HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20121218 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, December 18, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS—
A. Jewish Community Center, 435 W. Main Street, Growth
Management Review
B. Aspen Club Living, 1450 Crystal Lake Road, Commercial
Design.Amendment
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council
CC: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
FROM: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
DATE: Tuesday December 18, 2012
RE: Request City Council to pass a resolution "endorsing" P&Z top priority code
amendments (A-G in concept form below)to be initiated by P&Z.
SUMMARY: This spring the process to initiate a code amendment changed such that City Council now
must"endorse" amendments in a concept form initiated by the P&Z. In light of this process,the P&Z
met on February 7, 2012 to prioritize potential code amendments and identified 8 policy concepts as top
priorities (see attachment A). Subsequently, City Council worked with Staff on several of the 8 items
identified by P&Z in February. Info on the current status of this work is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/cc5crg9. The P&Z met on November 27, 2012 to continue to prioritize areas for code
amendments originally from the February meeting and also identified one additional area(item G
below)with a high priority for code amendments.
This memo is a request that City Council"endorse" the amendments below (A-G) in concept form
to enable the P&Z to take the next step of working on code amendments. Independently,and less
important, if the budget allows,this is also a request to budget for staff time to work alongside
P&Z on these amendments.
BACKGROUND: P&Z reviews applications throughout the year and it is with some frequency that
areas for improvement to the code are identified. The P&Z keeps an informal list of these areas and
periodically reviews this list(most recently on 11/27/12)to prioritize the good learning that comes from
many hours of applying the current code across multiple applications.
The next step in the process is to write this good learning into the code timely enough to provide future
applicants increased certainty and predictability in the zoning and land use process. It is this step that
the P&Z is asking City Council for help by passing a council resolution endorsing the concept of P&Z's
top priority amendments (included in sequence below) and—if possible - budget for staff to work
alongside P&Z on these amendments. The final language of all amendments will be approved in
Ordnance form by City Council.
If endorsed by City Council,the P&Z will begin working on one amendment at a time, starting with the
first one below and passing it along to City Council for final approval in an Ordinance. The goal is to
receive feedback from City Council on the process with one issue for code amendment at a time.
A. Explore Amendments to Vesting Extensions. The P&Z is concerned about the number of
recent requests to extend vested rights for projects that were approved more than 3 years ago.
The P&Z believes a significant amount of good learning goes into code modifications and that an
applicant should, in exchange for extending development rights, agree to accept the current code.
The P&Z is concerned that extensions will result in development that is not consistent with
current community goals, and we believe that projects should meet the current code at the time
of the request, rather than relying on old codes. The P&Z believes this creates confusion in the
community, and that exploring changes to the requirements could improve the certainty and
predictability in the land use code process.
B. Update Residential Zone Districts. The P&Z would like to see the gross built square footage
more closely reflect the residential FAR permitted. This would include reviewing the
exemptions of sub-basements in FAR, site coverage requirements, general mass and scale,
heights and landing of TDR's. This furthers the Policies outlined in the Residential section of the
AACP Growth Management chapter(Policies I11.1 —11L4).
C. Amend the Planned Unit Development(PUD) regulations. The P&Z would like to align the
PUD process to limit the parameters to the underlying zone district while allowing a flexible site
pattern. Aligning development expectations with the underlying zone district provides applicants
increased certainty and predictably in zoning and the land use process.
D. Explore Amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. The Land Use Code
requires that any multi-family unit that has ever housed a local working resident be replaced with
affordable housing when it is demolished. The code allows for a 50%or 100%replacement of
the number of units, bedrooms, and net livable space that is demolished. The P&Z would like to
examine possibility of requiring replacement at the 100% level.
E. Update Parking Requirements. The P&Z would like to see a consensus between what the code
requires and what an applicant typically negotiates for in land use approvals. This will provide
applicants more predictability in the zoning and land use process.
F. Update Stream Margin Review and 8040 Greenline Review. The Land Use Code requires a
heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, as well as for any
development within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. The P&Z is interested in updating these
regulations to ensure they are adequately protecting these environmentally sensitive areas. This
furthers Growth Management Policy 11.2, which calls for controlling the location and size of
homes to protect our natural environment, as well as Environmental Stewardship Policy I11.3,
which calls for preserving our riparian habitats.
