HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20120131 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, January 31, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. AACP "gap issues" Code Amendments
VI.. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 3
1. Facilitate a process for non - profits to move on from 18. Story Poll's when installed should be photographed
Aspen with some certainty for expectations (by the by staff in case removed later — Aspen Walk - Mike
community and the non - profit) of the transition —
Bert Wampler
19. APCHA 3/1 — Change building code to require AM
2. Exterior stairways — Jasmine
energy efficiency units and energy star appliances —
3. Roof top elevator structures — Cliff
4. Sub grade calculation and # of levels — Cliff Bert
5. Solar orientation for new PUD's (Sanitation District 20. Statage 3 use of T 8 otafmemo:
Staff believes
housing) - Bert increasing thhe e units beyonnd d 2,000 sq /ft
6. Concern that hedges of 42 inches may NLA to 2,500 sf NLA with the use of TDRs is
with time — Cliff Y mow taller acceptable and is consistent with city policies and the
7. Dimensional limits on height that make buildings current code. However, staff does not believe
g increasing the unit size beyond this is appropriate.
appear an entire story taller, avoid height creep — Staff believes this could negatively impact the TDR
Cliff
8. Progressive sale on R -30 with no cap for house size Program. Review the effects of the 2,000 sq /ft limit
within city limits — Cliff since the 2006 prohibition — has it become a
9. Stream margin review and green line review criteria negotiating point for developers? A similar request
( criteria needs imvremnt) — asmine was denied by P &Z on an Aspen Alps unit. — Bert
10. Fix code to address buildings that failed in some way 21. w 8 a t t i Stage 3 e ss for 1f r thi p being eing sp cash in lieu —
e.g. Jerome Professional (required vested rights to be `e to process er spent versus
extended to a point where codes will likely have returned to the developer eventually? - Bert
Y 22. Stage 3 parking applicant pg 8 — Parking calculations
changed), Cooper St Pier (involved in a legal battle don't provide a logical end result: The subject site is
w/ City), Wienerstube (involved in a legal battle with
the t
d
city), Stage III (financially required too much $ to 26.104.100 Within of the Cod Aspen i Cod A C o, o s e defined Seo
max out under code), Dancing Bear (too tall and it 1 .030 the Code e. provides that t Section
n
grew taller), Chart House (financially required too component f the projec t m t must provide o c ne ommercial
c
much $ to max out under code), Building proposed in reef p arkin g g space 1,000 o f 1 e off
at
the Clark's Market Parking Lot (met all codes, yet leas p (up to for every hick ya pro d net
Y
would have put Clark's Market out of business, yet through area a men t- 100% of in- lieu). The p he ph e cy be provided
haven't fixed code since) —Bert roject includes
we h
11. we 26.470.100 1 the co = 400 s/f net livable (see pg 5 approximately 9,988 square feet of net leasable area
of 11/16/10 staff packet 632 E Hopkins). Is 500 s/f (NLA), v which residences 9.98 off-street parking spaces.
more realistic and should the code reflect 500 sf7 — The five (e r t in as qualify as multi-family
Be development with in a mixed -use building pursuant
12. Be extension of vested rights for GM QS a to Section 26.104.100 of the Code, and they are in the
11/16/10 632 E Hopkins — Bert Q approvals C -1 zone district; therefore, pursuant to Section
13. Buy down not less than 950 s/f and this qualifies as 26.515.030 of the Code, there is no parking required
housing for not less s hly ?S t like q al f are for the residential dwelling units. As a result, the total
ho us g counting r 2.2 — 2 bedroom should Wes m = 2 em to off - street parking requirement for the project would
not 2.26. — Bert p Y be ten (10) spaces, but since the existing deficit is
14. Residential downtown no parking requirement for allowed to be carried forward, the actual requirement
penthouse 11/16/10 632 E Hopkins can't be zero — is for sa six de off-street itee(16) spaces.
parking
The new
Jasmine proposal includes sixteen (16) off - street parking
15. Standardize greenway sidewalks 1/16/10 632E spaces (thirteen in the garage and three on the alley
Hopkins — Non greenway street sidewalks ACRA, side of the street level), or ten more than the
Obermeyer are frequently covered in snow in winter. code is not aligned ed with reality of only 6 indicates the
— Bert g reality. — Bert
16. Get a list from assessor of all tax exam t properties 23. Changes to the code to address neighboring impact of
p p p lot line to lot line construction — eg. Noise from
and zone them as non -profit
17. Consider a recapture property tax for conversion of garage fans, or highly efficient furnaces, AC or
lighting — Bert
tax exempt or agriculture to higher use as occurs
elsewhere in the country. — Jim 24. Elevator towers back while street facing entry to the
front is challenging — Aspen Walk — Is there elevator
Page 1 technology or design that could address this? — Bert
Barr , i`x Pits
25. Parking at AH needs discussion — Cliff 38.9/8/11 Dancing Bear PUD Amendment — 3 floor
deck screening grew much taller than anticipated in
26. May 19. 2011 frustrating that HPC would make a � becausse of the rooftop access.
decision about parking — it should be P &Z purview — 39 part the o rooftop a amenity
518 1 o,l01 i Consider calculations for what is essentially proposed as a
non conforming uses. 2 177 /2/2 1
27. May — Bert scrape and replace because they appeared to reduce
u 2 9 S. . Third hir ert perpetuating the 25% requirement down to 10 % for this
28. Project Monitors assigned by P &Z as currently the development 5 rqu based t credits for what this
is existing ccurs
Spring Street t HPC? Commercial building. Stan See remodel / demolition of even though it will be entirely scraped and replaced.
