HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20120124 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, January 24, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. South Aspen Street PUD — PUD Amendment
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: _
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning DirectoL
RE: South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD — Amendment to existing approvals,
Resolution No. , Series 2012 — Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: January 24, 2012
APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
c/o David Parker Commission require the Applicant to
substantially revise the plans prior to continuing
REPRESENTATIVE: to City Council.
Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC
SUMMARY:
LOCATION: The Applicant requests of the Planning and
Parcels 1, 2 and 3, South Aspen Street Zoning Commission a recommendation of
Subdivision (adjacent to Aspen Street approval to amend the existing entitlements.
between Dean and south of Gilbert
Street) } • 4ij •
CURRENT ZONING & USE II
Located in the Lodge (L) zone districtt�c`
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) ,
overlay.
4
PROPOSED LAND USE: - ; ' r. ' •
The Applicant is requesting to amend the
existing entitlements for the properties •I : � 1.I.el'- .> `
from a total of 31 on -site residential
multi - family units (14 free- market units •
and 17 affordable housing units) to < : ?, •` 4
4 P31(.1.l.J o ` Y k i
on -site residential multi - family units (14 6 - �(^
:
free- market units and 10 affordable - ' . ~ � •• "
housing units) and 8 off -site residential 4-4-4N ` : • ,
multi - family affordable housing units. '''
The off -site units are proposed to be '�¢ r r a ti
located at the Airport Business Center. s `,4 i ,� , `, :" • :
4y! • x
r 4f y i .Jl ° .
Vicinity map of the site
P2
UPDATE FROM JANUARY 4 PUBLIC HEARING:
As mentioned in the previous memo, staff is supportive of the Applicant potentially changing the
exterior architecture of the development as well as amending the unit types (studio, one-
bedroom, etc.) of the affordable housing, and the site plan; however, staff is not supportive of the
current plan to move density from this site to the Airport Business Center and to erode the
existing townsite grid.
The subject property is part of the traditional townsite grid and should better relate to it. The
proposed curvilinear townhome pattern along Aspen Street is a development form in suburban
neighborhoods and does not reflect a traditional development pattern, n
p p nor does it establish an
appropriate relationship "between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By
orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback
patterns, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment"
Additionally, the `delivery access lane' being proposed is not typical of grid development and
increases potential conflicts between people and automobiles by having more curb cuts on the
sidewalk. Although on -street parking along Aspen Street has been removed, leaving concern for
where visitors or delivery vehicles may park, public parking will be provided . underground to
compensate for the removal of the existing on -street parking.
A
•
Staff recommends the Applicant
_ �' consider adding density back onto
= i, the site, specifically more
J ' • affordable housing. Being located
acs' - in town removes one's dependence
• <' � �a o
� e by providing a
p on the automobile
environment to get to
' •�„' * , work, recreation, and commercial
opportunities.
- - _;. �,.SQ; � • les. The subject parcels
; , r
} essentially back onto National
,t ¢ f � Forest Service lands and have easy
,;" access to parks p and trails. The
t ; _ � �A original density approved for the
' " j '��" . � • - J • =� property encourages a more "lights
ae7zs _ `_ on" neighborhood.
The Applicant has stated the decrease in density provides additional opportunities for open space
and pocket parks. While this can be construed a benefit, staff does not believe that The open
space is a worthwhile trade -off in a downtown locationwhere density is encouraged.
Below, the staff memo from January 4 is provided for reference
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant has requested a combined review, in which all final decisions are granted by City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation to council. The
following land use recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission are being
requested:
Page 2 of 10
P3
• Resident Multi - family Replacement requirements for the amendment of the approval
granted pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.530 (City Council is the final review
authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
• Growth Management Review — Substantial Amendment for the amendment to a
development order authorizing development allotments pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.470 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
In 2000, an amendment first went to the Growth Management Commission (at that point
in time The Planning and Zoning Commission) and the recommendation of the
Commission was forwarded to City Council for final review. Since the code has been
amended and there is no growth Management Commission, the review will be a
recommendation from the Planning Commission with final decision making by the City
Council as is outlined in the city's current regulations.
• Subdivision - Other Amendment for the amendment of the subdivision approval pursuant
to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the fmal review authority after
considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission).
• Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment for the amendment of a site specific
development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final
review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission).
Special Note: The existing townhome project is entitled under the October 1, 2000, Land
Use Code which means the land use regulations in effect are from 2000 unless otherwise
noted.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC, was granted approvals to develop thirty one
(31) residential multi - family units on parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the South Aspen Street Subdivision
via Ordinance No. 32 (Series of 2003). Since the initial approval, the vested rights associated
with the project have been extended on a number of occasions as the property owner worked
towards entitling a lodge project (Lodge at Aspen Mountain) on the site rather than the
townhomes. The latest extension, Resolution No. 96 (Series of 2009), permits the vested rights to
be extended until January 28, 2016 with the caveat that the purpose of the extension is to enable
the development of a lodge project and that "a six month period of inactivity shall constitute a
withdrawal of the application."
Since passage of the resolution, new ownership has taken over the property and the six month
period of inactivity has occurred (March 1, 2011), resulting in a vesting period that will expire on
March 1, 2013. As a result of the upcoming 2013 vested rights expiration date, the present
owners are proposing to amend the existing approvals.
Page 3of10
P4
The new proposal reduces the number of dwelling units on the property from 31 to 24 residential
multi- family units by reducing the number of affordable housing units on the site, locating
additional affordable housing units off -site at the Airport Business Center (ABC) and proposing
a cash -in -lieu payment. In summary, the new proposal contains:
• A free - market building containing five (5) dwelling units and one affordable housing
building containing ten (10) dwelling units on Parcel 1. Additionally an underground
garage to accommodate SkiCo parking (per an agreement with SkiCo) and some parking
for the affordable housing is located on Parcel 1.