G. Strengthen the Lodge Zone District. The P&Z would like to incentivize the development of
new lodging and reduce the loss of existing lodging. This furthers the Policies outlined in the
Lodging section of the AACP Growth Management Changer(Policies IV.1- IV.2)
Attachment A
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
CC: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: AACP Implementation,P&Z Priorities Recap
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on February 7, 2012 to discuss AACP implementation
priorities. Members in attendance included LJ, Stan, Cliff, Bert, and Keith. The group reviewed a
number of items, and settled on the following policy items as their top priorities. Staff has provided a
brief summary of the topics discussed. The priorities are listed below, in no particular order. Where
applicable,the priorities are listed with the AACP Policy they further.
An overarching theme of these priorities is to create certainty and predictability in the development
review process. Specifically, the P&Z believes the following priorities further Growth Management
Policy VII.1: "Restore public confidence in the development process," and Growth Management Policy
VII.2: "Create certainty in zoning and the land use process."
A. Examine and Amend the Downtown Codes. The P&Z is interested in a comprehensive
review of the allowable dimensional requirements (height, floor area, open space, lot coverage),
mitigation levels, and design standards. There is some concern by P&Z related to design
standards, and ensuring they are reflective of our historic character. They would like to examine
these standards, which relate to Growth management Policy V.3, calling for codes that result in
development that "reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale,
density and diversity of heights..." The P&Z believes this will improve the predictability of the
land use process, and will further Growth Management Policy I.6 which calls for lowering
building heights. In addition, the P&Z believes this furthers the protection of our small town
character, which is referenced in a number of philosophy statements and policies throughout the
AACP. The P&Z would also like to examine the current code language that enables a
redevelopment to carry forward an existing non-conformity. For instance, the code allows a lot
that has less parking or public amenity space than is required in the underlying zone district to
carry forward that deficit in a redevelopment. Overall, the P&Z wants to ensure the codes get us
the kinds of buildings and development that"fits" in our community.
B. Strengthen the Lodge Zone District. The P&Z has expressed concerns related to the allowed
use mix in the Lodge Zone District. They are interested in amending the zone district to better
encourage the development of lodging units. The P&Z believes this will improve the
predictability of the land use process, as well as further the policies set forth in the Lodging
Section of the Growth Management Chapter(Policies IV.1 —IVA)
C. Amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. The P&Z has expressed concern
about the ability to request a PUD designation on lots less than 27,000 square feet. They are
Page 1 of 2
interested in examining the appropriate "cut off point" for a PUD designation. Over the past few
years, they have seen applicants with relatively small parcels (6,000 — 10,000 sf) request a PUD
to vary some aspect of their underlying dimensional requirements. The P&Z believes examining
the minimum lot size requirement, and the PUD process in general will help improve the general
predictability of the land use review process, as outlined in AACP Growth Management Policies
VII.1 and VIL2.
D. Update Residential Zone Districts. The P&Z has expressed concern about the zone district
requirements in the residential zones. Specifically, they would like to examine site coverage
requirements, heights, and general mass and scale. They are also interested in examining the
exemptions to floor area calculations (e.g. basement exemptions). This furthers the Policies
outlined in the Residential section of the Growth Management chapter(Policies III.1 —III.4).
E. Update Stream Margin Review and 8040 Greenline Review. The Land Use Code requires a
heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, as well as for any
development within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. The P&Z is interested in updating these
regulations to ensure they are adequately protecting these environmentally sensitive areas. This
furthers Growth Management Policy II.2, which calls for controlling the location and size of
homes to protect out natural environment, as well as Environmental Stewardship Policy II1.3,
which calls for preserving our riparian habitats.
F. Update Parking Requirements. The P&Z is interested in examining and updating the parking
code. This would include an examination of the program generally as well as the specific
parking requirements for development. This furthers Transportation Policy V.1, "Develop a
strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the adverse impacts of
the automobile."
G. Explore Amendments to Vesting Extensions. The P&Z is concerned about the number of
recent requests to extend vested rights for projects that were approved more than 3 years ago.
The P&Z believes a significant amount of good learning goes into code modifications and that an
applicant should, in exchange for extending development rights, agree to accept the current code.