prin Street o & Bert
29. 13 employees required per the code for Lift One 40. 69 Shady Lane 13,000 square foot house on the river
too.... much, close, etc. — Cliff
pass under current code the applicant though that would 41. South Aspen PUD — concerned about the 50%
not p community muster so the y are offering
100% AH. The AH requirement of only 13 indicates replacement in our code — Mine Dump Apartments. —
the code is not aligned with reality. — Bert
Stan
30. 7/5/11 The tree regulations are improperly drafted or 42. Extensions of vested rights should require current
improperly enforced. Either we should preserve trees ende
xt
code because
t here h been too much good b b enefit of has
ed leanin
I
or not, because whenever tree removal comes up, the rights an ghts applicant ant wants
accept the new f x — e v s
result is removal of the trees. — Jasmine
31.7/5/11 The timeshare regulations are improperly 43. South Aspen PUD — wanted a hotel — zone to prohibit
drafted or improperly enforced . Timeshare non -hotel use in the area. Single family was already
regulations should get tourists in beds. — Jasmine removed as a use from this zone so expand on that.
32. 7/19/11 We should prevent outcomes like the one at CC zone ne no pr hibfs residential on ground floor so
Spring and Hopkins when a renovation results in it
different development than what was approved. The 44. Zone e post office o pro and
uses servi
by r that n- fit
example here is the sunken first floor. Is it possible,
in a resolution to put in elements of conditions, that if with the
n
e long forth goals of the
er community
Ranch align
you told us you can't do this because of A, and A ex p e e t Bert
did hold, so they changed something, then a
developer is obligated to return to P &Z.
33. 7/19/11 — Lift 1 — Height measurement for Lift 1 was
calculated differently than code. Was this
successful? Should the code change to match this?
34. 7/19/11 Lift 1 — resolution section 8 defined
measurements for height and FAR. Chris suggested
this language might be appropriate for a code
amendment for lodging an d commercial but not
residential. — Chris Bendon
35. 8/2/11 Ongoing tracking of AH rental units that have
mandatory occupancy. Housing commitments are
made by owners and developers. In the past the
housing office has had a licensed real estate broker
on staff — we need a process. - Jasmine
36. 8/2/11 Aspen Walk - no one on council could
approve it as presented after P &Z. I think we should
work on aligning P &Z approvals (or the code) closer
to the expectations of the elected officials (who in
theory, represent the community). — Bert
37. 8/9/11 all development must go through public notice
/ approval. It is very confusing to the public because
on historic homes neighbors will receive lots of
opportunity to comment while a non - historic home
can go through staff approval with absolutely no
notice to the neighbors. — Stan
Page 2 ,
r (4 P CPO 03t/1•
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bert Myrin
RE: Reconsidering South Aspen St PUD
DATE: January 31, 2012
After my appointment to P &Z by the Klanderud administration and then later by the Ireland administration I
recall many times wondering what the other commissioners were thinking but the South Aspen St PUD is the
first time I felt that question rose to the level of asking for someone who voted "Yes" to make a motion to
reconsider.
My assumption is that Staff bases their recommendations on the Land Use Code. The recommendations
couldn't be clearer per the summary on pg 1 of the Staff Memo: "Staff recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission require the Applicant to substantially revise the plans prior to continuing to City
Council." Pg 2 continues "... staff is not su. . ortive of the current Ilan to move densi from this site to the
Airo Business center..." "Staff recommends the Applicant consider adding density back on to the site,
ss ecifically more affordable housin . Being located in town removes one's dependence on the automobile
by providing a pedestrian environment to get to work, recreation and commercial opportunities. The original
density approved for the property encourages a more lights on neighborhood."
The current (though current is not what this application is being review under APCHA guidelines state: "The
board has prioritized the following mitigation in order of preference: 1) on -sit a 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) of -site housing, and 3) cash in- lieu." see 1/24 staff memo Pg 7
Regarding the code applicable to this review: "There is little guidance in the 2000 code with regard to
permitting affordable housing units outside of the city limits..." see 1/24 staff memo pg 7
Regarding PUD Review 2 6.446.050(A)(1): "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." see 1/24 staff memo pg 15
Regarding Subdivision Review 2 6.480.050(A)(a) See quote directly above as staff rational duplicated on pg
28 of the memo
Regarding Affordable Housing Growth Management Quota System Exemption 26.470.070(J) see 3
paragraph above as staff rational duplicated in the 1/24 staff memo pg 31
1
So what next? According to the applicant "if the proposed development is not approved, the applicant will
be forced to immediately begin the process of obtaining building permits for the development of the 14 free -
market and 17 AH units that are vested until March 1 2013." See pg 2 of the Applicants packet
According to the minutes of the 1/24 P &Z meeting: "Cliff Weiss said... from the 2'/z years that he has been
dealing with this area and was always concerned it would be a private enclave." "Cliff said that he would
like to see a better design for the units on site and he would like to see more of them; the community got a
good deal; otherwise build a hotel please."