• Three (3) free market triplexes containing a total of nine (9) residential units on Parcels
2 and 3 are proposed with an underground garage accommodating parking for one of the
triplexes. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to merge Parcels 2 and 3 into one lot.
• Eight (8) affordable housing dwelling units at the Aspen Airport Business Center.
• A cash -in -lieu payment for 3.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
Table 1, below, outlines the proposed dimensional requirements for the project. The
highlighted cells are the proposed standards that exceed permitted requirements for the
underlying zone district based upon the 2000 code.
Table 1: Comparison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements
Dimensional Approved L/TR L Proposed
Requirement Project Dimensional Dimensional Dimensions
Requirements Requirements
(2000) (2011)
Minimum Lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Parcel 1:
Size 42,549 sq. ft.
Parcel 2:
61,969 sq. ft.
Lot 1,100 sq. ft. per 1 bedroom per 3,000 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. per
Area/Dwelling bedroom (81 1,000 sq. ft. (free- market bedroom (54
Unit bedrooms on residential) bedrooms on
89,127 sq. ft. of 89,127 sq. ft. of
lot area for net lot area for
density) density calc.)
Minimum Lot 60 Feet 60 Feet 30 Feet Parcel 1:
Width 60 Feet
Parcel 2:
60 Feet
Minimum Front 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 15 Feet
Parcel 2:
9' -6"
Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 2 Feet
Page 4 of 10
P5
Dimensional Approved L/TR L Proposed
Requirement Project Dimensional Dimensional Dimensions
Requirements Requirements
(2000) (2011)
Parcel 2:
1' -6"
Minimum Rear 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 5' -7"
Parcel 2:
10' -4"
Maximum 28 Feet 28 Feet 28 Feet
Height 28Feet
Percent Open 27% 25% N/A > 27%
Space
Floor Area .83:1 1:1 1:1 < .83:1
Ratio (FAR)
Max. Multi- N/A N/A 1,500 sq. ft. N/A
Family Unit
Size
Minimum Off- 30 2 spaces per 1 space per unit 12
Street Parking Affordable dwelling unit or Affordable
housing 1 space per housing
28 dwelling unit if 28
Free Market a studio or one Free Market
housing bedroom housing
30
SkiCo
Land Use Reviews:
The following land use reviews are the reviews that were required in 2000 and under which the
entitled townhome project is currently vested. Current standards are provided as background
information and, in some instances, to provide a basis for evaluation.
Demolition or Replacement of Multi - Family Housing:
For approximately twenty years, the City has required a certain amount of affordable housing to
be developed when existing free- market multi - family residential dwelling units are demolished.
The basis for this requirement was the observation that as existing multi - family units (which had
often served as housing for local working residents) were demolished and replaced, the new
units no longer housed local working residents.
At the time of the original application only Parcel 3 contained multi - family residential units (the
Mine Dump Apartments). In 2000, when this project was originally submitted to the city, the
multi - family replacement requirement was somewhat different than today's standards. The
regulation required that fifty percent (50 %) of the bedrooms be replaced, fifty percent (50 %) of
Page 5 of 10
P6
the net livable area be replaced, and that fifty percent (50 %) of the replacement net livable area
be above grade. Today's standards provide two options for mitigation with the one closest to the
2000 standard requiring the same replacement of bedrooms and net livable area, but today fifty
(50 %) of the dwelling units must also be replaced.
Table 2: Multi - Family Replacement Requirements
Bedrooms Net Livable Area Above Grade Net Units
(sq. ft.) Livable Area
Mine Dump 23 7,722 N/A 16
Apartments
2000 12 3,861 1,930 N/A
Requirements
Existing 43 19,538 17
Approval
Proposal: Onsite 12 6,630 4,308 ** 10
Proposal: AABC 24 9,656 9,656 8
Proposal Total 36 16,286 13,964 18
Notes:
* * Staff has estimated the above grade net livable area square footage by subtracting 3 of the on-
site affordable housing units from the total due to the location of grade in comparison to finished
/ floor.
Staff Comment: As outlined above in Table 2, both the existing approval and the new proposal
meet or exceed the minimum mitigation required in the 2000 Land Use Code by providing on-
site affordable housing that meets or exceeds the minimum required 12 bedrooms, exceeds the
3,861 sq. ft of net livable area and exceeds the 1,930 sq. ft of above grade net livable area
required.
The 2000 code required multi family replacement units to be located on -site unless it was
determined that units "on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhoods plans or
would be an inappropriate planning solution due the site's physical constraints." The 2003
approval provides all of the required replacement multi family units on site including affordable
housing units on site that exceed the mitigation requirements.
Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing:
The proposal is to amend the existing approvals by reducing the number of affordable housing
units on- site, provide some affordable housing off -site at the ABC, and provide a cash payment
in lieu. Overall, the proposed eighteen (18) affordable housing units will house 42.5 employees
as outlined in Table 3, below. Since the total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) housed
under the new proposal is less than the entitled project, the Applicant is offering to pay a cash -in-
lieu fee between the difference in FTEs which is 3.5 FTEs or $475,356.00 at a Category 4 fee
rate (which is the current income category used when calculating cash in lieu).
