on it.
The applicant proposes that the two lower lots also have the right to develop an additional
390 SF of floor area per lot, but that this additional floor area be limited solely to above
grade decks and outdoor living space. The rationale for this request is as follows:
Under current R -15 zoning the lower lot has an allowable floor area to reconstruct the
duplex of 4,145 sq. ft. The upper lot has an allowable floor area of 2,538 sq. ft. The total
of these two floor areas is 6,683 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed that the two lower lots
be limited to a floor area of 2,951 sq. ft. each, for a total floor area of 5,902 sq. ft. This is
781 sq. ft. less in free market floor area than what is allowed by underlying zoning on the
entire property. The applicant proposes to "re- capture" this right by allowing an additional
390 sq. ft. of above grade decks and outdoor living space per lot, for a total of 780 sq. ft. of
such space. This allowance would be in addition to the 15% of deck and balcony space
allowed by the Code for all residential properties in the City.
4. Setbacks. The PUD would establish the front, rear, and side setbacks for the two
lower lots at 10'. A 10' setback allows the lot that faces 3rd Street to align with the
existing structures along the street (see Exhibit #6), which is consistent with the intent of
the City's Residential Design Standards (Sec. 26.410.040.A). This setback would also
enable a minimum of 20' separation to be created between the two structures which will
maintain the views from the neighboring property to the north. The setback variation and
the reduction in the minimum lot area for the two lots would be the only dimensional
standard variations that the PUD would grant. The PUD would otherwise be consistent
with the dimensional standards of the R -15 zone district.
5. Consolidated Review Process. Sec. 26.445.030.B.2 of the Land Use Code
authorizes the Community Development Director to consolidate conceptual and final PUD
review for a project when the full four step review process would be redundant or because
the project would serve a community interest. We have held a preliminary discussion of
this proposal with the Community Development Director and he concurs that the full four
step process would be redundant for this small property with its limited development plan.
Therefore we request that this application be processed as a consolidated PUD.
6. Other Elements of PUD. The PUD would also address the following additional
elements:
a. Slopes. We have previously provided survey information and staff has
determined that the slopes on both lots are not natural slopes but instead are the result of
prior human activities on the property (primarily related to the establishment of the rail
line). Since the slopes are manmade, Sec. 26.575.020 C. of the Land Use Code provides
that the slopes do not cause a floor area reduction for this property. We hereby request
that the PUD ratify this determination. Please note that the floor area calculations
provided above already reflect this determination so this would not result in a floor area
"windfall" to the owner. See Exhibit 5, Reconstructed Grade.
b. Covenant. The owners of the lower lots shall be responsible for maintaining
appropriate landscaping north of the existing Shadow Mountain Trail to provide a
landscaped buffer zone between the Trail and the lower lots.
c. Affordable Housing. The applicant proposes that the City accept the
covenant or easement restriction against development of the upper lot as a cash -in -lieu
payment of any affordable housing requirements that the Land Use Code would apply to
the development of the two single family residences on the lower lots. Please note that
the cash in lieu calculation that would have applied to the 3rd Street facing lot would be
reduced by the existing floor area of approximately 2,000 sq. ft.
d. Secondary Mass. The applicant seeks relief from the secondary mass
standard of the residential design standards (Sec. 26.410.040 B.1). This standard
requires at least 10% of the total square footage of each lot to be fully detached from the
principal building or be linked to it by a subordinate element. The applicant feels that by
splitting the mass allowed for a reconstructed duplex into two detached residences, the
intent of this standard has already been met. Given the size of the resulting lots it will be
difficult to achieve a further splitting of the mass. A site specific request for relief from this
5
standard will be presented at the time of building permit review for each lot. The applicant
believes that all other residential design standards can be complied with.
e. Open Space Restriction. The applicant requests that City cooperate with the
owner to accomplish the covenant and quitclaim of the upper lot, or to a conservation
easement grant to a recognized non - profit land conservation program.
II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The subject property is located at the southern end of South Third Street directly abutting
the Aspen Townsite line and Shadow Mountain. See Exhibit # 7 Vicinity Map showing
Site Location.
The property is improved with a duplex that is located on the lower lot. The duplex is
approximately 2,000 sq. ft. in size. However, since the R -15 zone district requires a
minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area for a duplex, the existing structure is considered to be
nonconforming. The upper lot is vacant, although the Shadow Mountain Trail traverses
the property. The Midland Railroad ROW, which is owned by the City, separates the two
lots. See Exhibit #8, Improvement Survey.
It has always been the applicant's intention to break up the mass that is developed on the
lower site into two homes rather than have one large single family home or attached
duplex. The applicant has made several applications to the City seeking to accomplish
this goal.
Prior to purchasing the property, the applicant was made aware that 219 South Third
Street had been identified as a potential historic resource under Ordinance 48. After
acquiring the property in December of 2009, the applicant applied for historic landmark
designation and a lot split. The lot split would have allowed the applicant to achieve the
goal of breaking up the mass into two structures. The historic designation had the support
of staff. However, the designation was denied by the City Council.
Subsequently, the applicant submitted an application proposing that the underlying zoning
of the property be changed from R -15 to R -6. Under the R -15 zoning only a single family
unit or attached duplex can be built. R -6 zoning allows for the construction of two
detached dwelling units on a lot of this size thereby achieving the goal of breaking up the
mass into two structures. This zoning change also had the support of staff. However, it
was not favorably received by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The applicant has withdrawn the rezoning application and replaced it with this PUD
application. In order to understand the benefit our PUD would bring to the neighborhood
and to the City's trail system, it is useful to first explain the manner in which the two
parcels can be developed under the current zoning.
1
Buildable rights under current zoning
Exhibit # 9 shows the mass and scale of what is buildable by right under existing
conditions.
The plan shows a reconstructed duplex, which is allowed by right. Each of the two units
would have a 2 car garage. The project would also include either a two unit affordable
carriage house unit, to mitigate for the project's affordable housing requirements on both
the upper and lower lots and fulfill the 10% detached mass requirement on the lower lot.
These units would have their own outdoor parking along the rear of the lot. The plan also
shows the single family home on the upper lot — also with a two car garage, again allowed
by right.
On the lower lot the underlying zoning would permit the duplex to have an allowable floor
area of 4,145 sq. ft. The carriage house would have a floor area of 1,200 sq. ft., and the
applicant would receive 600 sq. ft. of bonus floor area for building the carriage house and
selling it as affordable housing which would be applied to the lower lot. The single family
home on the upper lot has an allowable floor area of 2,538 sq. ft.
The total above grade heated living space of all of these units would be 8,483 sq. ft.
The total resulting density would be 5 units.
The total number of on -site parking spaces would be approx. 8 to 10.
Buildable rights under proposed PUD
Exhibit # 10* shows the building rights under the PUD proposal.
Exhibit #11 shows the proposed site plan
On the lower lots there will be two single family homes with 2,951 sq. ft. of floor area each.
Each house would be awarded an additional 390 sq. ft. for outdoor above grade decks and
patios, as described above.
On the upper lot there will be Zero sq. ft. of floor area and no structures are allowed to be
built.
The total above grade heated living space of these units would be 5,902 sq. ft.
The total density on -site would be 2 units.
The total number of parking spaces on -site would be approx. 4.
*Please note that the exhibit #10 shows an approximation of mass and scale and in no
way should or can be construed as an actual architectural plan in style, color, layout or
exact mass and scale. The exhibit is intended to show approximate mass and scale only.
Site specific drawings showing the architecture and other features for each lot will be
submitted at the time of building permit and shall comply with all underlying zoning
requirements, except for those requirements that have been varied by this PUD (that is,
setbacks and minimum lot area as specified herein).
Summary
In summary, the PUD proposal would result in a net reduction in density of 1 free market
unit plus two affordable housing units, and 2,581 sq. ft. of above grade heated living space
(8,483 — 5,902 = 2,581) from that which we could attain by separately developing the
upper and lower lots pursuant to the currently allowed provisions of the Land Use Code.
The PUD would also result in the preservation of the upper lot as undeveloped land,
preserving the current trail alignment and avoiding development along the hillside. These
are significant community benefits that justify and support the proposed PUD designation.
In return the applicant would be permitted to develop two detached single family
residences on the lower lot, using no more than the floor area that would be permitted on
those lots by the Land Use Code plus 390 sq. ft. each of additional outdoor above grade
decks. Developing the lower lot as two single family residences is the appropriate land
use solution that is most consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and adjacent
development. It has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and is of benefit to
the overall community.
9
III. AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
The applicant proposes an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, to impose a PUD
designation on the property so it is zoned R -15 /PUD.