Also, according to the minutes of the 1/24 P &Z meeting: Stan said that he thought that he could support the
project and he agreed with Cliff on it should be a hotel; that is what reallv belongs here."
Additionally, according to the minutes of the 1/24 P &Z meeting: "Jasmine said that she wanted to make it
clear that her rejection was based upon the amended project does not conform to the underlying lodge zoning
in terms of reduction of density that s contrary to public policy and the amended plan does not adhere to the
criteria for PUD; those criteria being specifically b and d."
Finally, according to the minutes of the 1/24 P &Z meeting: "Cliff said he still wants a hotel."
My understanding is that this will move to City Council regardless of approval or denial by P &Z. I agree
with the Staff interpretation of multiple provisions of the code that encourage housing on -site. The original
South Aspen St PUD was established by Ordinance in July 2003, well before the BMC parcel was purchased
for housing and well before Burlingame. There was no guidance in the code at the time for housing outside
the city limits and in fact the guidance was just the opposite, for housing in the traditional town site.
I urge one of the three commissioners that voted "ves" to propose a motion to reconsider. If the
development is unable to secure financing under the exact 2003 approvals and is not started by the March 1,
2013 end of vested rights, then any wisdom learned, such as rezoning this area for lodging, can be applied to
future applicants who will be subject to the then current zoning. If you want a hotel, zone it like you mean it
and stop giving those that have proposals they may not be able to finance ongoing extensions of vested rights
(3 years every time a new approval is made) and stop giving those that have proposals a bit more "cash" to
fund their development by either lowering their cost of development (with offsite housing) or increasing the
sales value of the free market property (again with offsite housing).
Affordable Housing in the traditional town site is in the 2003 approvals. Please don't encourage that housing
to leave the traditional town site as it is more and more challenging to replace housing for locals within the
traditional town site.
Thank you. - Bert
2
Y _ i , 13 (IOd \IOfl S
O • USN'
__.. j ' ? z '• i �t� ? s E i , i �� C .
:
1.1 r n - i i d n� 1 I �
di e - 133/1 LS NBJStl 1111105 OS 1 1 ' 1 = -
O
1r a
s e 1 ' .
Y C.
^ jI E' x 0 -
S
en �C . A k : a: S
In '� s� ®1 3
J
r �.
C 7 4 ti c
' § ;3
if 'I,'
HI
: : g2
e !'
C
1 ' La: ,r■ I
AVIIMAI O 79i
/ Mgr
IMO trt
!c
CR fl rl. I —'1
I ' 1r '/ I e 1 1 MS
• � � 3 . . , `
k
t3
:; _ - 1333118 !Mr
I a� �� Ile mss—
' illaSI1n 1
)
a
Lill s
ij
IF Lama"
MI il
MOW 8riaAv men
i
1111111111111111111111► ►1111 ►1111111 ►►► ►►1►
F— 8 °
Z 00
W
• . P p a a;
= Iii
W a
g o„
a w
' a
1 o J
1 w � ac • 'i 2 h 1 1. y� 1 6 2 a o e5 zg ' 1 11 11
41 mil Nb V� . - G � 0 � € 9 g Be i p3 p A 1 ill E� yE i g p
>
\ _ ■ 9 9 9 i n i 1i Y ;hi g[ g i >
e & t!1 C\ E j € 1 ai @I r a
la z
k 0 7 ( � \ � 0 I
'a' 0 VI 1 pm
S S E a
d gg gy 4, Sg
,t j ®1 , 1 1 \ r H b n u 8 a g 36 !g 3 i
I j ° ' 1 A� , LL___
Eq
iii
NI t
"77 —a - --- h -- ; -
I -
464444(
I
S w - A
r r fl - r� � it sa
ioO
Ili Rt.
Fe!
�A A 3 \ :- x w ` - I•
y. '77 A t ? i a _ a c x . A =' 22.21, s alai
g
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, Continued Public Hearing
Resolution ,3 , Series 2012
MEETING DATE: January 31, 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.
The Planning & Zoning Commission provided feedback on the proposed code amendments to
the AACP Review Criteria on January 17, 2012. The public hearing for the code amendments
was continued to January 31, 2012. The staff memo and resolution have been updated to reflect
the discussion.
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 existing 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
Page 1 of
P2
referenced in the 2000 AACP, and staff believes it is a step that should be part of the regular land
use process.