Page 6 of 10
P7
Table 3: Affordable Housing, Employees Housed
Unit Type Approved Approved Proposed Proposed
AH Units Employees AH Units Employees
Housed Housed
--
1 bedroom 4 7 8 14
(on -site) (4 x 1.75) (8 x 1.75)
2 bedroom 0 0 2 4.5
(on -site) (2 x 2.25)
3 bedroom 13 39 8 24
(off -site) (13 x 3) (8 x 3)
Totals 17 46 18 42.5
The existing entitlements permit the 17 affordable housing units to be rentals rather than for -sale
units. These 17 units were deed restricted at a mix of Category 1, 2 and 3 and permitted to be
rental units. The bulk of the units are 3 bedroom units whereas the current proposal provides a
more even split of one bedroom to three bedroom units. Categories of the new units are proposed
to not exceed an average of Category 3. APCHA, which supports the proposal, has requested that
all units be no higher than Category 3; however, all of the on -site units are smaller than the
minimum net livable area required for Category 3 and 4 (700 s.f./ 1- bedroom & 950 s.f./ 2-
bedroom), rather the on -site units meet Category 1 and 2 size standards (700 s.f./ 1- bedroom &
950 s.f./ 2- bedroom). All of the units are proposed to be for sale rather than rental unit.
Table 4: Net Livable Area of the proposed Affordable Housing
Location Unit No. Unit Type Net Livable Area Category
(sq. ft.) Allowance
On -Site 1 2 bedroom 852 1 and 2
2 2 bedroom 854 1 and 2
3 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2
4 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2
5 1 bedroom 628 1 and 2
6 1 bedroom 602 1 and 2
7 1 bedroom 608 1 and 2
8 1 bedroom 634 1 and 2
9 1 bedroom 604 1 and 2
10 1 bedroom 630 1 and 2
Off -Site 4 units 3 bedroom 1,200 3 and 4
4 units 3 bedroom 1,214 3 and 4
The 2003 approval found the addition of 17 on -site affordable housing units met both the city's
needs for affordable housing and, at the time, APCHA found that the proposal met their
guidelines. In determining the need for and type of affordable housing preferred, the current
APCHA guidelines have a number of policy statements with regard to preferred mitigation
options with the development of deed restricted housing that include:
• The board has prioritized the following mitigation options in order of preference: 1) on-
site housing — where affordable housing used for mitigation purposes with regard to the
Page 7 of 10
P8
construction or redevelopment of a site be either next to or attached to the development,
2) off -site housing, and3) cash -in -lieu.
• With regard to the types of units to construct, APCHA's priorities for the private sector
are: For -sale units with an average sales price no higher than Category 3, consisting of
one and two bedroom units; as well as Category 3 and 4, for sale, 3 bedroom units.
Staff Comment: There is little guidance in the 2000 code with regard to permitting affordable
housing units outside of city limits or for providing a cash payment in lieu of housing; however,
the current code in effect does provide additional guidance in the form of two growth
management reviews: Provision of required affordable housing units outside city limits (section
26.470.090 (2) and Provision of required affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment (section
26.470.090 (3).
For off -site housing the standards include ensuring that the housing is within the Urban Growth
Boundary, that the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units, that any off -site units have
all necessary approvals. With regard to accepting a cash -in -lieu, consideration is given as to
whether providing housing on site is impractical, whether a good faith effort to construct off-site
housing was made and whether the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units.
APCHA's listed priority for private sector development is to provide on -site housing, something •
the existing entitlement provides and the proposed entitlement reduces.
Subdivision:
Subdivision review was originally required due to the development of multiple affordable
housing units on the three parcels. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting to merge parcels 2
and 3 into one lot.
Staff Comment: In general, the Applicant meets the subdivision criteria.
Planned Unit Development:
All three parcels currently have a PUD overlay on them. Any development (or redevelopment) is
required to be reviewed and approved prior to development being allowed to commence. The
purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in
the development of land which:
A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a
greater variety in the type and character of the development, and a greater compatibility with
existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the
underlying zone district provisions.
C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value.
D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services.
E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity
to neighborhood and community goals and objectives."
Page 8of10
P9
A PUD allows variation in the site's dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and
innovation, but does not allow variation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants are
requesting to amend the vested approval to reduce the number of dwelling units on the site and
change the configuration of improvements on the site. The dimensional requirements that are
requested to be varied from the underlying zoning are related to the Minimum Setback
requirements.
Staff Comment: Staff is supportive of affordable housing development within Aspen and
recognizes the importance and need for it within the community; however, staff believes that the
Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of the PUD criteria.
Staff is concerned that the new design does not relate well to the traditional townsite grid,
particularly with regard to the triplexes. Additionally, the additional curb cuts and meandering
"street" do not reinforce a traditional circulation pattern that is common for lot and block
development and may comprise pedestrian and vehicular safety. The use of retaining walls does
not sensitively develop the site in relation to the existing topography. All of these items are not
compatible with the original townsite and surrounding area.
A PUD allows the density of a project to be increased when it "serves one or more goals of the
community as expressed in the AACP ", when the site's physical capabilities can accommodate
the density, and when it results in a development pattern compatible with the area. A PUD can
also be reduced when there are insufficient public facilities or critical hazards present.
In 2003 the City Council approved a project with more density (number of units) than what is
currently being proposed. Although providing affordable housing units on -site meets the intent of
the AACP, the removal of density does not. The city has limited sites available for infzll
development, and proposing to locate some affordable housing off -site at the ABC does not
encourage infill projects to integrate more housing into the traditional townsite and does not
reach the optimum development potential that a previous council approved on the site. Although
within the Urban Growth Boundary, the provision of affordable housing at the ABC does not
assist in lessening a resident's reliance on the automobile or develop a project in a more
compact form.