The standards to evaluate an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are found in
Section 26.92.020 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The applicant has the following
responses to these standards.
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions
of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with any applicable portion
of the Aspen Land Use Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: Designation of the site as a PUD would be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The PUD designation will allow the upper and lower lots to be evaluated
as an entire development parcel. It will enable the applicant to cluster development on the
site on the lower lots and to preserve the upper lot as open space, thereby avoiding
development that would require the Shadow Mountain Trail to be relocated. It will also
preserve valued public views by eliminating the potential for development of the upper lot.
All of these purposes are consistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Response: Splitting the lower lot into two smaller lots results in a development pattern
that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than the development of the
lower lot in its current configuration. Currently, the 9,942 sq. ft. lower lot in the R -15 district
permits one large single family home or one large attached duplex to be built. The mass
and scale of either of these two existing choices is inconsistent with the mass and scale of
the surrounding neighborhood which consists of modest to medium sized single family
homes. Currently, there are no adjacent homes of overly large size and no adjacent
attached duplexes at all. All the adjacent lots are either non - conforming R -15 properties,
or are smaller conforming R -6 lots. Typical lot sizes range from 7,500 to as little as 3,000
sq. ft. Two new smaller R -15 lots of approx. 4,900 sq. ft. each will result in two smaller
homes, splitting up the total building mass and better fitting with the neighborhood context.
The restriction against development on the upper lot will preserve the public trail and
neighborhood views of Shadow Mountain. In addition, the 10' front yard setbacks will
is
align the 3rd Street facing building with the other structures along Third Street, thereby
maintaining the existing development pattern in the neighborhood.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Response: We feel that the traffic and safely will be greatly improved by the proposed
PUD. By right under current conditions, a two family attached duplex with 2 two car
garages and an affordable housing carriage house with two units can be built on the lower
lot and a single family home with a two car garage can be built on the upper lot. This would
generate approx. 8 to 10 cars with the carriage house cars parked outdoors along the alley
way or outside the building envelope along the rear of the property. With the proposed
PUD there would be no authority to build a carriage house. This would result in two single
family homes in the PUD, each with a two car garage. The upper lot would have zero
development, so the entire project would generate approx. 4 cars instead.of 8 to 10. In
addition, having two single family homes rather than the attached duplex and carriage
house will create more open space on the lower lot vastly improving snow removal and
storage options.
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.
Response: The proposed PUD will decrease demands on public facilities. The PUD
decreases the allowed density from 5 units to just 2 units and will therefore decrease
demands on these public facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed PUD will dramatically reduce adverse impacts on the natural
environment. The PUD allows for the preservation of the upper lot where no development
will ever be allowed. This preserves open space, the public trail and unobstructed views of
Shadow Mountain for pedestrians and neighbors forever and avoids the need for further
disturbance of the hillside on the upper lot.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The proposed amendment will be consistent and compatible with the
character of Aspen. In addition, we believe the community of Aspen's residential districts
always benefit from building masses that can be broken down into smaller units.
Designating the site as a PUD will allow us to achieve this goal.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or
the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Response: In recent months a dispute has arisen between the City and the applicant as
to the ownership of lands within the upper parcel. As a result of this dispute discussions
have occurred between the City and the applicant, leading the applicant to reconsider its
approach to this property. The two prior applications submitted for this property involved
solely the lower parcel. This application instead addresses the entire property ownership,
allowing the applicant to appropriately plan for both the upper and lower parcels thus
ensuring that development occurs where it is suitable so sensitive lands can be protected
for the public benefit. This is a significant change in conditions that affects the subject
parcel.
A second change in conditions is the result of the recent development of the mountainside
portion of the Boomerang project along W. Hopkins Street, which included a zoning
change from R -15 to R -6. Prior to this zoning change a massive single family home or
attached duplex could have been built on that lot. It now contains two modest sized single
family homes and an affordable two unit carriage house, as well as a modest sized single
family home building lot. This type of change reflects what is most appropriate for our
neighborhood. Our PUD proposes to continue the support of modest sized structures in
the neighborhood.
1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter.
Response: As demonstrated herein, the proposed amendment would further the public
interest by providing a restriction against development on the upper lot, thus eliminating
the possible disturbance of the public trail. Benefits to the public in general include the
preservation of open space, maintaining the alignment of the public trail, and unimpeded
views of Shadow Mountain, and for the neighbors specifically - consistency of scale within
a mostly modestly built community.
Designation of this site as a PUD will help achieve significant improvements for our
neighborhood over what is currently allowed, and will help maintain its existing charm and
scale.
I—
IV. CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW
Section 26.445.010 of the Land Use Code identifies the purposes of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) overlay zone district in the City of Aspen. This designation is
intended to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land so as to: (a)
promote the goals, and objectives of the AACP; (b) achieve a better quality of design and
a greater compatibility with surrounding land uses; (c) preserve valuable site features; (d)
promote the efficient use of land; and (e) incorporate public input into the planning process
and ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals.
The Community Development Department determined during the pre - application review
that the project could proceed as a consolidated review of conceptual and final PUD, as
authorized by Section 26.445.030 of the Land Use Code. The applicant proposes to
achieve the above - listed purposes in this consolidated PUD application.
The standards for PUD review are found in Section 26.445.040 of the Code. The
applicant's response to each of these standards follows below.
A. General Requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Response: The proposed development will be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP). As explained above, the PUD allows the upper and lower lots to
be evaluated as an entire development parcel. The PUD clusters development on the site
on the lower lot and preserves the upper lot as open space, thereby avoiding a currently
allowed development that would require the Shadow Mountain Trail to be relocated. It will
also preserve valued public views by eliminating the potential for development of the upper
lot. All of these purposes are consistent with the AACP.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
Response: Splitting the lower lot into two smaller lots results in a development pattern
that is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than the development of the
lower lot in its current configuration. Currently, the 9,942 sq. ft. lower lot in the R -15 district
permits one large single family home or one large attached duplex to be built. The mass
and scale of either of these two existing choices is inconsistent with the mass and scale of
the surrounding neighborhood which consists of modest to medium sized single family
homes. Currently, there are no adjacent homes of overly large size and no adjacent
attached duplexes at all. All the adjacent lots are either non - conforming R -15 properties,
or are smaller conforming R -6 lots. Typical lot sizes range from 7,500 to as little as 3,000
sq. ft. Two new smaller R -15 lots of approx. 4,900 sq. ft. each will result in two smaller
homes, splitting up the total building mass and better fitting with the neighborhood context.
The restriction against development on the upper lot will preserve the public trail and
neighborhood views of Shadow Mountain. In addition, the 10' front yard setbacks will
align the 3rd Street facing building with the other structures along 3rd Street, thereby
maintaining the existing development pattern in the neighborhood.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Response: The applicant has taken care to design this project such that it is consistent
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not have an adverse effect on
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
development plan review.
Response: The proposed development is exempt from GMQS. Section V. of this
application responds to the criteria for a lot split subdivision exemption, which authorizes
the City to grant an allotment to the newly created parcel, with the fathering parcel
retaining its allotment as a pre -1977 parcel
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plan
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 the review of the proposed dimensional
requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns
shall be emphasized. The proposed development 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.
Ll
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding
area, such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation
and landforms.
d. Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the
property and the surrounding area, such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Response: The project's existing, allowable and proposed dimensional requirements are
shown in Exhibit #12. The only deviations from the allowable dimensions are the
proposed 10' front yard setback (which is the current condition for the existing duplex) and
the reduced lot size for the two lots created out of the lower parcel. The duplex has a non-
conforming 10' front yard setback that aligns with all the other buildings in block 39 that
face Third Street. These buildings include the landmarked log cabin and its outbuilding
that sits next to the alleyway. The City's residential design standards advocate a unified
streetscape whenever possible.
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 areas.
Response: As noted above, splitting the lower lot into two smaller parcels results in a
scale and massing that is appropriate to the character of the PUD and surrounding areas.
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, when 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.
Response: Each single family home will have a two car garage. The resulting 4 on -site
parking spaces will be adequate for the proposed development.
15
4. The maximum 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.
Response: There is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development
since the site is already developed with a duplex, which would be replaced with only two
new units.
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
may be reduced if
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development
because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, and
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 disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Response: The land on which the development is proposed - the flat lower lot - is not
affected by any of the above - listed hazards. And while the applicant has agreed to
permanently restrict development on the upper lot thereby avoiding such hazards, they
have a study conducted by Yeh and Associates, Inc. from May of 2009 that indicate no
such hazards exist for the upper lot as well. See Exhibit # 13
6. The maximum 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 surrounding development patterns and with
the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be
increased if:
\ U
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.