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.
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. This information was also included in the
January 17 packet as Exhibit M.
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.
The AACP review criteria was not the focus of staff's review. 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.
BidwelUMountain 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 fit 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.
Page 2 of
P3
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.
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. Fier 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
Page 3 of ay
P4
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.
CODE AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES:
Th'e following is the review procedure for amendments to the land use code:
• Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, City Council is the final review authority
following a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission for all code
amendments.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Each proposed code amendment is outlined below. The amendments have been limited to
strictly address maintaining the existing authority the P &Z, HPC, and City Council currently
have when reviewing development proposals. The full text of the existing code sections, as well
as the proposed redlines, is attached in Exhibits B - K.
The proposed amendments do not address other substantive changes that are called for in the
2011 AACP — a separate P &Z meeting has been scheduled for Feb 7, 2012 to prioritize those
potential code amendments, which will be included in Council's March work session packet.
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)
The court in the Weinerstube case found that these AACP citations could be used to require
public outreach beyond typical noticing requirements.
Staff has added a section to the Common Development Review Procedures, section 26.304, to
require major projects to conduct a form of enhanced neighborhood outreach. P &Z requested
some language changes which have been incorporated:
• All projects that include variances to the height, mass, scale, or setbacks beyond that
allowed in underlying zoning, and any project that is subject to a COWOP, PUD, or
Page 4 of
P5
Rezoning review are required to conduct neighborhood outreach. There is the ability for
staff to require a project deemed to require a significant impact, but which does not meet
the above criteria, to conduct public outreach. In addition, there is the ability for staff to
. exempt a project if it is deemed to be minor in scope. (See Section B, Applicability)
• The ability for staff to highlight specific issues, like transportation or massing, which
should be addressed as part of the neighborhood outreach. (See Section C, Appropriate
forms of public outreach)
• Noticing requirements have been added to the applicable forms of neighborhood
outreach. (See Section C.1 -3, forms of public outreach)
In addition, staff has changes any reference to "public outreach" to "neighborhood outreach" to
be consistent with the intent of the new requirement.
Exhibit B includes the proposed new section.
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND ZONE DISTRICT MAP - EXHIBIT C
The current code requires code changes or rezoning proposals to meet nine review criteria in
section 26.310, including the need to be consistent with the AACP. Staff proposed 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. P &Z requested staff examine
the language with the City Attorney to determine if the AACP vision and philosophy could be
referenced. While the language can reference the AACP, it would be, in Planning and Attorney
staffs' opinion, an ineffective reference. The P &Z's language has been added to the Resolution.
Staff recommends the language remain as originally suggested.
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.
Based on P &Z feedback, staff has separated the review criteria for rezoning and code
amendments. They are two different processes that should gave different review criteria tailored
to their unique focuses.
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. Staff's experience is that the
AACP is not a useful tool in the variance review process. P &Z did not have any changes to the
language.
Page 5 of di/
P6
Exhibit D includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
CONDITIONAL USES - EXHIBIT E
Land Use Code section 26.425 includes six criteria to review applications for Conditional Uses,
including one requiring consistency with the AACP. Staff proposes amending this criterion to
state: "The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title." When
reviewing uses that are appropriate or inappropriate for a specific location, the intent of the zone
district, as well as the compatibility of the use with the immediate area (currently a review
criteria) inform the review process in a much 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.
P &Z requested an additional change to Criterion B to state: "The conditional use is consistent
and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
1 development and surrounding land uses er-and enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and
activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and"
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,
which does not exist. 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.
Based on P &Z direction, staff proposes to change the language to refer to any adopted regulatory
plans of the Open Space and Trails Board.
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, which
does not exist. 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.
Based on P &Z direction, staff proposes to change the language to refer to any adopted regulatory
plans of the Open Space and Trails Board.
Page 6 ofd?
P7
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.
P &Z suggested some changes to the language staff had proposed. The changes are incorporated
into the Resolution. Review criterion 1 is changed to eliminate a reference to enhancing the mix
of development in the area. Criterion 5 is hanged to state: "Whether the proposed development
emphasizes quality construction and design in relation to exterior materials, weathering, snow
shedding and storage, and energy efficiency." This change strengthens the existing SPA review
criteria and reflects how the AACP has been used to review SPAs.
Exhibit G includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) — EXHIBIT H
PUDs provide flexibility in the planning process and encourage flexibility and innovation in
development. They allow changes to the underlying dimensional requirements if they will result
in greater compatibility with the surrounding land uses and development. The PUD criteria are
very detailed, and cover topics ranging from architectural design to transportation to site access.
The existing criteria are quite comprehensive, and allow flexibility and discretion in P &Zs and
Council's review. The full review criteria are attached in Exhibit H - some specific sections that
address compatibility the neighborhood include Sections 26.445.050 B.1, B.2, C.1, C.2, and E.I.
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 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.
Changes based on P &Z direction have been included to reference adopted master plans.