They are concerned that extensions will result in development that is not consistent with current
community goals, and believe that projects should meet the current code, rather than relying on
old codes. The P&Z believes this creates confusion in the community, and that exploring
changes to the requirements could improve the certainty and predictability in the land use code
process.
H. Explore Amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. The Land Use Code
requires that any multi-family unit that has ever housed a local working resident be replaced with
affordable housing when it is demolished. The code allows for a 50% or 100% replacement of
the number of units, bedrooms, and net livable space that is demolished. The P&Z would like to
examine the ability to replace at the 50%level.
Page 2 of 2
Y P1
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 435 West Main Street, Jewish Community Center—Growth
Management Review for an Essential Public Facility
Resolution No. Series of 2012
MEETING DATE: December 18,2012
APPLICANT/OWNER: t f
Jewish Resource Center Chabad of _
Aspen -
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman Planning Services
R
LOCATION: y
435 West Main Street, Lots A thru
I, Block 38, City and Townsite of
Aspen +� ,w
CURRENT ZONING:
MU, Mixed Use Zone District with
the Main Street Historic District
Overlay
SUMMARY: Image 1:435 West Main Street,aerial view of property.
The Applicant seeks to amend the .
previously approved site plan by
developing a parsonage onsite -
rather than a social hall. A _
recommendation to City Council
for Growth Management Review
for an Essential Public Facility is
requested of P &Z.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions. Image 2:435 West Main Street,historic cabins along the alley.
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facility
P&Z Memo, 12/18/12
Page 1 of 4
P2
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval and recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the approved site plan:
• Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the development of a
parsonage to replace the approved plan for a social hall, pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.470.090.4 (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review
authority to determine employee generation and City Council is the final review authority
after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
determine the required employee mitigation rate).
In addition to Growth Management Review the proposal requires an amendment to the
Subdivision approval, which is under City Council's review authority and does not require a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
BACKGROUND/PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
The Jewish Community Center project has been in the land use process since 2004 including
reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and City
Council. A development order was granted in 2007 for a sanctuary, preschool,,administrative
building, social hall, and the historic preservation of six historic 1940s era tourist cabins along
the alley and Third Street. Three of the historic cabins are approved to be deed restricted onsite
employee housing to fulfill the mitigation requirement and the other three historic cabins are to
be used as lodging for visitors related to religious events and programming. Deed restrictions
have already been recorded for the six cabins. The project originally approved by City Council
was approximately 19,655 sq. ft. in size and included historic landmark designation of the entire
site. As part of Special Review for an Essential Public Facility, nine onsite parking spaces are
required and 44% of the 9.63 employees determined to be generated is required to be mitigated
onsite in the three deed restricted historic cabins (2 studios and 1 1-bedroom for a total of 4.25
FTEs).
Since the original entitlements were granted in 2007, numerous amendments to the size and
design of the project have been granted by HPC resulting in a reduction of the approved project
to 17,100 square feet. The project was approved for phasing - phase 1 (currently under
construction) is the sanctuary, pre-school, administration area, and restoration of the cabins; and
phase 2 was the social hall and is the subject of this application. In addition to the amendments,
the vested rights of the project were extended to March 1, 2013.
The current application is to amend phase 2 by replacing the approved social hall with a
parsonage. The parsonage replaces earlier approvals for a social hall that was originally intended
to supplement the social space available in the sanctuary structure. Aspen Jewish Community
Center (AJCC) has determined that the ability to have the Rabbi and his family live on site and
receive the congregation in the parsonage is a higher priority need. On August 15, 2012 the
applicant received Conceptual approval from HPC for the proposed parsonage. Through the
Special Review process a requirement of one parking space for the parsonage was established.
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facility
P&Z Memo, 12/18/12
Page 2 of 4
P3
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The applicant proposes to replace the approved 4,575 sq. ft. social hall with an approximately
4,000 sq. ft. parsonage. The proposal reduces the total floor area on the property from 17,100 sq.
ft. to 16,525 sq. ft. The allowable floor area for this property is 20,235 sq. ft (0.75:1 for arts,
cultural, civic use). The proposed parsonage includes a basement and two above grade levels,
and a single stall garage.
The rabbi and his family will reside in the parsonage and host social functions of the
congregation in the parsonage. Community Development determined that the parsonage
contributes to the fulfillment of AJCC's mission which makes it accessory to the arts, cultural,
civic use as an Essential Public Facility.