Response: The applicant does not propose to increase the project's density through the
PUD. In fact, the applicant is voluntarily agreeing to reduce the allowable free market
density from 3 units to 2 units.
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.
Response: The applicant proposes to eliminate the development potential of the upper
lot. The Shadow Mountain Trail traverses this lot. Preserving that parcel as open space
avoids the necessity of relocating the trail when the currently allowed single family home is
built. It also avoids a significant cut that would occur to the toe of Shadow Mountain.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Response: The houses will be clustered on the flat lower lot. Significant open spaces and
vistas will be preserved by the restriction against development on the upper lot, the
separation of the planned mass on the lower lot (two smaller structures versus one larger
duplex) and by the agreement not to build a carriage house on the lower lot.
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.
Response: The eastern house on the lower lot will be oriented toward Third Street.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Response: Emergency and service vehicles will be able to access the site via the alley
and Third Street.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Response: An initial evaluation of site drainage needs for the buildings will be performed
by a civil engineer. Soils in this area have not typically been a problem as they are
absorbent and should drain naturally. If applicable, a detailed drainage study will be
submitted at the time of building permit review.
7 For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Response: This standard does not apply to this proposed development.
D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the 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 development plan shall
comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed 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.
Response: A landscape plan will be submitted for each lot at the time of building permit
review.
E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage
architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development
and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is
based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the
building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other
buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the
character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural character plan which adequately depicts the character
of the proposed development The proposed architecture of the development shall:
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.
Response: A detailed architectural plan will be submitted for each lot at the time of
building permit review. The applicant has agreed to comply with the residential design
standards applicable to each lot, except for the secondary mass standard, which the
applicant requests be waived.
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.
Response: Given the site's location at the base of Shadow Mountain, solar access is not
ideal for this property. A complete heating and cooling plan will be submitted at the time of
building permit review.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe
and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Response: The elimination of the carriage house and the minimum of 20' between the
two units on the lower lot will provide an adequate storage area for snow between the
buildings. The 10' front yard setback requested for the rear lot provides adequate snow
storage at the rear of the property as well.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is 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:
1C\
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 be 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.
Response: All proposed lighting will comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development
includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all
development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open
space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the
property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the
mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas
is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
Response: The owner will cooperate with the City to accomplish the covenant and
quitclaim of the upper lot, or a conservation easement grant to a recognized non - profit land
conservation program.
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 where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional
improvement.
Response: As noted above, adequate facilities are present in the area to accommodate
the proposed development (which has the same density as the existing duplex). The PUD
will actually decrease potential demand for utilities and public facilities by lowering the
allowable density of the property.
1. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the
development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network,
provides adequate pedestrian and 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.
Response: Access to the property is provided from Third Street, which is a public road,
and via the connecting public alleyway.
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.
Response: The development is not expected to generate any new traffic in the area since
the number of units on the property is not being increased. As a result, no road
improvements are proposed as part of this 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.
Response: The restriction of development on the upper lot and the covenant ensure
preservation of the trail and maintenance of the open space.
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.
Response: No additional trail recommendations from the AACP affect this property.
a �
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.
Response: There are no streets planned within the project.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or
for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Response: No such gates or other entryway expressions are planned as part of this
project.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially
completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding
property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing
of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final
PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
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.
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.
Response: While a phased development is not proposed for this project, it is probable
that development on each lot will take place in its own time frame.
V. SUBDIVISION REVIEW, LOT SPLIT
The applicant proposes to split the lower lot into two smaller residential lots. Therefore,
staff has advised that this application is subject to subdivision review as a lot split.
Section 26.480.030.A.2 of the Land Use Code provides the review standards for a lot split
for the purpose of the development of one detached single - family dwelling on a lot formed
through such a split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977. It states that the City may
approve a lot split if the following standards are met:
a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County
Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a
metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of
subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction
shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures.
Response: The land is comprised of Townsite lots that are not located in a City or County
approved subdivision.
b. No more than two lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070 (B).
Response: Two lots are proposed to be created by this lot split. The lots conform to the
requirements established by the PUD zoning that is being applied to the property.
Affordable housing mitigation is provided for, as described above.
c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the
subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a 'lot
split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (C) (1) (a).
Response: The lot has not previously received any of the above - listed approvals.
d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter, and conforms to
the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocations
pursuant to Chapter26.470.
Response: The required plat will be submitted following approval of this application.
e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the
office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant
2, 3
to record the plat within 180 days following approval by the City Council shall
render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be
required for a showing of good cause.
Response: The applicant agrees to record the plat and agreement within the specified
180 day time frame.
e. In the case where an existing single- family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Response: The existing residential structure has not been demolished.
g. Maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single- family
home.
Response: The proposed buildout is two units, each of which will be a single - family
home.
a L�
VI. CONCLUSION
The applicant has submitted all of the materials requested by the staff on the pre -
application conference, has responded to the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use
Code, and has demonstrated the compliance of the proposed PUD with said standards.
The applicant will respond in a timely manner to any requests from reviewing agencies or
City staff for additional information or clarification of any of the statements made herein.
Please feel free to contact the applicant through its representatives as may be necessary.
2 S
E x k } Pro o•- o. CAIJ n.er's
Owner's Policy of Title Insurance — Schedule A
Issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
LandArnerica
Lawyers Title
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation r5 a member of the LandAmeeca family of title Insurance undenvrners
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
5600 Cox Road
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
File No PCT22148L6 Policy No C29- Z102631
Address Reference 219 S 3RD ST , ASPEN, CO 81611
Amount of Insurance 54,050,000 00 Premium $ 6911 00
Date of Policy December 2, 2009 @ 10 11 AM
1 Name of Insured YLP WEST, LLC
2 The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is IN FEE SIMPLE
3 Title is vested in YLP WEST, LLC
4 The Land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and Is described as follows.
LOTS 0, P, 0, R AND S, BLOCK 39, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Excepting therefrom that portion of Lots 0, P and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as
a 17 foot strip of and being 8 5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and
southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at
Page 628
Countersigned
Authorized officer or agent
ALTA Owner's Policy
Schedule A (Rev 6 /06)
Form 1190 -134L
Co'
g )c 1-)•, b , * 2 1_ -e 1140s c r t p f t (n
Proposed Development:
219 S. 3 Street
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Parcel ID# 2735- 124 -65 -005
Legal Description:
Lots O,P,Q,R and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen
Excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O,P and Q that lies south of the northerly
boundary of a right of way described as a 17 fool strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side
of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as
described and shown on deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page
628
E x k , 13:1- 4 3 A �t \n o (, Z0.-- ' c ` h A-0' q c,
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Pitkin County
Aspen, Colorado
The applicant for this project is:
YLP West, LLC
7 S. Main Street
Yardley, PA 19067
215- 493 -6100
215- 493 -6559 Fax
Representatives authorized to act on behalf of the applicant include:
Primary Contact:
Suzanne Foster Alan Richman, Planning Services
7 S. Main Street Box 3613
Yardley, PA 19067 Aspen, CO 81612
215- 353 -1907 Cell
215- 493 -6559 Fax
suzanne@tfosterjewelers.com
Secondary Contact:
Timothy W. Foster Edward P. Timmons, Esq.
7 S. Main Street Timmons LLC
Yardley, PA 19067 450 East 17 Ave.
215- 499 -7071 Cell Suite 210
215- 493 -6559 Fax Denver, CO 80203
tim@tfosterjewelers.com
Suza e Foster
1 I I
\/ 1
Ti oh W.F t r
v
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 429 -2765 DATE: 11.17.11
PROJECT: 219 S. Third St. Lot Split & PUD
APPLICANT: Suzanne Foster
Tel: (215) 493.6100
DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant is pursuing a lot split subdivision to divide the northern portion of the parcel into two lots, each
to contain one single - family residence. Planned Unit Development approval is necessary to acknowledge the
proposed lot sizes which are smaller than required and possibly to accommodate setback variations. The
southern portion of the parcel would not be developed and may be quit claimed to the City for open space and
trail use. The parcel is allowed to apply for a PUD as the potential preservation of the southern portion of the
parcel is a public benefit. A consolidated PUD is recommended. An amendment to the Official Zone District
Map is needed for a PUD overlay to be added. The northern portion of the property is approximately 9,000 sq.
ft., is zoned R -15 zoning, and contains a duplex.
This type of application is a two -step review involving both the P &Z and City Council where both review
boards would determine if the application meets the standards for amending the official zone district map.
Due to the limited nature of this PUD and the creation of only two development parcels, submission
requirements for specific architectural plans, landscape plans, and outdoor lighting plans are waived.