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 considerations are
included in all PUDs. P &Z requested additional detail for the review criteria. The new criteria
states: "Emphasize quality construction and design in relation to exterior materials, weathering,
snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency."
Page 7 of
P8
Exhibit H includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - EXHIBIT I
Any project that creates new net livable or net leasable space is required to go through the
Growth Management Quota System. There is one criterion requiring consistency with the
AACP. In staff's experience, the AACP has not an effective tool in the GMQS review process.
Staff suggests amending that criterion to reflect the fact that the GMQS review is mostly
concerned with uses (what goes on inside the building), not mass and scale (what the building
looks like). P &Z's suggested changes are also incorporated: "The proposed development is
compatible with 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 the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms
of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space."
In addition, one criterion allows changes to Engineering standards if the proposed engineering
design is compatible with the AACP. Staff proposed eliminating the language. The section has
been edited to reflect P &Z's comments. In addition, Engineering staff recommended adding a
reference to the Municipal code, which has been included in the Resolution.
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 criterion 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. Based on P &Z feedback, the language has been amended to require
compliance with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Exhibit K includes the full Review Criteria text as well as the proposed changes.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Staff requested input from the Parks and Engineering Departments, as certain criterion
referenced their plans and work program. Their comments were incorporated into the proposed
changes.
Page
P9
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the AACP gap code amendments, as outlined in Resolution No. 3 , Series
of 2012."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
EXHIBIT B —Neighborhood Outreach
EXHIBIT C Amendments to the Land Use Code and Zone District Map
EXHIBIT D — Variances
EXHIBIT E — Conditional Uses
EXHIBIT F— ESA — 8040 Greenline Review and Stream Margin Review
EXHIBIT G — Specially Planned Area (SPA)
EXHIBIT 11— Planned Unit Development (PUD)
EXHIBIT 1— Growth Management
EXHIBIT J— Subdivision
EXHIBIT K - Off - Street Parking
EXHIBIT L — P &Z Resolution 17, Series 2009, Code Amendment on Council Call -Ups (not
included in this packet — was part of the Jan 17 packet)
EXHIBIT M — Examples of how the AACP has been used, Clark's Market, Bidwell, and
Weinerstube (not included in this packet — was part of the Jan 17 packet)
EXHIBIT N — Public Comment on the proposed code changes (not included in this packet — was
part of the Jan 17 packet)
Page 9 of 9
P10
RESOLUTION No. 3
(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 AND
26.310.050 — 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 opened on January 10, 2012
and continued to January 17, 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,
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 1 of 14
P11
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, 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 fmds 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 removed is
red with-- strikeugh and looks like this. 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
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 2 of 14
•
P12
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.
5- 7.Neighborhood Outreach. The Community Development Department staff
member shall identify if 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 requires development applications to conduct neighborhood outreach.
The purpose of the outreach is to inform neighbors and interested members of the public
about the project. The applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the
public about the application prior to the first public hearing.
B. Applicability. Neighborhood outreach shall be required for any development proposal
that includes variances to the height, mass, scale, or setbacks beyond that allowed in
underlying zoning, and any project that is subject to a COWOP, PUD, or Rezoning
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 any development proposal that represents significant changes to
the mass and scale of the property.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 3of14
P13
C. Appropriate forms of public outreach. The applicant must choose to do one or more
of the following forms of neighborhood outreach. Community Development Department
staff may, as part of the pre - application conference, suggest certain forms of
neighborhood outreach that would be most appropriate for a development application. In
addition, Community Development Department staff may identify specific aspects of the
project or potential impacts of the project that should be addressed as part of the
neighborhood outreach.
1. Information meeting. The applicant must 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 must conduct a minimum level noticing,
pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is aware of the meeting.
Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.060.E.3.c may be
provided.
2. On -line meeting. The applicant must 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 must conduct a minimum level noticing, pursuant to Section
26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is aware of the on -line meeting. Additional
noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.060.E.3.c may be provided.
3. Enhanced Public Information. The applicant must 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 must conduct a minimum level noticing, pursuant to
Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is aware of a website, etc.
Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.060.E.3.c may be
provided.
4. Individual Outreach. The applicant must conduct individual or small group
meetings with neighbors of the project. The applicant shall be responsible for
4 organizing and attending the meetings. At the meetings, the applicant should
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 4 of 14
P14
provide a summary of the proposal, including basic use -type information, building
height, and renderings.
5. Any other form of neighborhood 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 neighborhood 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.
Section 3: 26.310.040 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District
Map, Standards of Review, shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.310.040.Standards of review for amendments to the land use code.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title : .. .. _ - - - . - - e
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 Ar a
Community Planpromotes the vision and philosophy of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities and whether and the extent to which thc proposed amendment would
exceed thc 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 thc extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
F. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 5 of 14
P15
1 C. 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.
Section 4: 26.310.050 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District
Map, Reserved, shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 26.310.050. Reserved Standards of review for amendments to the Official
Zone District Map.