The applicant represents that no new employees are generated by the change from the social hall
to the parsonage and proposes to maintain the approved requirement of 44% mitigation rate for
9.63 generated employees as approved in 2007 by City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff finds that the conversion of the social hall to a smaller parsonage reduces the intensity of
the use and in turn does not generate new employees. The parsonage is about 575 square feet of
floor area smaller than the approved social hall. It will house the Rabbi and his family and also
host Friday night dinners after services and other small social engagements for guest speakers,
etc.
The applicant commits to including restrictions in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement that
permanently link the parsonage to the AJCC to disallow the parsonage from ever becoming a
single family home. Staff finds that the proposed change does not increase employee generation
and is supportive of the request to maintain the approved employee generation rate of 9.63
employees that are mitigated at 44% onsite.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that no additional
employees are generated by the proposed change from a social hall to a parsonage and
recommend City Council grant Growth Management approval for the mitigation of 0 additional
employees.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution # Series 2012, approving Growth Management for an
Essential Public Facility upon a determination that 0 additional employees are generated by the
replacement of the social hall with the proposed parsonage and recommending that City Council
grant Growth Management approval for the mitigation of 0 additional employees. I recommend
that City Council maintain the existing mitigation requirement of 44% as adopted in City
Council Ordinance 36, Series of 2006."
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facility
P&Z Memo, 12/18/12
Page 3 of 4
P4 ,
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A—Staff Findings, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility Criteria
Exhibit B—Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board Recommendation
Exhibit C—Application
Exhibit D— Letters from the public
435 W. Main Street, Jewish Community Center
Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facility
P&Z Memo, 12/18/12
Page 4 of 4
P5
RESOLUTION N0. _
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING EMPLOYEE GENERATION FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
FACILITY AND RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
FACILITY, FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET,LOTS A-I,BLOCK 38, CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Parcel ID: 2735-124-81-100
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen,
represented by Alan Richman Planning Services, submitted an application (hereinafter
"the application") requesting approval of a Growth Management.Review to Determine
Employee Generation, Subdivision and a Growth Management Review as an Essential
Public Facility, to construct the Jewish Community Center, located at 435 W. Main St.,
Lots A-I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Director determined that
the parsonage is accessory to the Jewish Community Center which is an Essential Public
Facility, and that the application met the applicable review standards, and recommended
approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is a designated landmark and is located within
the Main Street Historic District; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution
24, Series of 2006 approving 9 parking spaces and an employee generation of 9.63 FTEs
for the project including a sanctuary, preschool, administrative building, social hall, and
the historic preservation of six historic 1940s era tourist cabins along the alley and Third
Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 36, Series of 2006
approving Subdivision and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility,
including a mitigation rate of 44% for the 9.63 FTEs generated, for the project with a
total of 19,665 square feet for a sanctuary, preschool, administrative building, social hall,
and the historic preservation of six historic 1940s era tourist cabins along the alley and
Third Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission adopted the following
resolutions related to the design of the project: HPC Resolution 19, Series of 2006
(conceptual approval); HPC Resolution 5, Series of 2007 (final approval); HPC
Resolution 40, Series of 2007 (substantial amendment); HPC Resolution 7, Series of
P&Z Resolution#_, Series of 2012
Page 1 of 3
P6 y
2011 (substantial amendment); and HPC Resolution 20, Series of 2012 (conceptual
approval for parsonage and parking); and,
WHEREAS, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Resolution 7, Series of
2011 reduced the size of the social hall and reduced the total floor area for the entire
project to 17,100 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council adopted Resolution 17, Series of 2010
extending the vested rights of the project to March 1, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the application under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the
approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, at a public hearing, which was legally noticed and held at a regular
meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on December 18, 2012, at which
time the Commission considered and found the application to meet the review standards,
and approved a Growth Management Review to Determine Employee Generation, and
recommended that City Council approve with conditions a Growth Management Review
of an Essential Public Facility, by a vote of ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions,
a Growth Management Review to Determine Employee Generation, and recommends
that City Council approve with conditions a Growth Management Review as an Essential
Public Facility to amend the approved project located at 435 W. Main Street by replacing
the 4,575 square feet social hall with an approximately 4,000 square feet parsonage. The
total Floor Area for the Essential Public Facility is 16,525 square feet (12,525 square feet
for Phase 1 including the sanctuary and six cabins, and 4,000 square feet for Phase 2
including the parsonage)
P&Z Resolution# , Series of 2012
Page 2 of 3
P7
Section 2: Affordable Housing
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby determines an additional Employee
Generation of 0 FTEs for the amendment to the plan that replaces the social hall with a
parsonage. An employee audit consistent with the recorded Subdivision Improvement
Agreement for the project (Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder reception # 543901), Section
5, part d,remains valid.