Below is a link to the Land Use Code for your convenience.
http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Depa rtments /Commun ity- Development/Pla n n inq- and- Zoninq /Title -26- Land -Use-
Code/
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map
26.445 Planned Unit Development
26.470 Growth Management
26.480 Subdivision, Lot Split
26.710.050 R -15 Zone District
Review by: - Staff for complete application, DRC for technical considerations
- Planning and Zoning Commission (1s! Step of Review)
- City Council (2nd Step of Review)
Public Hearing: Yes at P &Z and City Council
Copies of Application: 25 Copies
Planning Fees: $10,080 Deposit for 32 hours of planning staff time (additional planning hours over deposit
amount are billed at a rate of $315 /hour)
Referral Fees: $265 Deposit for 1 hour of engineering staff time (additional planning hours over deposit
amount are billed at a rate of $265 /hour). $1,575 flat fee for Parks referral.
Total Due at Submission: $11,920
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Total deposit for review of the application.
2. Proof of ownership.
3. Completed Land Use Application Form.
4. A signed fee agreement.
5. A Pre - Application Conference Summary.
6. A letter signed by the applicant, with the applicant's name, address telephone number in a
letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
7. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in
the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating
the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
8. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
9. Existing and proposed site plan.
10. A written and graphic description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model
form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the
development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide
a written response to all applicable criteria.
Summary of Review Fees
Planning Review - Administrative Flat Fees
Flat Fee Flat fee Note type of review. (e.g. condo
Number Type Amt. plat) total
Flat Fee
O 1 $79 $0
Flat Fee
0 2 $158 $0
Flat Fee
O 3 $315 $0
Flat Fee
O 4 $630 $0
Planning Review - Hourly Deposit
Deposit Note type of review. (e.g. 2 -step,
Hours Rate subdivision) total
32 $315 Lot Split and PUD $10,080
Referral Agency Fees - Housing, Parks, Env. Heal th
PUD /SP
admin. 1 -Step 2 -Step A total
Housing $
Parks 1 $1,575
Env.
Health $0
Referral Agency Fees - City Engineering total
Engineering service billed at $265 /hour, min. 1 hour. $265
Total Fees Due for Submission: $11,920
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or
may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. This pre -app is not determinant
on the ownership of the southern portion of the parcel.
3 0
1)1t s A er tat Viewi . 5Inow 1'n Y
ext4kni Se-4 6c-k 11�r m.en o -C a_0021 of m-en+ on 3rd Si
ooe- 3 a nj Coo ivfmlc.y 1b s 1 beck GL krtiss "A
SkCe�� r R -C z n -eca Li 54'( 1 •
�Fs
219 North Third Street h
q
•
Legend ` N
Subject Parcel /,
Roach
City Boundary
w E
U 20 FO 83 120 150
Feet S
P I -e95. note txr --corm - 1 - 1 G C s' -e-.o- sate -
vr b /ft k s 5 ai 3rd
3i
, •
9\ a Col • 5 -“ u Or er-). G-ra a.e., x(noboi 4 Co
IA w-z-....
8
Ili ....
..,,,..„„ I 836;g3
-
1444 2.3
AR
I I r! I a °
;
1 1
8
-,,
!!,!,,: !!! , 1
1 1 1 1 1 '. • : : : A
.... H
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 ! 1 !
1 1 1 1 1 1
iiiiiiL,.,,,. §w.:•5 ! 1 1
L 111J
15;222x 2 85-7,;g
"1
2 1
Es
rE
t arata E.
' . I tt i llittli li
,•,41,Y•s: . i ----T s i / -_- _
0 ' - it pe - - -.-.. • . .n.;:ts,.7 1 I - - _
crY • .e .-•,,- . : • • 0 444 isp - Nt•'; # - ..._
- -
, : fs c1hi,;,'' s eti,•sli es -,,,..,., . p ! — -_____
:
,
- a- - - ---- - --- -
..--- - - - - .,. i .
-
.
• :
:
illytal3/41111111. .
' l ig i
,...,,
• - - ,
aftimmitistimmitift 11E
i f
AA
: -*
3-2
3 ; r; -: i ; • • ° S. '
VI a NA::: 1 11 i i
k itail i
i AtEE ; '•• - 11111 i ligHPA:filitar .31 All EE
IV i N E . PE .1,1 f a • ,_- ;A -E=EAlg vial mo
6 ala Pr a g: i 1 f -2 ' " ••2 • 2 0 0 V . 0 t .
— • I 2-* 2 ; E .5 • - a l 'a IF; ;21 :12 2 . .
; eli! 5 3 2.;221 2. i: ',11 tt. E 7 ; •' 1: '1 I 2 93' 'Er f A °
.Afg, I Ps:2112 / i ` g !I 111 kilt F g : i :: Ei -21 Ain Aga ; a g
48911 i 0 v ,
,- A ' 2 9 4 E 10 9 A
A -PEE
R2
_ -
. .
. , •
. iliiiiiir•
Unri ..
1 1 , : ; ,, ; '■:.,1 - i',„,
1
. :
., _
. 1 . , .--
-
• - ' '--'-, - - ----- -, --- . ,
N
,
,
, . r
\ 0 talix) 43 r
,
2 Pni C [ \-,-,.',. :•, • : - -- -•• , ' -- ••-•\--' -
, ... , , . • . - _
. , ,, , . . . :, • . - .. , . i
, t'' „ . 2 . • ..-:„ . - • • --- --'•
ii.
, . _ . .
_ . . •
2 . .. .. ,
. • . _ ..
. • , . . . _ , _.., 2,,
. -._ . „ .-2 2 , 2 . ‘ . , •: . :. . _ ,
2„. : .. , • - , ,... __ . - ,
,.• , : ,. : :: . : ._ ,.., ,
.,... ,. _ ., _ _- -. •, 2,-. • % .,..
_ ... . 2.. i r . . -. -, . • :-.
z
, • .- . :.,, , .. _ . - ,•-.. ....i',. g _ J 1 i:,1
t ../
1
. . .
(7, L
. , • - .„. . • • . - _ .. : .
, ... • ._ . : ,. . 2,..
... i • ,_ ,.. . , . . . „„.. , . ..
. • , . , ,. „2 . . 2, .
su C'fbr
..,.. • . . • „...-........ .. _-_,---
.. _. . .„.. „ • .. ,,,
• , • o ... ,.. ., ..‘,,,
..,_. , , 0.. :, : . __.,.: ._,_„._•
_„,..„,._, ,_. ..... :, .... .......; .„,..„:„.•
• , , . • , . , ,
\ , ., . _ . • . ....•
i
,,,,,:: • ,
_ , •, .. r.;,,,.., - .... -
;.....,),...:::::,,,,,,,,. .. i.•::
....:, _
. . ,... ..,
: . , _ „.,„.. • ..,..„.:
4
•
,
•
....,.
.. ..,
, rs.
• _ _
. ,.... ,
,
‘ •
kk \0 0 I f -- Di 41 E k 'Jr- k CO Y.CA ri IONA 5
1...-e-
1
!=ii2
i
i ;IT 7 C
?
. !
- !
A - i •
A
?IA 1 5 5 i re
c 4 s
. A
s .
. '
: 1
V ! 7
c '
t 1
: A
:V
si
As
k %
1
. ,
,..,
e,-;... - •i , ,/ i i
A (
A cf.y4 -----_ • .0.4 , __.
.• .
• -
. " • . 4 ,4 i k llii, ! . ' 2
Nt
_ L—
k tti6/44,,,,, 4, fV;;, .1■:',Zi # •:, ' ■. ----..
„ T";;,:t• ' I i 71 a -■
•
. .
., .
. ■
---,_
e j
--,, 't.• s.'
. .
Jr. %-.......10 ,
,...•:.,:stt. —
•\_•:,,,::::....:, ......? ____
:..IN, -- ... . .-- -- • I _ _ _ _
- _
•
423
-0-
,eg
i: ::
i 0
-
ti
• .
IE P:91 5 - 1 'I1"
MN !i!! !if
4: irrii ; I Er . _ 2 „I § ! 2 1 ; 'I• '4 :4 I 'I A ! i 7
tf
i'
' 1 411 i .:2 ? ci , ., i pi 1. .• 0 "i.
11 i Aq i :
i 1:i3 c
lia di I: Rii el i 71
:I 4 . 1 4 t E i I 1 T. /. US 'i F) ? , . .
32 :
It ! errs
6 ,nj i
le;"
ii
!;! i 1 = : - a !iv ?i q
z 1 i . A pp !.; • ,- 1
"WO . 1
g i 15441
I 7 9 : ii4 OA
-2 ' S ii 4i
; := 41 '.4. •:.