In reviewing 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 compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
C. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
D. 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.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
F. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
G. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
H. 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.
Section 5: 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:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 6 of 14
P16
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and policies of the Aspcn Aroa 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 6: 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.
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 pueses, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspcn Arcp Community Plan, with the intent of the Zone District
in which it is proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable
requirements of this Title; and
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land
uses er -and 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
•
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 7 of 14
P17
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 - .. .. - - - • - • - • ' •
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 7: 26.435.030.C.11 — 8040 Greenline review standards, shall be amended as
1 follows:
11. The adopted regulatory plans _of the Aspen Ar a Community Plan:
Parks/Recreation /Trails Plan Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the
proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55- 2000, § 7)
Section 8: 26.435.040.C.2 — Stream Margin review standards, shall be amended as
follows:
2. The adopted regulatory plansrecommendations of the Aspen Ar a Community Plan:
Parks /Rccr ation/Opcn Spacc /Trails Plan Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring
Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a
recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access
within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded
"Fisherman's Easement;" and
Section 9: 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
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 8 of 14
P18
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.
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.
Comprehensive Plan.Whether the proposed development emphasizes quality
construction and design in relation to exterior materials, weathering, snow
shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive
public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood.
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.
8. 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
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 10: 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
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 9 of 14
P19
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 Area 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
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.
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 11: 26.445.020.A — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and
it minor PUD, General Requirements, shall be amended as follows:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be - . • - • , - • . • . - . . .. • -
Plancompatible with 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.
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 10 of 14
P20 •
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.
Section 12: 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
- . • - - • - . ' .. a specific arca
master plan, as applicable, to which the property is subject.
Section 13: 26.445.020.E — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and
minor PUD, Architectural character, shall be amended as follows:
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.
4. Emphasize quality construction and design in relation to exterior materials,
weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
Section 14: 26.445.020.I.4 — PUD, Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated
and minor PUD, Access and circulation, shall be amended as follows:
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Arc Community Plan and adopted specific
master plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso # of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 11 of 14
P21
paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate
manner.
Section 15: 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:
1. The goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
21. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period.
2. 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 16: 26.480.050, Subdivision, Review standards, shall be amended as follows:
2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan
compatible with land uses in the surrounding area. •
Section 17: 26.470.050.B.2, GMQS, General requirements, General requirements, shall .
be amended as follows:
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 12of14
P22
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 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. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an adopted
specific master plan, Title 28, the municipal code, the Aspcn Arca Comprehensive
Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the
community.
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 (See,
Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an adopted
specific master plan, Title 28, and/or the existing, neighboring development areas
and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements
Planning & Zoning Commission Reso #_ of 2012
AACP gap Code Amendments
Page 13of14
P23
of Chapter 26.520, 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.
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 18: 26.515.040.B.1, 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:
1. The location, design and operating characteristics of the facility are consistent
with the Aspen Arca Community Plan an adopted regulatory master plan, as
applicable.
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 14 of 14
1
P24
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.
StafFinding: 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.
P25
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
Staff FindinE: The proposed amendments are intended to better reflect the concepts in the
AACP, which include direction that development should be consistent and compatible with the
community. When reviewing a development proposal, the AACP is used to evaluate the mass,
scale, and compatibility of a new building. Instead of referencing the AACP, the proposed
amendments create more specific review criteria, including changes that more specifically
require development to be compatible with the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding: The updated AACP is being adopted as a guiding document, requiring all
references to the AACP in Review Criteria to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Finding: The updated AACP is being adopted as a guiding document, requiring all
references to the AACP in Review Criteria to be removed. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P26
Chapter 26.304
COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
Sections:
Sec. 26.304.010 General
Sec. 26.304.020 Pre - application conference
Sec. 26.304.030 Application and fees
Sec. 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach
Sec. 26.304.040 Initiation of application for development order
Sec. 26.304.050 Determination of completeness and review by the Community Development
Director
Sec. 26.304.060 Review of a development application by decision - making bodies
Sec. 26.304.070 Development orders
Sec. 26.304.075 Building permit
Sec. 26.304.020. Pre - application conference.
A. General. Prior to the formal filing of a development application, unless waived by the
Community Development Director, the applicant shall confer with a member of the staff of the
Community Development Department to obtain information and guidance regarding the format
and processing of the development application. The purpose of such a conference is to permit
the applicant and the Community Development Department staff to review informally a
proposed development and determine the most efficient method of development review before
substantial commitments of time and money are made in the submission of an application. The
Community Development Director may decide as part of the pre - application process to hold pre -
application work sessions with decision - making bodies if it is determined that such work
sessions would provide the Community Development Department or the applicant with
additional information or guidance necessary to the preparation or processing of an application
for development.
B. Issues of discussion. •Issues that may be discussed at the pre - application conference may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Proposed development. The applicant should describe the general nature of the proposed
development including, if applicable, proposed land uses and their densities; proposed
placement of buildings, structures and other improvements; character and location of
common open space or treatment of public uses; preservation of natural features;
preservation of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; protection of environmentally sensitive areas; proposed off- street parking and
internal traffic circulation and total ground coverage of paved areas and structures.