The employee generation -of 9.63 FTEs determined by the Planning and Zoning
Commission via Resolution 24, Series of 2006 for the original project remains valid. The
employee mitigation requirement of 44% (4.25 FTEs) adopted by City Council via
Ordinance 36, Series of 2006 remains valid.
Section 3:
The approvals set forth in City Council Ordinance 36, Series of 2006 and Planning and
Zoning Commission Resolution 24, Series of 2006 remain valid unless specified herein.
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 6•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 18th
day of December,2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
P&Z Resolution# Series of 2012
Page 3 of 3
P8
Exhibit A
Growth Management Review Criteria
26.470.100.A.1 Employee generation and mitigation for an Essential Public Facility
All Essential public facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to
determine employee generation. In establishing employee generation, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider the following:
a) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment
generation pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City of a similar resort
economy.
b) Any unique employment characteristics of the operation.
c) The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed use building or of a
related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions.
d) A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation
of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
e) Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual
employee generation.
f) For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees
required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the
Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit
towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the
project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual
employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge.
Staff Response: The applicant represents that the conversion from a social hall to a parsonage
does not change the employee mitigation rate or generation amount established in 2007. The
Housing Board recommends approval of the proposed change without requiring additional
employee mitigation.
The proposed parsonage is smaller (about 575 sq. ft.) than the social hall. The smaller building
size, half of which houses the Rabbi's family, translates into a less intense use on the property
and in turn less employee generation. The parsonage will receive guests and host social events,
but on a much smaller scale than the approved social hall. While the parsonage will not be deed
restricted affordable housing, it will house the Rabbi and his family who currently reside in
affordable housing.
An employee audit two years after the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project is
required as part of the 2007 approvals and will remain in effect. As specified in the recorded
Exhibit A—GMQS Review Criteria
Aspen Jewish Community Center(435 W. Main St.)
12/18/2012
Page 1 of 4
P9
Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Section 5, part d, any additional employees over the 9.63
determined to be generated by the project as a result of the audit shall require mitigation at 44%.
Staff finds the criteria to be met and recommends that the Commission determine an employee
generation of 0 FTEs for the conversion of a social hall to a parsonage.
26.470.050 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. Application for multi-
year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be
required to meet this standard.
Staff Response: There is no annual limit for Essential Public Facilities. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as
well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Response: The proposed parsonage is consistent with the approved arts, cultural, civic use
for the property. The project is located within the Main Street Historic District and is a
designated landmark under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission which ensures
design compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Response: The proposed development meets the requirements of the Mixed Use Zone
District for the Arts, Cultural and Civic Use. The project proposes 16,525 sq. ft. which is well
below the 20,235 sq. ft. allowable floor area for arts, cultural, civic use (0.75:1).
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.
Staff Response: The proposal is consistent with the August 15, 2012 Conceptual HPC approval.
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
Exhibit A—GMQS Review Criteria
Aspen Jewish Community Center(435 W.Main St.)
12/18/2012
Page 2 of 4
P10
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 shall be
extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
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.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
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.
Staff Response: The proposed change from a social hall to a parsonage does not increase the
impact on public infrastructure. The original 2007 approvals address the demands of the overall
project and remain valid. An additional parking space is required for the parsonage as per HPC
Resolution 20, Series of 2012. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
Exhibit A—GMQS Review Criteria
Aspen Jewish Community Center(435 W. Main St.)
12/18/2012
Page 3 of 4
P11
26.470.090.4. Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility,
upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria:
a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or
structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also
be part of an essential public facility project.