; i fli, 4:4411
, , .:
1 A 1:g
IjAp v5J
3 9
iie
e. ■ sA t o o l cord d d
1 I en\s
o v,
CD N n
a C % 1
Cl O 'ixaam'> \
a en N O4 N N 0) di
o
3 D + \\ n Q n
in § &,
c)
N 1 \ 3 0 .
- V • i \ O PQ
\ \ i \ \ \\ 1�/1 W
/ 0
m
\\ O
o
- -
a
./
1 I
/ - X eti
Cr
L._ :r•
•
\ Ilk \ / kti ,
\ eit&
tea
m
_ ,0
a
�X •∎ . 10 P posed b nsHh and 1� ub
o ; oJ N n
E El (1) N n
a l f N
a� m �. 3
n o n D
M m fD
a
m as N CU v
A t ?.
3 a fl a n
N `, 7i C 0
(D
O T V
r}
l f 1
I 0
s
NJ
� N
CO
■ i N
/ 0
« I--
"'z, mow.
/ /
l !�r
. •
(
1 *
a
wiz Meat
'( / >..w W
rr 11111Ioh.
1 r 'r ►ir
2 c.•
pu
L?(( b i i- l I 1 c o as I s, - ke_ ,. l a n
-° o
oA p
a
m
o D
I
;aw
5
L \
s \ ,
A
_.
u x>s os Irw 60 OD'
L ,
„ : \ A
, , \"
\
N IS'09'II'W 6000' -� \ \ CFNEERVNE OF O(O - \- �\ ,-,-„,
\\ - \ R4 - "\
i \ \ •oROW \
I Y 1 AN3 ip. O6.E \ \
-
>I --
is I
y ^ I'[ n FF z' A = o f 'n t n °aOUA - -
q e i3 S'�t R :
5 Eliza/As �0 �o P d
z `O -
10'-0' 0 viol ' $0 10 -0' s
i- # - - I 3 iEa N
i I t I°
PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE
E b
-- =-------------- 1-- -- - - -- - ---- _______ - -i--
N 75' 09'II 66.68'(PROPOSED( 83.3E':PROp5ED) EXISTING PROPERTY LINE GYP)
N 7V 09'11 w 150.00 (EXIST .I
ALLEY BLOCK 39 (UNPAVED)
•
D
i
Z.
3-7
bch D ittivens •
cm a - ef5oire m -ev.tS
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: y LP we it LLB Q U D
Applicant: `1 L P IU e t, LL C
Location: a l 9 S. 3rd 5 e
Zone District: 2 1 C
Lot Size: q 9 4 i. 5 p -+ 3446, S F
Lot Area: 9 9u2_ sF +.4gt, S
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: 0 Proposed: 0
Number of residential units: Existing: a Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing: H Proposed: 8
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): too
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: 1 2O 6 Allowable: (o (c g3 Proposed: 5 9 OZ 4 1 to It
Principal bldg. height: Existing: 1 e Allowable: 2 S Proposed: _Z 5
t abet ti nta
e tic s +-
Access. bldg. height: Existing: NIA Allowable: N) (P Proposed: a1 fl r e1ecr
o� ,
On -Site parking: Existing: L j Required: I")( Proposed.* (.0 t"5 Spa Cji
% Site coverage: Existing: 2(D Required: NIA Proposed: N
% Open Space: Existing: $0c)e Required: NI>ti Proposed: ✓i
Front Setback: Existing: 1 0 Required: 2. S Proposed: 1 0+
Rear Setback: Existing: tS Required: • 1 O I Proposed: 10
Combined F /R: Existing :1 t Required: 3 S Proposed: a D
Side Setback: Existing: (4' 1t Required: 1 0 Proposed: 1 0
Side Setback: Existing: 6 n Required: 1 0 Proposed: I
Combined Sides: Existing: 2S, 3 Required: a 0 t Proposed: a 0 •
Distance Between Existing tai /, Required: 3 • S Proposed: 2 c
Buildings
Existing non- conformities or encroachments: Nat/ est. Fb r+n icx% For it 9 ad
crabs cic yt 1
Variations requested: Ftcn+ •j t+ a1 5e. bac , j 10 I o n ,
I CJ Aft 1. m t-c* 5 Ise-
3.
h 4 13 Re5 Rs 40a eyals S
28-211 A Cleary Property, 219 South 3`" Street, Aspen, Colorado
RESULTS
Section 7 -20 -20 Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes
The parcels are relatively flat except for the slope formed by the old railroad grade which is well
vegetated and stable in its current configuration. The site is not impacted by steep and potentially
unstable slopes.
Section 7 -20 -50 (c) Rockfall
There is a potential source of rockfall several hundred feet above the site which does not affect
the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site. The remnants of
past mining have created an area, which will stop any rockfall that originates from the northeast
facing slope of Shadow Mountain. The slope configuration resulting from the historic mining
activity as well as the existing earth berm will protect the site and the proposed development
from rockfall hazards.
Section 7 -20 -50 (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard
There is a potential for small, infrequent debris flow and debris flood events to originate from
Shadow Mountain during intense precipitation events. These small events will not affect the
proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site where the remnants
of past mining have created an area which is less steep in addition to the protection provided by
the flat area and berm near the existing bike path. Future debris events will not affect the
proposed development.
Section 7 -20 -50 (e) Talus Slopes
One of the maps that we reviewed showed the parcel at the boundary of Quaternary talus deposit.
Our site visit indicated that the actual boundary was several hundred feet to the south of the
mapped boundary and that the site is not impacted by talus slopes.
Section 7 -20 -50 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)
This site is not impacted by Section 7 -20 -50 (a) Avalanche; (b) Landslide Hazard; (c) Rockfall
Hazards; (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard; (e) Talus Slopes; (f) Mancos Shale; (g) Faults; (h) Expansive
Soil and Rock; (i) Ground Subsidence.
SUMMARY
Our research and evaluation indicates that the proposed development at this site is not impacted
by potential geological hazards and is suitable for the proposed development.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geological practices in this
area for use by the client for preliminary planning purposes. If geological hazard mitigation is
included in the site - specific development plan, Yeh and Associates, Inc. should review the
30j
28 -21 IA Cleary Property, 219 South 3 Street, Aspen, Colorado
proposed design and construction procedure. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations
submitted in this report are based upon data obtained from the observations made in the field.
The findings and recommendations given in this report are site- specific, and are only valid for
the subject site.
• . H AND a . SOCI • . INC. Reviewed by:
Rog A. Pihl P.G., (WY #PG -3353) Richard D. Johnson, P.E. i � D w ° "
Principal Scientist S enior Geotechnical Engjnk,�
U j :38" i, U
D
01/10/2012 15:46 972 -- 701 -9595 FEDEX OFFICE 0197 PAGE 02
tit- 4
MY NAME IS PAUL YOUNG IV AND MY ADDRESS IS 413 W. HOPKINS AVE. 1
REPRESENT MY MOTHER, ANGELA YOUNG WHO CANNOT BE HERE. SHE IS A 25
YEAR FLIGHT ATTENDANT WITH AMERICAN AIRLINES AND JUST ABOUT NOW,
SHE IS IN AIRSPACE OVER VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA. THE FOLLOWING IS
HER STATEMENT:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE P & Z COMMISSION:
WISELY YOU HAVE DENIED THE FOSTER'S PRIOR APPLICATIONS AS BEING
EXCESSIVE IN SCOPE. THESE TWO PREVIOUSLY DENIED APPLICATIONS TOTALED
4,127 SF OF FAR'S AND TODAY SHE 15 PROPOSING 6,682 SF OF FAR'S. AGAIN, WITH
REGARD TO EXCESS, SHE IS ALSO PROPOSING 2 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES
WHEN ONLY ONE STRUCTURE 15 ALLOWED UNDER PRESENT RESIDENTIAL
GUIDELINES FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS NOTED IN THE LAST P &Z MEETING
THAT THERE WERE TOO MANY UNKNOWNS WHICH MADE THE NEIGHBORHOOD
UNCOMFORTABLE. THE INCREASED WAIVERS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
BEING PROVIDED TODAY TO THE APPLICANT ONLY CREATE MORE UNKNOWNS
AND REINFORCE AN EVEN GREATER DISCOMFORT LEVEL AMONG THE
NEIGHBORS.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW MRS. FOSTER TO USE HER QUESTIONABLE LAWSUIT
AGAINST THE CITY TO PREMATURELY OBTAIN EXTRA FAR'S FOR HER
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. MRS. FOSTER'S APPLICATION MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO
MENTION OF. DISPUTED OWNERSHIP. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
ONCE AGAIN, MRS. FOSTER MADE NO EFFORT TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD
OUTREACH WITH THIS LATEST APPLICATION.