Staff is supportive of the Applicant potentially changing the exterior architecture of the
development as well as amending the unit types (studio, one - bedroom, etc.) of the affordable
housing; however, staff is not supportive of moving density from this site to the Airport Business
Center.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, housing
authority, building department and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed
application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when
appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION: At this point and time, Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission require that the applicant make substantial revisions to their plans before returning
to the Commission that are more in line with the existing entitlements with regard to affordable
housing being provided on -site and improve the development's relationship to the traditional
Page 9 of 10
P10
town grid. With this present current configuration, Staff recommends denial of the proposal if no
changes are made.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Amendment for the South Aspen Street PUD."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT — PUD Review Criteria (provided with 12/6/12, 1/4/12, and 1/24/12 memo)
EXHIBIT B — Subdivision Review Criteria PUD Review Criteria (provided with
12/6/12, 1/4/12, and 1/24/12 memo)
EXHIBIT C — Affordable Housing (GMQS) Review Criteria PUD Review Criteria
(provided with 12/6/12, 1/4/12, and 1/24/12 memo)
EXHIBIT D — Resident Multi- Family Replacement Program Review Criteria PUD
Review Criteria (provided with 12/6/12, 1/4/12, and 1/24/12 memo)
EXHIBIT E — Development Review Committee Comments, November 2011 PUD
Review Criteria (provided with 12/6/12 and 1/4/12 memo)
EXHIBIT F— Application (provided with 12/6/12 memo)
EXHIBIT G— Proposed Architectural Drawings (provided with 12 /6 /12memo)
EXHIBIT H - Past minutes on entitled project, P &Z: 12/5/00, 1/16/01, and 6/3/03; City Council:
2/12/01, 3/26/01, 4/9/01, and 7/28/03 (provided on 1/4/12)
Page 10 of 10
P11
RESOLUTION NO. _,
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
— OTHER AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS FOR THE
SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1,
2, AND 3 SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDISVION/PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel IDs: 273513139001, 273513139002, 273513139003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the
ASV Aspen Street Owners, LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Hass Land Planning,
requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Planned Unit
Development — Other Amendment, Subdivision - Other Amendment, Growth Management
Review — Substantial Amendment and Resident Multi - family Replacement to amend the existing
entitlements associated with the South Aspen Street Subdivision /PUD via a combined review;
and,
WHEREAS, an application was submitted for an amendment to the existing entitlements
for the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, which proposes on Parcel 1 a free - market fiveplex
residential building, an affordable housing building. containing 10 dwelling units and an
underground parking garage. While Parcel 2 and 3 are proposed to be subdivided into one lot
containing three free - market triplexes or nine residential dwelling units. Additionally the
Applicant will provide eight affordable housing units off -site at the Airport Buisness Center and
provide a cash payment -in -lieu; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire
Protection District, Parks Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and Public
Works Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies reviewed the proposed amendment and provided
recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, after reviewing relevant section of the land use code, the Community
Development Director recommended denial of the land use requests; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on December 6, 2011 the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing and continued it to January 3, 2012, and on
January 3` continued the public hearing to January 4th to consider the project; and,
WHEREAS, during a special meeting on January 4, 2012 the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took testimony and continued the hearing to
January 17, 2012 at which point the hearing was continued to January 24, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, during a special meeting on January 24, 2012 the Planning and Zoning
• Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, took testimony and recommended City
Page 1 of 4
P12
Council approve the PUD Amendment and associated land use requests by a to L -D
vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for PUD
Other Amendment and related land use reviews are met.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the PUD — Other Amendment and associated land use
reviews with the conditions listed below.
Section 1:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the following land use reviews:
Planned Unit Development — Other Amendment, Subdivision - Other Amendment, Growth
Management Review — Substantial Amendment and Resident Multi- family Replacement
requirements to amend the South Aspen Street Subdivision/ PUD.
The amended development plan permits Parcel 1 to be developed with a free - market building
containing five (5) dwelling units and one affordable housing building containing ten (10)
dwelling units. Additionally an underground garage to accommodate SkiCo parking (per an
agreement with SkiCo) and parking for the affordable housing is provided.
Parcels 2 and 3 are combined to create one lot. On this newly created lot three (3) free market
triplexes containing a total of nine (9) residential units with an underground garage
accommodating parking for one of the triplexes is permitted.
Additionally eight, three- bedroom affordable housing units, known as the Pacific Avenue
Condominiums, will be developed at the Airport Business Center as part of this amendment. A
cash payment -in -lieu of $475,356.00 is accepted.
Section 2: Building
The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building
permit is submitted. No building permit shall be issued for any component of the South Aspen
Street development until building permits are issued for the related affordable housing units to be
developed at the Airport Business Center.
Section 3: Engineering
Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21
and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Prior to
City Council review:
a) A conceptual drainage report shall be submitted to the Engineering department to verify
compliance with Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements (URMP).
b) A new traffic analysis shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to City Council Review if
the Applicant intends to request a waiver of the traffic impact fee of $147,500.00.
o) The project is located within the Blue Mudflow Zone. As a result, prior to Council review, the
project will need analyze and mitigate any mudflow impacts as outlined in the URMP.
Page2of4
P13
d) The project is located in a snow slide area, as a result, prior to Council review the project will
need to analyze and mitigate any snow slide impacts.
e) Prior to Council review, the plans for the Dean Avenue access need to be completed including
profiles and cross sections. The cross sections need to show how the proposed grades will tie into
existing grades. Additional cross sections are needed at each curb cut.
f) Prior to Council review, the plans for Juan and Gamisch cross sections need to show how the
proposed grades will tie into existing grades. Additional cross sections are needed at each curb
cut.
According to the City of Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 21.16.060, only one driveway cut per
lot is permitted for residential, commercial and lodge districts; any changes to that requirement
will need City Council approval.
The project is located in a landslide hazard area, as a result the project must not impact any slope
movement as analyzed by inclinometers. To ensure there has been no impact, the project must
continue to measure the inclinometers until 1 year after the project completion.