Staff Response: The Community Development Director determined that the parsonage
contributes to the fulfillment of Jewish Community Center's mission which makes it accessory
to the arts, cultural, civic use as an Essential Public Facility. The parsonage will be used as the
home of Rabbi or other-spiritual leader of the congregation and specific religious functions are
proposed to occur in the parsonage such as Friday night dinners for the congregation following
services and receptions for visiting. scholars and speakers. The applicant commits to
permanently link the parsonage to the Aspen Jewish Community Center through a revised
Subdivision Improvement Agreement to ensure that the parsonage will be in permanent
ownership of the Jewish Community Center and will never be conveyed as a separate use or
interest from the Jewish Community Center. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City
Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation
requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting
civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee
generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed
for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations.
Staff Response: The original 2007 approvals adopted a mitigation rate of 44% for 9.63
generated employees. The applicant represents that the conversion from a social hall to a
parsonage does not change the employee mitigation rate or generation amount established in
2007. The Housing Board recommends approval of the proposed change without requiring
additional employee mitigation.
The proposed parsonage is smaller (about 575 sq. ft.) than the social hall. The smaller building
size, half of which houses the Rabbi's family, translates into a less intense use on the property
and in turn less employee generation. The parsonage will receive guests and host social events,
but on a much smaller scale than the approved social hall. While the parsonage will not be deed
restricted affordable housing, it will house the Rabbi and his family who currently reside in
affordable housing. Staff is supportive of the proposed parsonage without additional employee
mitigation.
Exhibit A—GMQS Review Criteria
Aspen Jewish Community Center(435 W.Main St.)
12/18/2012
Page 4 of 4
P12
Exhibit B
Housing Board Recommendation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jennifer Phelan,Deputy Planning Director, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen,APCHA Operations Manager
DATE: December 6, 2012
RE: Aspen Jewish Community Center(JCC)
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to modify a prior approval for the property located at 435 West
Main Street by removing the community hall and constructing a single-family home to be utilized
as a parsonage.
BACKGROUND: The approved project was designed to include an eastern wing and a western
wing, connected by a central lobby and courtyard. The western wing was approved to contain a
religious sanctuary, a pre-school with an outdoor play space, administrative offices, religious
classrooms and a library. The eastern wing was designed to be used as a social hall. The approved
project also includes six of the nine remaining cabins — three cabins will be used for affordable
housing for qualified employees and three are to be utilized as lodging for scholars or guests of the
JCC. Deed restrictions have already been recorded for these six cabins.
DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting approval to provide a space for the Rabbi and his
family to live on-site, that would allow the Rabbit to be able to host important social functions of
the congregation in this parsonage. The plans for the social hall would be abandoned and replaced
by a single-family residence. The building will be a stand-alone building and not connected,
thereby providing more open space allowing for a playground and a separate yard for the Rabbi's
family. This opens up the view through the block. The home will contain around 3,500 square
feet, which is about 1,000 square feet less than the approved social hall. The home will include a
master bedroom, four additional bedrooms, a family living room and dining room.
The three employee cabins mitigate for 4.25 FTE's of the 9.63 employees generated by the
redevelopment. The mitigation is at 44% and was accepted by the City. The Rabbi currently lives
in deed restricted housing at Alpine Cottages, opening this unit to be sold through the APCHA
lottery system. The redevelopment is also required to conduct at employee audit two years after
the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. If the audit determines additional
employees,the applicant must mitigate for those employees at the 44%mitigation rate.
RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the change at their regular meeting held
December 5, 2012. The APCHA Board recommends approval of the change from the community
center to a parsonage for the Rabbi; however, the APCHA Board requests that a condition be
Aspen Jewish Community Center Page 1
P13
added to the Ordinance that requires the home to always remain as a parsonage and not subdivided
to resale as a single-family home.
Page Z
Cobining of Lodge Units-Hotel Lenado
m
PROPERTY
EXI STI N
LINE
TREE TO
REMAIN
5' 5E7 BACK
APPROVED
FOOT PRINT 53'-'7 7/8"
MAIN T E T
a -
Lj'
— — — —'-
„
� + � CABIN
I
p
}
G - - ; PLAYGROUND; 1 PAR50NAG1= --------------
p
E If w
. r APPROVED JEW15H CENTER BUILDING i I
— 1 aio +
� .+
Er t
1
O
0
o - _ — -- O RIVEWA
+-o _ - - - -
+ -' _ ��
40 442
CABIN
GABIN GA IN ABIN
v `
o I #14 #15 #16 #17 i u
+ I
PLUM E� all
I
p
ALL Y R P Y BLOCK IM \
E5E �/ED OPEN ROPERT
SPACE PER LINE
RECEPTION NO.