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
P27
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 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 requires development applications to conduct neighborhood outreach. The purpose of
the outreach is to inform neighbors and interested members of the public about the project. The
applicant must show a concerted effort inform neighbors and the public about the application
prior to the first public hearing.
B. Applicability. Neighborhood outreach shall be required for any development proposal that
includes variances to the height, mass, scale, or setbacks beyond that allowed in underlying
zoning, and any project that is subject to a COWOP, PUD, or Rezoning 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 any
development proposal that represents significant changes to the mass and scale of the property.
Page 2 of 5
P28
C. Appropriate forms of public outreach. The applicant must choose to do one or more of the
following forms of neighborhood outreach. Community Development Department staff may, as
part of the pre - application conference, suggest certain forms of neighborhood outreach that
would be most appropriate for a development application. In addition, Community Development
Department staff may identify specific aspects of the project or potential impacts of the project
that should be addressed as part of the neighborhood outreach.
1. Information meeting. The applicant must 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 must conduct a
minimum level noticing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is
aware of the meeting. Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section
26.304.060.E.3.c may be provided.
2. On -line meeting. The applicant must 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 must conduct a minimum level
noticing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is aware of the on-
line meeting. Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.060.E.3.c may
be provided.
3. Enhanced Public Information. The applicant must 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 must conduct a minimum
level noticing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3.c, to ensure the public is aware of a
website, etc. Additional noticing beyond that called for in Section 26.304.060.E.3.c may
be provided.
4. Individual Outreach. The applicant must 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.
Page 3 of 5
•
P29
5. Any other form of neighborhood 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 neighborhood 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.
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
Page 4 of 5
P30
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.
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
9
P31
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 for amendments to the land use code.
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 Amp
Community Planpromotes the vision and philosophy of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
&C. 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.
Sec. 26.310.050. Standards of review for amendments to the Official Zone District Map.
In reviewing 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. Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at:
0.ss°
AB. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land
uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
&C. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
GD. 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.
Page 1 of 2
P32
&E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
&F. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City.
F.G. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
G=H. 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.
See: 26.310.050. Reserved
Page 2 of 2
P33
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 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
P34
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
L P35
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 : - - : : - , : : : , - • - : - : : - _ :: : -
•
' : -, - - 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 er—and 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
I integrity of the City's Zone Districts and to ensure the conditional use complies with the - purposes
of the Aspcn 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
Page 1 of 2
P36
to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating characteristics, hours of operation
and duration of the conditional use.
•
•
Page 2 of 2
—� - P37
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 &termination 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
P38
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 regulatory plansrecommendations of the Aspen Arca Community Plan:
Parks/Rccrcation/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 regulatory plansrecommcndation^ of the Aspen Arca Community Plan:
' - - - - ! : - - Y : - 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
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 P
construction. Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside
of the designated building envelope; and
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration
or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; and
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100 -year flood plain; and
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside
of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100 -year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork
River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community
Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and
method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A "; and
u _cteu
' prgHry41
hllySt lI
!s.c , I I.I. .,II.■I
ti
I
T, P f 1:3= fw I
Slpra + —
#— z AP
~ i��fz
• 11 1 Gell.rea
Fi gure 'A"
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
Page 3 of 4
P40
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
C P41
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.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development,
considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls,
avalanche dangers and flood hazards.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to
preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open
space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Arca
E an-.Whether the proposed development emphasizes quality construction
and design in relation to exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and
energy efficiency.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds
to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood.
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.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development.
Page 1 of 2
P42
The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and
suitability of the proposed development and its conformity to, the standards and procedures of
this Chapter and Section; provided, however, that in the review of the conceptual
development plan, consideration will be given only to the general concept for the
development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of
the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished.
B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the requirements of
the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from those requirements may be
allowed based on the standards of this Section. Variations may be allowed for the following
requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum
front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash
access area, internal floor area ratio, number of off - street parking spaces and uses and design
standards of Chapter 26.410 for streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall
be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan.
•
•
Page 2 of 2
1
1---\ P43
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
I development of the property may have the ability to further the adopted goals of the Aspen Arca
Community ommunity and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use
Page 1 of 7
P4 4
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 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
P45
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
P46
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspcn Arca Community Plan (AACP) or a specific master 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
P47
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.
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.
4. Emphasize quality construction and design in relation to exterior materials. weathering,
snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
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.
Page5of7
•
P48
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 mct:
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
Page 6 of 7
P49
the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for
appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Arca Community Plan and adopted specific master
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
1 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)
1
4
i
•
1
Page 7 of 7
P50
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:
1. The goals and objectives of the Aspen Area .
Page 1 of 3
P51
21. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period. .
2. 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 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
P 52
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
P53
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 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
P54
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for
the 'proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See,
Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an adopted
specific master plan, Title 28, the municipal code, • = • . - - ..
Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the
community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements
of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing 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.