The parking on Gamrisch will not be permitted.
The original plans for the site showed a detached sidewalk on Juan Street. The new plans will
need to be revised to depict a detached sidewalk on both sides of Juan Street.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
All of the affordable housing units shall meet the APCHA Guidelines. All the units shall be `for
sale' units sold through the lottery system, unless the "protected" tenants from the original Mine
Dump Apartments have a priority for the on -site units. The Applicant may choose three purchasers
for the affordable housing units that qualify via APCHA's guidelines.
All deed restrictions shall be recorded coincident with the recordation of the condo plat and prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The Certificate of Occupancy for the free - market
portion shall not be issued until the Certificate of Occupancy for all of the deed restricted units
have been executed (both on and off - site).
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not
limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire
sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907).
Section 6: Public Works
The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and
with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility
placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards.
Page 3 of 4
P14
Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office. A "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System
Agreement" are required for this application.
Section 8: Exterior Lighting
All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting.
Section 9: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees
The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of
building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance.
Section 10: Parks
A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. An
approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes
place. Final layout of plantings require Park Department approval. The project team should
investigate the possibility of additional street tree plantings along the east side of Garmisch
Street. The sidewalk along the south side of Juan Street was detached from the curb in the
original approvals and is now shown as attached. Landscaping in the ROW standards requires
that sidewalks should be detached when space is available, all plantings within the detached
green space should conform to COA right of way planting requirements. Prior to City Council
review an amended landscape plan shall be submitted for review by staff incorporating notes
from the November 2011 Development Review Committed meeting.
Section 11:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 12:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at a special meeting on January 24, 2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Jim True, Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Page 4 of 4
P15
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or
minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the
limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD
review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an
applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity
to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP).
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the development is consistent with the AACP. While a number
of general elements related to the location of development are met, the project does
not meet some of the AACP's overarching goals. Specifically, staff is concerned
about the proposal to relocate some of the affordable housing to the Airport Business
Center (ABC). The 2000 AACP states that "development of affordable housing
within the traditional town site should be encouraged" and notes that "when
employees have the ability live near where they work, their reliance on the
automobile lessons and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's
social fabric." The approved project places all of the housing on -site, while the new
proposal moves many of the units outside City limits. Staff does not find that this
meets the intent of the AACP.
In addition, the proposed site plan, curb cuts, and landscape retaining walls do not
promote the kind of pedestrian feel that is called for in the land use code or the
AACP. Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan
are met, but that the Applicant does not go far enough in meeting some elements of
the AACP.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding
The neighborhood consists of a variety of multi - family residential development and
some lodging. The proposal is for multi - family residential development with a mix of
free - market units and affordable- housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 13
P16
Staff Finding
Staff has serious concerns related to the number of curb cuts and the curvilinear
nature of the street being proposed on parcels 2 and 3. The proposal, particularly
parcels 2 and 3, does not relate well to the traditional townsite grid, nor the approved
Lift 1 Lodge. That project is well related to the traditional street grid, and staff
believes that pattern should be carried through the rest of the area. While the area is
relatively built -out, staff is concerned that an approval which increases setbacks and
fails to relate to the street could negatively impact the future streetscape and set an
inappropriate precedent. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is
exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the
proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination
with, final PUD development plan review.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has received approval for the development by meeting city
requirements with regard to demolition or replacement of multi - family residential
dwelling units. Under the current proposal, the application requires fewer allotments
for the affordable housing component (from 17 to 10), as less units are being
proposed on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements:
The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040,
above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the
proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and
existing development patterns shall be emphasized.
The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a
PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below:
Dimensional Approved L/TR L Proposed
Requirement Project Dimensional Dimensional Dimensions
Requirements Requirements
(2000) (2011)
Minimum Lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. Parcel 1:
Size 42,549 sq. ft.
Parcel 2:
61,969 sq. ft.
Lot 1,100 sq. ft. per 1 bedroom per 3,000 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. per
Area/Dwelling bedroom (81 1,000 sq. ft. (free- market bedroom (54
Unit bedrooms on residential) bedrooms on
89,127 sq. ft. of 89,127 sq. ft. of
lot area for net lot area for
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 13
P1 7
Dimensional Approved L/TR L Proposed
Requirement Project Dimensional Dimensional Dimensions
Requirements Requirements
(2000) (2011)
density) density calc.)
Minimum Lot 60 Feet 60 Feet 30 Feet Parcel 1:
Width 60 Feet
Parcel 2:
60 Feet
Minimum Front 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 15 Feet
Parcel 2:
9' -6"
Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
•
Yard Setback 2 Feet
Parcel 2:
1'-6"
Minimum Rear 10 Feet 10 Feet 5 Feet Parcel 1:
Yard Setback 5'-7"
Parcel 2:
10' -4"
Maximum 28 Feet 28 Feet 28 Feet
Height 28Feet
Percent Open 27% 25% N/A > 27%
Space
Floor Area .83:1 1:1 1:1 < .83:1
Ratio (FAR)
Max. Multi- N/A N/A 1,500 sq. ft. N/A
Family Unit
Size
Minimum Off- 30 2 spaces per 1 space per unit 12
Street Parking Affordable dwelling unit or Affordable
housing 1 space per _ housing_
28 dwelling unit if 28
Free Market a studio or one Free Market
housing bedroom housing
30
SkiCo
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are
appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property:
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of 13
P18
a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future
land uses in the surrounding area.
•
Staff Finding
Although there are examples of multi - family residential development within
the neighborhood, most of the surrounding development works with the
existing topography with buildings that step with changes in grade. Staff is
concerned with the extent of retaining walls being proposed with this
development, and believes that the site plan is inappropriate in this context.