AS PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY, THIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COULD BE
LIKENED TO A DANTE'S INFERNO FOR OUR NEIGHBORS -THE 13" CENTURY
POET SYMBOLICALLY TRAVELED TO THE NINE CIRCLES OF HELL AND THEN
PURGATORY TO FINALLY REACH HEAVEN. BUT WITH THIS PUD APPLICATION, I
THINK OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LIKELY BE STUCK IN HELL, NEVER TO SEE
DANTE'S PARADISE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 2
FW: 219 South Third Street
From: Angela Young (turtlemom02 @hotmail.com)
Sent: Mon 1/09/12 4:55 PM
To: Paul Young IV (paulyoung4 @hotmail.com)
From: cheryl @goldenberg.com
Subject: Fwd: 219 South Third Street
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:57:08 -0700
CC: turtlemom02 @hotmail.com
To: chris.bendon @ci.aspen.co.us; pandz @ci.aspen.co.us
January 7, 2012
Dear Planning and Zoning,
Before you make a decision about Suzanne Foster's newest application claiming that
she owns property on the mountain side of the Midland Trail you should see the
property she claims she can build on. I walk the trail all the time and the mountain
side of that trail behind her property is straight up with mine tailings. I believe a few
years ago the EPA advised against disturbing the mine tailings for fear of spreading
contamination through the community as they are being trucked out of town. It's not
a property that can be built on. I'm certain that Tom Cleary (the previous owner who
lived there since the 50's) didn't believe that he owned that property and suddenly a
new aggressive owner claims that she owns it Ridiculous!
Please don't rezone that property to benefit Suzanne Foster to the detriment of the
neighborhood. A duplex within the legal boundaries of the property has been there
for years and a new duplex also with legal setbacks will be fine in that space. Even
within current zoning laws the new duplex will be much bigger than the current one
but that is allowed and we can live with that
If you do decide to change the legal setbacks and other zoning rules for this property
would you consider changing the rules for everyone else in the neighborhood?
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Goldenberg
http: / /sn133w.snt133.mail. live. com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=68cac5ba-3b1d-lle 1 -b... 1/9/2012
Jake Vickery Architect
Architecture & Planning
202 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970 309 -7722
jakevickery@comcast.net
January 10, 2012
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
RE: PUD AND LOT SPLIT FOR 219 SOUTH 3 STREET — FOSTER
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I have been retained to advise the neighbors on this matter. After review of the application and related
documentation including the independent title research prepared by Krishnamurti dated Feb. 12, 2009,
there are a number of reasons why this PUD should NOT move forward and should either be denied or
tabled. First, it has been established that YLP - Foster may not actually own the southerly piece of
property (referred to as the "upper lot "). Whereas typically the City accepts title insurance as sufficient to
demonstrate ownership, in this particular case it is inadequate based on a challenge to title, contradicting
information, possible title error, possible survey error, and no clear chain of title. If it is upheld that YLP -
Foster does not own this piece of property, the entire basis for the PUD application and lot split has no
valid rationale. The other interesting aspect of this is that it is possible that neither YLP- Foster nor the
City owns this piece of property and that indeed several third parties in the chain of title are mentioned as
actual possible owners in the independent title research.
Further, the so called "upper lot" may not be a separate "lot" at all. There is nothing in the documentation
indicating that this southerly piece of property was ever crea ed, identified, conveyed, or legitimatized as a
separate "lot" and would therefore not have status as a `lot of record ". There is no defensible record
regarding this piece of property. The grounds for YLP — Foster alleged ownership is that it is a part, albeit
an extension, of Lots R & S, Block 39. For this to be true, this southerly piece of property (so called
"upper lot ") would necessarily be considered integrated and combined with the "lower lot" in a master
parcel transversed by a right or surface easement. It follows then that the southerly piece would not
possess its own independent and distinct development rights. If it is indeed a separate and distinct "lot"
then it was not conveyed to YLP — Foster and she does not own it in any form. Again, either way, the
entire basis for the PUD and lot split has no valid rationale.
The City cannot grant approvals, confer development rights, and give benefits to someone who does not
have clear ownership of a parcel of property — especially if it is owned by someone else. For this reason,
until these title, ownership and legal issues are resolved, this application should be either be denied or
tabled.
Sincerely,
Jate- VW.Ct -y
Jake Vickery
"75° 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 10, 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.
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:
P &Z requested a brief overview of how some past cases have utilized the AACP. Attachement
M outlines three major redevelopment applications from the past few years — Clark's Market,
Bidwell, and Wienerstube. The first 2 were ultimately withdrawn, and the third was the subject
of litigation. Staff has used the direction provided from the Wienerstube case to inform the
AACP gap code amendments. Specifically, staff has proposed language to create a new,
specific, requirement for neighborhood outreach as well as adding criteria to SPA, PUD, and
Subdivision that require new development be compatible with or enhance 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."
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)
Page 2 of 6
P3
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.
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 Tb-THE LAND USE CODE AND ZONE DISTRICT MAP - EXHIBIT C
A. 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 an adopted policy, 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.
A previous version of this proposal referenced a "recognized" community goal or objective.
P &Z requested staff explore the use of different language, stating that a "recognized" community
goal might not be specific enough. Staff suggests the language above, requiring that a code
amendment further an adopted policy, goal, or objective. Other alternatives could include
accepted, widely accepted, or widely recognized. Code amendments are fundamentally
different from reviewing land use cases — they should reflect the overarching community goals
and aspirations, which may not be formally adopted. The code amendment process itself enable
a broad -based conversation about how our code can implement community priorities, and staff
recommends including broad Language in this instance.
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.
Page 3 of 6
r
P4
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. Staff s 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.
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.
Page
P5
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.
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 staffs 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 eliminate. The review is a technical accounting review, and the
AACP and other adopted area plans do not provide good direction for the review.
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."
Page 5 of 6
P6
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. In addition, staff suggests eliminating the reference
to special review in this section, as it makes more sense and is clearer if the review is handled
within Subdivision.
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.
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
ExIiIBIT F — ESA — 8040 Greenline Review and Stream Margin Review
EXHIBIT G — Specially Planned Area (SPA)
EXHIBIT H — 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
EXHIBIT M - Examples of how the AACP has been used, Clark's Market, Bidwell, and
Weinerstube
Page 6 of 6
P7
RESOLUTION No. _
(Series of 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT CODE
AMENDMNETS RELATED TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIRING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN (AACP) AND
ADDING NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH REQUIREMENTS TO THE LAND USE
CODE:
26.304 — COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES; 26.310.040 —
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT
MAP; 26.314.040 — VARIANCES; 26.425.040 — CONDITIONAL USES; 26.435.030
— DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA), 8040
GREENLINE REVIEW; 26.435.040 — DEVELOPMENT IN
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA), STREAM MARGIN
REVIEW; 26.440.050 — SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA); 26.445. —
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); 26.470.030 — GROWTH
MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS); 26.470.050 — GROWTH
MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS); 26.480.050 — SUBDIVISION;
26.515.040 — OFF - STREET PARKING.
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 compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP) and neighborhood outreach to reflect the fact that the
2011/2012 AACP update is being adopted as a guiding document; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval
of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.304 —
Common Development Review Procedures, 26.310.040 — Amendments to the Land Use
Code and Official Zone District Map, 26.314 — Variances, 26.425.040 — Conditional
Uses, 26.435.030 — ESA 8040 Greenline Review, 26.435.040 — ESA Stream Margin
Review, 26.440.050 — SPA, 26.445 — PUD, 26.470 — Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS), 26.480.050 — Subdivision, and 26.515.040 — Off - Street Parking; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 10, 2012, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments
to the text of Sections 26.304 — Common Development Review Procedures, 26.310.040 —
Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, 26.314 — Variances,
26.425.040 — Conditional Uses, 26.435.030 _ ESA 8040 Greenline Review, 26.435.040 —
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 1 of 13
P8
ESA Stream Margin Review, 26.440.050 — SPA, 26.445 — PUD, 26.470 — Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS), 26.480.050 — Subdivision, and 26.515.040 — Off-
. Street Parking, as described herein, by a - vote; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Tcxt being rcmovcd is
- _ .. _ .. ' _ . . Text being added to the code is green with
underline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: 26.304.020.B — Common Development Review Procedures, Pre - application
conference, Issues of discussion, shall be amended as follows:
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.
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 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
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 2 of 13
P9
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.
5,7.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.