380'132
\ EXI57ING 5' 5ET BACK
TREE TO
REMAIN
ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Site plan Option B August 15 , 2012
Aspen , Colorado Scale 3/32" = 1'-0"
o �e
17114 �7
--------------- -
Bcam- - ^..r•r' -
1"Yw
TT Tf
ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Main Street Elevation August 15 , 2012
Aspen , Colorado O p t i o n B
Scale 1/16"= 1'-0"
Fz
i
ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Alley Elevation Option B August 15 , 2012
Aspen , Colorado Scale 1/8"= 1'-0"
'xw ----------- - F --------------
Zj
P12LBIPt�0
T v xU y Yi
B POINT 11 MINE�EAVE POINT-
AND RIDGE
iT LrT'L IN.FL
_
SEGOND F 4 -
'�
i
FIR" 0
I L. �FIRST FIN.FL.
�ovH�
N o r t h E l e v a t i o n S o u t h E l e v a t i o n
MIMI
ell @' P1N._F.EY1�_-
SEGO ND FIN.FL.
O_O" ® jff W
F.R.T FIN.
E a s t E l e v a t i o n W e s t E l e v a t i o n
ARTHU R CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage N o r t h S o u t h E a s t August 15 , 2012
A s p e n , C o l o r a d o & W e s t E l e v a t i o n s
Scale 1/8"= 1'•0"
53'-b 3/B"
19'-9 1/4" 6'-7 5/B" 4'-B 1/5"
----------------
--- --------------------------------- -- ------- - - ------------------
n
a
003
MEGHANIGA
STORAGE
N
Y rtl
lfl N
-1
� m
007 003
PLAYROOM PLAYROOM
Y
ry
ry
N n
N N
UP
----------------------------------------- --------- ---
h
b'-, Ib' II'-5I/B" 13-7 I/7"
Basement Floor Area=1,934 SF
ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage B a s e m e n t F l o o r P l a n August 15 , 2012
Aspen , Colorado Scale 1/4"= 1'-0"
52'-II g/B"
IB'-10 1/4"
---------- ————
�
I I
I
I N
I I n
I
I
I
I
I Q
L IN R M
35 I
I
I
m
m-
m
m 30 5F 54 5F
kj
II II �
m
WDE ROOM
i m
_-_- _
c
2245F GARAGE ry
ry ry
280 SF
I
I
/
UP
I
First Floor Area =1,668.S.F 4 v6
Second Floor Area =1,763.3 S.F
Total Habitable Area =3,431.3 S.F B'-�vB'• s'-3° 2'-2 ve° 2-10 v2° 3-a v4°
- I/r•
Garage = 297.3 SY
Gross area = 3,728.6 S.F s2-a 3/B
Covered space = 293 S.F
ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage F i r s t F l o o r p l a n August 15 , 2012
Aspen , Colorado Scale 1/4"= 1'-0"
O 2 4' 8'
7�i�rf
------ -----------
-- -----------
_7--------
------------------
- -------------
--------------
X �ff
Second Floor Area 1,763.3 SY
ARTHUR CHAB0N ARCHITECT A] CC Parsonage S * nond F | oor p | an August 15 . 2012
Aspon ' Co | orado Sca | o 1/4" = 1'{r
META PACKARD BARTON
POB 653, CENTER HARBOR, NH 03226
paA sun
S �1 )1` ��
7 '�
)ctj)S s s
C)Ctqls Vcu ~ ct,
\,k GS&n
,tk S-IAL.'d cv,) A o t-nim,
to "a/) N�� C\O)) J
CLAL�
Can �S �� �j
-P ICIJA J03 Srdl-
N\O a
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: 1450 Crystal Lake Road—Commercial Design Review Amendment
Resolution No._, Series of 2012
MEETING DATE: December 18, 2012
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Aspen Club and Spa, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: ��_�-Jr-----
Sunny Vann,Vann Associates, LLC
LOCATION:
1450 Crystal Lake Road—Lot 15 of the
Callahan Subdivision
s,
CURRENT ZONING:
RR/PUD (Rural Residential) zone district with a _
Planned Unit Development(PUD) and
Specially Planned Area(SPA) Overlay
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests an amendment to their
Commercial Design Review approval for minor ,
changes to the design of the Aspen Club project.