Staff finds this criterion is not met.
b. Natural or man - made hazards.
Staff Finding
The project is located within the Blue Mudflow Zone. As a result, prior to
Council, the project will need analyze and mitigate any mudflow impacts as
outlined in city standards. The Applicant has agreed to meet these
requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area
such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and
landforms.
Staff Finding
Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already
been impacted by development and/or previous grading. However, the
proposed development includes many retaining walls that are the result of the
development not working with the topography. Staff finds this criterion not to
be met.
d. Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and
the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian
circulation, parking, and historical resources.
Staff Finding
The applicant proposes to relocate much of the affordable housing to the
ABC. Staff believes this is inappropriate, and could have the effect of
increasing traffic in the general Aspen Area. The property is near the
commercial core, making it well within walking distance for the project's
residents. This allows a resident to have less reliance on the automobile.
Staff finds this criterion is not met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and
quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the
character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 13
P19
Staff Finding
Under the Parks, Open Space & the Environment chapter of the AACP one of the
Policies notes that the city should "encourage infill projects that integrate more
housing into the existing urban fabric." Adding open space to this project contradicts
the policy of encouraging more infill housing. In addition, more open space is
inappropriate given the general neighborhood character. Staff believes the previously
approved project meets this standard, but that this proposal does not. Staff finds this
criterion is not met.
3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established
based on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non- residential land uses.
b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core
and general activity centers in the city.
Staff Finding
The current proposal of off - street parking exceeds the land use codes parking
standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of
a PUD may be reduced if:
a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal
and road maintenance to the proposed development.
Staff Finding
Adequate public facilities exist to serve both the proposed development and the
entitled development that was approved in 2003. Staff finds this criteria not
applicable.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 13
P20
a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of
ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or
avalanche dangers.
b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the
natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and
consequent water pollution.
c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality
in the surrounding area and the City.
d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or
trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain
or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding
At this time, Staff does not find that significant natural hazards on the site are present
that would necessitate a density reduction. The property had existing development on
it prior to demolition and is vested with an approval that permits higher density on the
site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there
exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and
the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development
patterns and with the site's physical constraints.
a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific
area plan to which the property is subject.
b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density
and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as
identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be
avoided or those characteristics mitigated.
c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a
higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as
long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density
provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established
as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD
Development Plan.
b. The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD
are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding
No increase in the maximum density is proposed, rather a reduction in density is
requested. In 2003 the City Council approved a project with more density (number of
units) than what is currently being proposed. Although providing affordable housing
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 13
P21
units on -site meets the intent of the AACP, the removal of density does not. The city
has limited sites available for inftll development, and proposing to locate some
affordable housing off -site at the ABC does not encourage infill projects to integrate
more housing into the traditional townsite and does not reach the optimum
development potential that a previous council approved on the site. Although within
the Urban Growth Boundary, the provision of affordable housing at the ABC does not
assist in lessening a resident's reliance on the automobile or develop a project in a
more compact form.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity
of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
There are no significant natural or manmade features on the site. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open
spaces and vistas.
Staff Finding
The parcels currently proposed to be redeveloped are located within the original
townsite. There are no significant view planes, or open spaces adjacent to the
property that should be considered as part of the redevelopment.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the
urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and
engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding
The proposed development is moving away from a more traditional grid development
design and creating a more suburban design with the site plan of the free - market
component along Aspen Street. The additional curb cuts and driveway along Aspen
are not typical of traditional block development. Staff does not find this criterion met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency
and service vehicle access.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 13
P22
Staff Finding
The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that
additional information will be required to show appropriate fire department access.
The Applicant will meet this prior to council review.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding
According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable
requirements. This has been included as a condition of any approval. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical
and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding
properties.
Staff Finding
According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be
handled) to maintain historic runoff. Staff finds this criterion will be met.
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the
use.
Staff Finding
Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape
with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has provided a landscape plan on the site. The Parks Department has
requested some changes to the plan. As part of the review before City Council, an
amended landscaping plan will be submitted. Staff has serious concerns about the
number of retaining walls in the proposal, and is concerned that this detracts from the
exterior spaces. Rather than working with the site's natural topography the proposal
relies on a number of retaining walls to manipulate the grade. Staff finds this
criterion is not met.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 13
P23
2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
There are no significant natural or man-made features that require preservation. Staff
finds this criterion to not be applicable.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
Staff Finding
The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan prior to City Council review,
incorporating Park Department comments. This will ensure existing landscaping is
preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Architectural Character.
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a
character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale
and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of
non- or less- intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
Staff Finding
Aspen's "design history ranges from Victorian to Bauhaus, from 50's "ski instructor" to
postmodern, to contemporary." Staff believes the proposed architecture is an
improvement over the heavy timber design approved in 2003.
Both the entitled development and the proposal under consideration are subject to the
Residential Design Standards. As noted in a staff memo in 2003, the proposal did "not
meet all of the residential design standards. However, because the proposal is being
reviewed as a site specific development plans by means of going through the PUD review
process, a waiver from the Residential Design Standards may be granted as part of the
PUD." It was also noted that a waiver was appropriate as the design standards were
geared towards single family and duplex development rather than the multi - family
development that was being proposed.
•
Since that approval in 2003, the design standards have been modified to have only certain
design standards be applicable to multi - family development. Multi - family development
is required to meet:
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 13
P24
• Building orientation. This standard requires the front facade of a building to be
parallel with the street. The middle and upper triplexes do not meet this standard.
• Garage setbacks. This standard requires a garage accessed from the street to be set
10 feet behind the front facade of the building. All garages provided at grade meet
the requirement. Staff is concerned with the garage access to the upper triplex as
it is forward of the building along Aspen Street.