Section 2: A new section 26.304.035 — Neighborhood Outreach, shall be added as
follows:
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 filing a development application. The applicant must show a concerted
effort inform neighbors and the public about the application prior to the first public
hearing.
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.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 3 of 13
P10
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.
1. 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. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is
aware of the meeting.
2. 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. The
applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware of the on -line
meeting.
3. 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. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure the public is aware
of a website, etc. This may be provided as part of the public hearing mailing
required pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c.
4. 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 proposal, including basic use -type information, building
height, and renderings.
5. Any other form of public outreach that will provide neighbors a genuine
opportunity to understand the development proposal and provide comments to the
application.
F. Summary of Public Outreach. A written summary of the public outreach, as well as
the method of public notification, shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted as part
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 4 of 13
P11
of the official record — either as part of the initial application or as an addendum to the
application. Any documentation that was presented to the public as part of the outreach
should also be included as part of the official record.
Section 3: 26.310.040.B — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone
District Map, Standards of Review, shall be amended as follows:
B. Whether the proposed amendment • : - • - - • - • - - •- • - : - - • =
Community Plan furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective.
Section 4: 26.314.040.A — Variances, Standards applicable to variances, shall be
amended as follows:
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 Aspen Arca Community Plan and this Title 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 : - - • : - . - -- -- . ' ..- : the terms of this Title and the
Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone
district.
Section 5: 26.425.040 — Conditional Uses, Standards applicable to all conditional uses,
shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.425.040. Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
a
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 5 of 13
P12
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 . •. - - - , _ . , - . • _ • •• -
. .... _ • : - . . . .. - ' .. -, • - 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 Area 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 to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating
characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use.
Section 6: 26.435.030.C.11 — 8040 Greenline review standards, shall be amended as
follows:
11. The adopted recommendations and policies of the Aspen Ar a Community Plan:
Parks /Rccrcation/Trails Plan Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the
proposed development, to the greatest extent practical.
Section 7: 26.435.040.C.2 — Stream Margin review standards, shall be amended as
follows:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 6 of 13
P13
2. The adopted recommendations and policies of the Aspen Arca Community Plan:
Parks/Recreation /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
Section 8: 26.440.050.A — Review standards for development in a Specially Planned
Area (SPA), General, shall be amended as follows:
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 Ar a
Comprehensive Plan.
65. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood.
76. 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.
87. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness
and suitability of the proposed development and its conformity to the standards
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 7 of 13
P14
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.
Section 8: 26.445.020 — PUD Applicability, shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.445.020. Applicability.
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 Director determines the development of the property may have
the ability to further the adopted goals of the Aspen Arca Community Plan community
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 development of the property may have the ability to further the
. I adopted goals of the • : - . • . • - - . -- . ' •- ommunity 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.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 8 of 13
P15
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.
Section 9: 26.445.020.A — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, fmal, consolidated and
minor PUD, General Requirements, shall be amended as follows:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Incompatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity
of the 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, fmal PUD
development plan review.
Section 10: 26.445.020.B.6.a — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated
and minor PUD, Establishment of dimensional requirements, shall be amended as
follows:
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Arco Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan
as applicable, to which the property is subject.
Section 11: 26.445.020.E.1 — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated
and minor PUD, Architectural character, shall be amended as follows:
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 and emphasize quality construction and
design.
Section 12: 26.445.020.I.4 — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, fmal, consolidated
and minor PUD, Access and circulation, shall be amended as follows:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
• Page 9 of 13
•
P16
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Arm Community Plan and adopted specific
plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and
transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Section 13: 26.470.030.F, GMQS, Aspen metro area development ceilings and annual
allotments, shall be amended as follows:
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:
21. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period.
32. 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.
43. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments,
but that have not yet been built.
Section 14: 26.480.050, Subdivision, Review standards, shall be amended as follows: •
2. The proposed development is • - - • - - - = - - - -• ' -•
compatible with or enhances the mix of land uses in the surrounding area.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 10 of 13
P17
Section 15: 26.470.050.B.2, GMQS, General requirements, General requirements, shall
be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following
standards and requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Arc Comprehensive
Pmt 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.
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 (Sec,
Chapter 26.130) 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 Ar a
Comprehensive Plan an adopted specific area plan, Title 28, and /or, the existing,
neighboring development areas .... - . - - • • .. .
2. A unique situation exists for the development where an equally safe and
technically sufficient solution will provide a better design solution.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 11 of 13
P18
23. 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 - .: - : . ! ' - :. - -- - - - :. ' - _ :: :. -- Section 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.
Section 16: 26.515.040.B, Off - Street Parking Special review standards, shall be
amended as follows:
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:
. - : : - : ' - - : :: . 'ng characteristics of the facility arc consistent
with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
21. The project has obtained growth management approvals or is concurrently being
considered for growth management approvals.
32. 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.
43. 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.
•
54. The proposed style of operation is appropriate (manned booth, key cards etc.).
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments,
Page 12 of 13
P19
65. The massing, scale and exterior aesthetics of the building or parking lot are
compatible with the immediate context in which it is proposed.
I 76. Where appropriate, commercial uses are incorporated into the exterior of the
facility's ground floor to mimic conventional development in that Zone District.
FINALLY, adopted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission this _ day of
, 2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
James R. True, Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, P &Z Chairman
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 13 of 13
P20
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.
P21
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 Findinj: 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.
b1+ I3
P22
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 Neishborhood 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.
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 1 of 5
P23
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])
677.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 filing a
development application. The applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the
public about the application prior to the first public hearing.
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
P24
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.
1. 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. The applicant should conduct
noticing to ensure the public is aware of the meeting.
2. 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. The applicant should conduct noticing to ensure
the public is aware of the on -line meeting.
3. 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. The applicant should conduct noticing to
ensure the public is aware of a website, etc. This may be provided as part of the public
hearing mailing required pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c.
4. 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
proposal, including basic use -type information, building height, and renderings.
5. Any other form of public outreach that will provide neighbors a genuine opportunity
to understand the development proposal and provide comments to the application.
F. Summary of Public Outreach. A written summary of the public outreach, as well as the
method of public notification, shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the
official record — either as part of the initial application or as an addendum to the application.
Any documentation that was presented to the public as part of the outreach should also be
included as part of the official record.
Sec. 26.304.060. Review of a development application by decision - making bodies.
Page 3 of 5
P25
E. Public notice.
1. General. Whenever a notice of a public hearing is required, notice shall be provided 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
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.
Page 4 of 5
P26 .
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
fh ibi-�- L
P27
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.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Planfurthers an adopted policy, 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
0 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
P28
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. 26.314.040. 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 - - • - • - - - ' : - • - - - . 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 Aspen Area 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 finding 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
P29
•
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
,
IE=)
P30
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 purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the
Aspen Ar Community Plan, with thc 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 thc Aspcn 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
P31
to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation
and duration of the conditional use.
Page 2 of 2
R)hbrt F
P32
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
P33
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 adopted recommendations and policies of the Aspcn Arca Community Plan:
Parks /Rccr /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 adopted recommendations and policies of the Aspcn Arca Community 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
P34
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
1 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
II 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
4 _ r.. 4'
h; -,:elf
Tr0 "t / / • . 4a�u I�
,1e
h �.� r7 P. Bpi
Lrlaµ �
asp f i gurr.. 'A"
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
Page 3 of 4
P35
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
P36
')(11
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 Ar a
56. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood.
6-7. 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 1 of 2
P37
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. otdh final development all comply with the requirements
the un g zone permi distrteict . T prov i ded , howeverevelop e
, that plan var from t requ may be of
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.
•
•
Page 2 of 2
P38
.4)1. .
19
Chapter 26.445
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Sections:
Sec. 26.445.010. Purpose.
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.
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
Director determines the development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted
goals of the • - . ' : - ommunity 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
development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the Aspcn Aroa
ommunity and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use
Page 1 of 7
P39
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 - : - - - - - = • - " - . ' - • ,
compatible with or enhance the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the
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
P4 0
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
P41
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in the 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
accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
Page 4 of 7
P42
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 and
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:
Page 5 of 7
P43
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
P44
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Arca Community Plan and adopted specific plans, as
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.
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.
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)
Page 7 of 7
P45
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
f
P46
I. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period.
32. 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.
43. 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.
2. The proposed development is : - • - - • - - - : - - - : : ' : - compatible
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 or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A,
Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The
employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
Page 2 of 3
P47
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
disposal, parking and road and transit services. (Ord. No. 14, 2007, §1)
Page 3 of 3
P48 Fxnilo
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
P49
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 (Sec,
Chapter-2-6,440)-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, Title 28, the -Aspen Arca Comprehensive Plan, and/or the
existing, neighboring development areas . - - _ . . - -: -- - - .