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
Chapter 26315 P55
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)
P56
26.515.020. Characteristics of off - street parking spaces.
A. General. Each off - street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one
half (81/2) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high with a maximum slope of
twelve percent (12 %) in any one direction. Each parking space, except those provided for
detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street
or alley. Off - street parking provided for multi - family dwellings which do not share a common
parking area may be exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject to special
review pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the standards set forth at Section
26.515.040, Special review standards, below. Off - street parking must be paved with all weather
surfacing or be covered with gravel. For residential development, a grass ring or grass- paver-
type surface may be used. All parking shall be maintained in a usable condition at all times.
B. Location of off - street parking. Off - street parking shall be located on the same parcel as the
principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the lot occupied by the principal
use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary road, where one (1) exists
unless otherwise established according to this Chapter.
C. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off - street parking provided for
detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings are not required to have unobstructed access
to a street or alley, but shall not block access of emergency apparatus to the property or to
structures located on the property. This allows for "stacking" of vehicles where one (1) vehicle
is parked directly behind another.
D. State Highway 82 off - street parking. All parking required for uses fronting State Highway
82 shall, if an alley exists, be provided access off the alley and shall not enter from or exit onto
State Highway 82.
E. Restrictions on use of off - street parking areas. No off - street parking area shall be used for
the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, nor
shall any such activity adjacent to off - street parking spaces obstruct required access to off - street
parking areas. Parking spaces shall be used .for the parking of vehicles and shall not be used for
nonauto related uses such as storage units or trash containers. Parking spaces may only be used
as a commercial parking facility if approved for such use. See Subsection 26.515.010.E and the
definition of commercial parking facility, Section 26.104.100. Commercial parking facilities
shall require special review approval and may also require conditional use approval in some
Zone Districts.
F. Surface parking. Surface parking is prohibited or requires conditional use review as a
principal use of a lot or parcel in some Zone Districts. For surface parking of eight (8) or more
spaces, parking areas shall include one (1) tree with a planter area of twenty (20) square feet for
each four (4) parking spaces. Planter areas may be combined, but shall be proximate to the
parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission may waive or modify this requirement
on a per case basis. Parking within structures is exempt from this landscaping provision.
P57
G. Restrictions on drainage, grading and traffic impact. Off - street parking spaces shall be
graded to ensure drainage does not create any flooding or water quality problems and shall be
provided with entrances and exits so as to minimize traffic congestion and traffic hazards.
H. Restrictions on lighting. Lighting facilities for off - street parking spaces, if provided, shall
be arranged and shielded so that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent
residential dwellings nor interfere with driver vision. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the
outdoor lighting regulations, Section 26.575.150.
(Ord. No. 17 -2005, § 1)
Sec. 26.515.030. Required number of off - street parking spaces.
Off- street parking spaces shall be provided for each use according to the schedule, below.
Whenever the off - street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a planned unit
development final development plan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned
unit development. Whenever the parking requirement shall be established through a special
review, the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.040, Special review standards,
below, shall apply. Whenever the parking requirement may be provided via a payment -in -lieu
the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.050, Cash -in -lieu for mobility
enhancements, below, shall apply. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a
property is redeveloped.
Use Aspen Infill Area All Other Areas
Commercial One space per 1,000 net Three spaces per 1,000 net
leasable square feet of leasable square feet of
commercial space. 100% commercial space.
may be provided through a
payment in lieu.
Residential — Lesser of one space per Lesser of one space per
Single - Family and Duplex bedroom or two spaces per bedroom or two spaces per
unit. Fewer spaces may be unit.
approved, pursuant to Chapter
26.430, Special review and
according to the review
criteria of Section 26.515.040.
Residential — One space per unit. Fewer One space per unit. Fewer
Accessory Dwelling Units spaces may be approved, spaces may be approved,
and Carriage Houses pursuant to Chapter 26.520, pursuant to Chapter 26.520,
Accessory dwelling units and Accessory dwelling units and
carriage houses. carriage houses.
Residential — One space per unit. Fewer Lesser of one space per
Multi - Family (as a single spaces may be approved, bedroom or two spaces per
use) pursuant to Chapter 26.430, unit.
Special review and according
to the review criteria of
Section 26.515.040.
NI
1
P58
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.
P59
If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community
Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
special review application.
A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be
approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation
of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands,
the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass
transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for
residents, guests and employees.
2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in
an undesirable development scenario.
3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the
development, including the availability of street parking.
B. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The location, design and operating characteristics of the facility are consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan an adopted regulatory master plan, as applicable.
2. The project has obtained growth management approvals or is concurrently being
considered for growth management approvals.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The proposed style of operation is appropriate (manned booth, key cards etc.).
6. The massing, scale and exterior aesthetics of the building or parking lot are compatible
with the immediate context in which it is proposed.
7. Where appropriate, commercial uses are incorporated into the exterior of the facility's
ground floor to mimic conventional development in that Zone District.
P60
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
P61
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)