• Street oriented entrance and principal window and First Story element. Multi-
family units are required to have one street facing door for every four units and
front units must have a principal window as well as have a first story element
(often provided in the form of a porch). Additional review of these two criteria is
required as some of the porch elements are unclear on the plan.
• Windows. Only one non - orthogonal window per facade of each building is
permitted. Only the affordable housing building meets this standard.
• Lightwells. Light wells are not permitted beyond the frontmost wall of the street
facing facades of a building. The fiveplex does not meet this standard.
Staff finds this criterion not to be met.
F. Lighting.
1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will
be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and
general aesthetic concerns.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-
lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call
inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential
development.
Staff Finding
The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. A more detailed plan
will be provided as part of the Final PUD.
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation
area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following
criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space,
or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development,
considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features
of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is
available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of
the PUD.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 10 of 13
P25
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
Parcel 1 will contain a landscaped park area as was approved in the original approvals.
The applicant is proposing that it be managed by the HOA. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur
an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities
associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the
development.
Staff Finding
The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and
determined there is adequate service for this development. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be
mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
Staff Finding
At this time no adverse impacts are anticipated. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
Staff Finding
No oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are proposed. Staff
finds this criterion is not applicable.
I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications)
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does
not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 11 of 13
P26
and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The
proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to
a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that all structures and uses have access to a public street. The
application proposes to install sidewalks along the property. However, staff is
concerned about the access drive proposed and the number of curb cuts in the project.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking
arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be
improved to accommodate the development.
Staff Finding
The original application proposed one driveway access for Parcel 2 and 3 off of
Aspen Street, the proposed application now proposes 3 driveway access points. Staff
believes a reduction in access points is important and will improve the safety and
pedestrian accessibility of the area.
Additionally, three driveway access points are not consistent with the purposes, goals
and objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). In the
AACP, it discusses "improving safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, mass transit riders,
and automobiles in the Aspen area."
The spacing of driveways is an important element in roadway planning, design and
operation. Access points are a major source of accidents. Their location and spacing
affects the safety and functional integrity of the roadway. Too many closely spaced
driveways increase the accident potential, not only for the roadway but also for any
sidewalks in the area.
Research has shown that accident rates generally increase with both the frequency of
access and the average daily traffic; however, the greatest increases resulted from
increasing the number of access points per mile.
Staff finds that this criterion is not met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access
to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated
public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and
maintenance.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 12 of 13
P27
Staff Finding
The proposed development will not require any trail easements. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted
specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
Staff Finding
The Applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks along the property but there are no
specific trails or paths that are required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
Staff Finding
There are no internal streets proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or
for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding
There are no gates or guard posts proposed as part of this PUD. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications)
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create
an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts
of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan
is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan.
Staff Finding
No phasing is proposed as part of this development. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
Exhibit A — PUD Review Criteria
Page 13 of 13
P28
EXHIBIT B
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
A. General Requirements.
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe the development is consistent with the AACP. While a number of
general elements related to the location of development are met, the project does not meet
some of the AACP's overarching goals. Specifically, staff is concerned about the proposal to
relocate some of the affordable housing to the ABC. The 2000 AACP states that
"development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged"
and notes that "when employees have the ability live near where they work, their reliance on
the automobile lessons and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's
social fabric." The approved project places all of the housing on -site, while the new proposal
moves many of the units outside City limits. Staff does not find that this meets the intent of
the AACP.
In addition, the proposed site plan, curb cuts, and landscaping do not promote the kind of
pedestrian feel that is called for in the land use code or the AACP. Staff believes that a
number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan are met, but that the Applicant does
not go far enough in meeting some elements of the AACP.
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
Staff Finding
The neighborhood consists of a variety of multi - family residential development and some
lodging. The proposal is for multi - family residential development with a mix of free - market
units and affordable- housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Finding
Staff has serious concerns related to the number of curb cuts and the curvilinear nature of the
street being proposed on parcels. The proposal, particularly parcels 2 and 3,does not relate
well to the traditional townsite grid, nor the approved Lift 1 Lodge. That project is well
related to the traditional street grid, and staff believes that pattern should be carried through
the rest of the area. While the area is relatively built -out, staff is concerned that an approval
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 1 of 3
•
P29
which increases setbacks and fails to relate to the street could negatively impact the future
streetscape set an inappropriate precedent. Staff finds this criterion is not met.
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding
At this point in the review, staff does not believe the application is in compliance with all of
the requirements of Title 26 (such as the Residential Design Standards). Staff finds this
criterion is not met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for
development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public
facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The sloped site contains no overly
steep topography and no extreme geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the
inhabitants of the proposed development. The engineering department is requiring additional
study with regard to any mudflow impacts and slope movement. In addition, Staff believes that
there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to
be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and /or the goals of
the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 2 of 3
P30
Staff Finding
The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to
Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.530, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new
dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Finding
The Applicant is providing the required multi - family replacement affordable housing units as
required by the Land Use Code in effect in 2000. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set
forth at Chapter 26.630.
Staff Finding
The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to
Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash -in -lieu of providing
land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be
met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
(Ord. No. 44 -2001, § 2)
Staff Finding
The proposed project is has already been entitled and the amendment proposed requires less
allotments than what was originally granted. Staff finds this criterion met.
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 3 of 3
P31
EXHIBIT C
Section 26.470.070 (J), Affordable Housing Growth Management Quota System Exemption
Section 26.470.070 (J), Affordable Housing, of the regulations provides that, "All
affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City
Council and its housing designee shall be exempt [from the GMQS scoring and competition
procedures]." Review is by City Council. The section goes on to state that:
The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a
determination of the city's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's
compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their
location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of
bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed
development, and the proposed price categories which the dwelling units are to be deed
restricted.