2. A unique situation exists for the development where an equally safe and
technically sufficient solution will provide a better design solution.
32. 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
I of Chaptor 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
P50��Ie -�,
Chapter 26315
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)
P51
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 (8'/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.
P52
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.
11. 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.
P53
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.
P54
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.
I 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:
A a A« !'.� ;+.,D;w:. -_ t. . �
.. _ _ _ - _. -- - '
I 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.
46. The proposed style of operation is appropriate (manned booth, key cards etc.).
I 56. The massing, scale and exterior aesthetics of the building or parking lot are compatible
with the immediate context in which it is proposed.
I 6-7. 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)
P55
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
P56
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)
RECEFTIO . N#.. 565855. 01'0512010 a
10:12:34 ABM, 1 OF s, R $41.00 Doc Code RESO Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin Coun RESOLUTION No. 17
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZON
ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERiMIN1NG THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND .
USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE MEET
APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 26.415.120 - APPEALS, NOTICE TO
CITY COUNCIL AND CALL UP; 26.412.040.E - 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.
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 grouted by the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City
Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, ,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended 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.B. - 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; and,
\VIEREAS, the amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Aspen
Area Community 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.B - 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 finds that the
. amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the
approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
C.ontmunity Plan; and,
Planning, & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 1 of 8
P58 •
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows:
Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this.
• - - . • _ • :: • - . . Text being added to the code is red with
uitderline and looks like this.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION as follows:
Section 1: Section 26.415.120 - 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 Conceptual 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 form of the 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, applications for Final Development Plan Review shall not
be accepted by the City and no associated permits caw-shall be issued during the thirty
(30) day call -up period. If City Council exercises this call -up provision. no applications
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 1IPC shall be the final decision on the matter.
D. City Council action on appeal-or-call-up. The City Council shall, at a public
meeting, consider the application : - - - - . . - ..: • : - - - - - - ' _ le novo. 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
Page 2 of 8
•
P59
evidence or testimony as necessary. The City Council shall conduct its review of the
application under the same criteria applicable to the reviewinu body. s e
• • • - ' - . • - - • _ • - ' - - . The City Council's ha l-
such action shall he . • .. - - • - - .. • . • - .. • • .. •
limited to:
L Accepting the decision.
2. Altering the conditions of approval. •
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. Continuing the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis. or testimony as
necessary to conclude the call -up review.
E. Additional Actions. The rehearing and reconsideration of the application by the HPC
shall he 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 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 be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.415.070.E
and shall require a new call up notice to City Council. The call up review shall be limited
only 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 1 design, 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
P60 •
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 ear -shall be issued during the thirty-day call -up period. If
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 Citv Council
action as d' r `I f ti! 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 meeting.
consider the application de novo. - : - _ - - • • ' .... • . - .
_ . . . . • . _ . . • . - . • , .. . 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. . .: -•• - - _ - . • - . - •- ... - • • ' . .. - •
abased -its dietien —The City Council's shall talc such action shall be a° its deemsed
- - - : • ..: . •, - .: • _ . limited to:
a. Accepting the decision.
a.
Revers in the decisio
b.e.Remanding the application to the applicable Commission with direction from City
Council for rehearing and reconsideration. (Ord. No. 13, 2007, §1)
c. Continuing the meeting to request 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 changes, as defined in Section 26.412.080 Amendment of Cotnmercial
Design Review Approval, made to the application 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
P61
•
26.415.070.D.3. Conceptual Development Plan Review.
a. An application fora 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 addition(s) 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 (l) 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.E.3 Paragraphs a, h 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 vt 1 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 Comnnission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page - 5 of 8
P62
(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 -up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by 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 heaFing -- 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.
The Community Development Director may grant 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
applicant. 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 Plan 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
Page 6 of 8
P63
(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 teat 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) 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
P64
FINALLY, adopted and approved this 15 day of December, 2009.
ft '/
Stan Gibbs, Vice- Chairman
Attest:
:a-AGQ -
cki =:'�∎ ian, City Clerk
: k
i
Approved as to forni:
amen R. True, Special Counsel
•
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #17 of 2009
De novo Code Amendment
Page 8 of 8
P65
Exhibit M — Past case examples using the AACP
P &Z requested a brief overview of how some past cases have utilized the AACP. Below are
three major redevelopment applications from the past few years. The first 2 were ultimately
withdrawn, and the third was the subject of litigation.
300 Puppy Smith St, Clark's Market Redevelopment
The applicant came forward with a proposal for a new building on a portion of the existing
parking at Clark's Market. A review of the Council meeting minutes from June 9, 2008 indicate
that no reference to the AACP specifically was made. City Council, as well as members of the
public, raised concerns related to the loss of parking in the proposal. They also expressed
interest in a potential Master Plan process for the area. Staff expressed some concerns related to
the pedestrian links in the site, and requested additional sidewalks and pedestrian amenity space.
This application was reviewed under the SPA process. Staff primarily used Criteria 1 and 4 to
discuss concerns related to pedestrian amenity and pedestrian links — is the development
compatible with the area and does the development utilize creative land planning techniques and
not the AACP review to recommend changes to the project. A review of the Council meeting
minutes indicated the AACP was not cited. The applicant ultimately withdrew the application
because they did not believe they could increase the amount of on -site parking given site and
lease constraints.
Bidwell/Mountain Plaza Subdivision
The applicant came forward to redevelop the Bidwell Building on the corner of Galena St. and
Cooper St. The project was denied by City Council in 2008, but was reconsidered at the
applicant's request. At the January 11, 2010 City Council meeting, many of the concerns raised
by members of the public and City Council related to construction impacts the redevelopment
would have. In addition, some members of the public cited the AACP, and stated they did not
feel the project's height, mass, and scale fir in the context of the neighborhood. City Council
cited construction impacts, neighborhood character and public amenity space, and the impacts
the height and mass of the building would have on views.
The concerns related to construction impacts are addressed in the Subdivision review criteria, not
in the AACP. The AACP in general was cited in regard to height, mass, and neighborhood
compatibility concerns. No specific quotes were used by City Council or the public.
City Council reviewed the project again on April 26, 2010. Most of the comments from Council
and the public were related to mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility. In addition, there
were some requests for additional neighborhood outreach. Councilman Romero stated that the
conversion of free - market and commercial space originally proposed to more deed - restricted
housing was supportive of the AACP, but he did not cite a specific section of the AACP. Mayor
Ireland expressed concerns related to the conversion of commercial space to deed restricted
housing because the proposal was for RO units which can be difficult to enforce.
The project was continued to September 27, 2010. The applicant decided to withdraw the
application on August 30, 2010.
Page 1 of 2
•
P66
Wienerstube Redevelopment
The Wienerstube redevelopment proposal went through a number of public hearings with P &Z
and City Council. City Council denied the project based on two criteria in the Subdivision
Review — consistency with the AACP and the impact the proposal would have future
development in the neighborhood. Their comments centered around the bulk, height, size and
mass of the project, and its incompatibility with the neighborhood. IN addition, Council cited
concerns that the applicant had not conducted neighborhood outreach as required in the AACP.
Following the denial, the applicant sued the city, and the case was decided by District Judge
Nichols. Her opinion cited three AACP statements related to neighborhood outreach, mass,
scale, and neighborhood compatibility:
• "Ensure 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)
• "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).
• "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community and should
emphasize . quality construction and design even though that emphasis necessarily
increases costs and lessens production." (pg 25 of 2000 AACP)
In her opinion, she specifically calls out the first bullet point above as "the only specified
provision that could provide the basis for AACP `requirements' as repeatedly stated by the
public and City Council" in their review. The court found that this statement was "...a
reasonable source for City Council's understanding that maintaining the character of the existing
neighborhood is a goal of the AACP and that reaching out to the public is required to accomplish
that goal..."
The court concluded that the first bullet point above "was sufficiently specific so as to permit this
Court to review City Council's decision. This is so primarily because City Council made it very
clear exactly what it understood to be required: the proposed project should fit in, and be
compatible with, the character of the existing neighborhood so that the existing neighborhood
could be maintained and that the developer should engage in public outreach to accomplish
maintaining the character of the existing neighborhood."
Staff has used the direction provided from the Wienerstube case to inform the AACP gap code
amendments. Specifically, staff has proposed language to create a new, specific, requirement for
neighborhood outreach as well as adding criteria to SPA, PUD, and Subdivision that require new
development be compatible with or enhance 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."
Page 2 of 2