Staff Finding
The 2003 approval found the addition of 17 on -site affordable housing units met both the city's
needs for affordable housing and, at the time, APCHA found that the proposal met their
guidelines. These seventeen units were deed restricted at a mix of Category 1, 2 and 3 and
permitted to be rental units.
The current proposal requests to develop 18 affordable housing units, with 8 of the units located
at the Airport Business Center. Categories of all of the units are proposed to not exceed an
average of Category 3. APCHA has requested that all units be no higher than Category 3;
however, all of the on -site units are smaller than the minimum net livable area required for
Category 3 and 4, rather the on -site units meet Category 1 and 2 size standards. All of the units
are proposed to be for sale rather than rental unit. Additionally a cash - payment in -lieu is
proposed.
In determining the need for and type of affordable housing preferred, the current APCHA
guidelines have a number of policy statements with regard to preferred mitigation options with
the development of deed restricted housing that include:
• The board has prioritized the following mitigation options in order of preference: 1) on-
site housing — where affordable housing used for mitigation purposes with regard to the
construction or redevelopment of a site be either next to or attached to the development,
2) off -site housing, and 3) cash -in -lieu.
Exhibit C - GMQS for Affordable Housing Review Criteria
Page 1 of 2
P32
• With regard to the types of units to construct, APCHA's priorities for the private sector
are: For -sale units with an average sales price no higher than Category 3, consisting of
one and two bedroom units; as well as Category 3 and 4, for sale, 3 bedroom units.
Today's affordable housing standards provide more specificity with regard to the development of
affordable housing, both in form and location. With regard to form the units need to meet the
ACHA guidelines, be designed so that 50% of the finished floor of each unit is above grade, and
be deed restricted as for sale units.
There is little guidance in the 2000 code with regard to permitting affordable housing units
outside of city limits or for providing a cash - payment in lieu of housing; however, the current
code in effect does provide additional guidance in the form of two growth management reviews:
Provision of required affordable housing units outside city limits and Provision of required
affordable housing via a cash -in -lieu payment.
For off -site housing the standards include ensuring that the housing is within the Urban Growth
Boundary, the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units and the off -site units have all
necessary approvals. With regard to accepting a cash -in -lieu consideration as to whether
providing housing on —site is impractical, that a good faith effort to construct off -site was made
and that the proposal furthers APCHA's priorities with units.
APCHA's listed priority for private sector development is to provide on -site housing, something
the existing entitlement provides and the proposed entitlement reduces. Staff does not find this
criterion met.
Exhibit C - GMQS for Affordable Housing Review Criteria
Page 2 of 2
P33
EXHIBIT D
Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi- Family Replacement Program
Section 26.530.050, Housing replacement requirements
A. Minimum Replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi-
family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of
no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or
converted. The replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty
(50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A
minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The
replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the
requirements of section 26.530.060, below.
Staff Finding
Both the existing approval and the new proposal exceed the minimum mitigation required in the
2000 Land Use Code by providing more affordable housing than the required 12 bedrooms,
3,861 sq. ft. of net livable area (total) and 1,930 sq. ft. of above grade net livable area. Staff
finds this criterion from the 2000 code to be met.
Since 2000, the Demolition or Replacement of Multi - Family Housing standard has been
amended, allowing multiple options to meet the mitigation requirements. Under today's code the
on -site affordable housing would not mitigate the proposed free market residential; however, the
combined on -site and off -site affordable housing proposal meets the current Demolition or
Replacement of Multi - Family Housing standard by providing 100% replacement of bedrooms,
dwelling units and net livable square footage of the former Mine Dumps Apartments.
B. Location of replacement housing. Multi- family replacement units shall be developed
on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that
replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans
or would be an inappropriate planning solution due o the site's physical constraints. When
either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of
units on -site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may
replace the remaining units of -site, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the
owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be
provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount of a cash -in -lieu shall be
computed using the formula set fourth at Section 26.620.020.
Staff Finding
The 2000 code required multi - family replacement units to be located on -site. The 2003 approval
provides all of the required replacement multi - family units on site in addition to the extra
affordable housing units on site. The current proposal of on -site affordable housing meets the
minimum multi - family replacement requirements. Staff finds this criterion from the 2000 code
to be met.
Exhibit D — Multi - Family Replacement Review Criteria
Page 1 of 2
P34
C. Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for
occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement
units are built on -site or off -site, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities requires by
the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built off -
site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off -site
development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving
redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place.
Staff Finding
As outlined in the 2003 approvals for the townhome development and included in the draft
resolution, no Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) shall be issued for the free - market component of
, the project unless C.O.s are issued for all of the affordable housing units both on -site and off -
site. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Section 26.530.060, Rental and resale restrictions
Replacement units shall be deed restricted in a form and substance acceptable to the City
Council. Such deed restricted units may only be rented or sold to tenants or buyers who
meet the city's qualifications in effect at the time of sale or rental, and at sale process or
rental which are also in compliance with the city's current regulations. The owner shall be
entitled to select tenants or purchasers subject to the aforementioned qualifications. The
mix of affordable housing units, as between category affordable housing and resident
occupied, may be determined by the owner, provided that no less than twenty (20) percent
of the bedrooms qualify as category 1 and 2 and no more than twenty (20) percent of the
units are available as resident occupied units.
Staff Finding
In 2003, the approved PUD permitted all of the affordable housing units to be rental units and are
required to have a deed restriction on the units meeting APCHA guidelines. Today, the Applicant is
proposing that the units be for -sale units meeting APCHA guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
Exhibit D — Multi - Family Replacement Review Criteria
Page 2 of 2