�4.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: j ?F
Staff recommends approval of the Commercial
Design Review.
Photo: Aspen Club building and location.
RE UEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is
requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to
redevelop the site:
• Commercial Design Review Amendment for development involving commercial and
lodging uses, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.412.050, Commercial Review, and
Page 1 of 5
Aspen Club Commercial Design Amendment— 12.18.2012
P2
pursuant to the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and
Guidelines (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.)
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Aspen Club is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district with a PUD overlay and an
SPA overlay. The Club is part of the Callahan Subdivision and PUD, which was initially
approved in 1976. The original approval included sixteen (1.6) lots. Lot 14A was designated as
a parking facility for the use and benefit of the clubhouse and recreational facility that was
proposed on Lot 15 (the current location of the Aspen Club). The parking area on Lot 14A
includes thirty-five (35) spaces, and is accessed from Lot 15 via a bridge over the Roaring Fork
River and through Lot 14.
A number of PUD Amendments have been made to the Callahan Subdivision since the original
approval, the most recent of which was the PUD amendment approved in 2010 (Ordinance 2,
Series of 2010). This approval was for a redevelopment on the property of. 20 timeshare units,
12 2-bedroom affordable housing units, and a reconfigured recreation club (the Aspen Club).
Fourteen (14) of the timeshare units are stand alone "townhouse"units that are in three buildings—
10 of the units are on the"lower bench"by the river and 4 of the units are on the"upper bench"by
the Club. Six (6) of the units are proposed to be added to the existing Club building (the "club"
units). A total of 132 parking spaces are approved for the development—35 spaces across the river
on lots 14A & 14W and 97 on the Club parcel (Lot 15-A). Final Commercial Design approval was
granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2011.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a PUD amendment earlier this year (Resolution
16, Series of 2012)that allows for a total of twenty-one(21) timeshare units to be developed on the
property.
As the applicant has begun preparing to submit for building permit, they have started to refine
the architecture with the project architects and Auberge Resorts,the future lodge operator. This
has resulted in a number of minor changes to the project, which, when taken together,
represented enough changes to require an Amendment to the Commercial Design approval.
The proposed changes meet the threshold for an Insubstantial Amendment, which is reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The project is required to comply with the standards set forth in section 26.412.060, Commercial
Design Standards, as well as the Final Review Guidelines of the Small Lodges section of the
Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines.
Overall, staff finds that the project's design meets the requirements set for in the Commercial
Design Standards and Guidelines. The applicant has provided a detailed description of the
proposed changes, which is included in their application, attached as Exhibit B. Staff provides a
brief overview and comments of the key changes below. In the application, pages 14, 15, and 19
best illustrate the proposed design.
CHANGES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (see Application pages 5, 17, 17, 19, 19.5)
The changes to the affordable housing units include removing balconies from units that had them
and replacing them with "Juliette"balconies, adding a decorative trellis on the North elevation to
Page 2 of 5
Aspen Club Commercial Design Amendment— 12.18.2012
P3
create some visual separation between the pool and the affordable housing units, creating a
usable interior courtyard space, and removing the large lightwells between the affordable
housing units and the club building. Some material and roof pitch changes are also proposed.
Staff is supportive of the material changes, particularly removing stucco as a material. The roof
pitch changes are minor, and staff supports them. Staff does have concerns related to the
elimination of the balconies. While these were not very large, it did provide some private
outdoor space for some of the units. Staff raised this issue with the applicant, and in response
they have created a formal open patio area on the south side of the affordable housing units.
Staff believes the balconies are critical to creating a quality living space for the affordable
housing units, and recommends that they remain part of the design.
CHANGES TO THE CLUB BUILDING(see Application pages 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 14.5)
The Club building is the most changed. Staff believes the revisions are positive and result in a
more cohesive project in terms of architecture, materials, and massing. The pool enclosure has
changed from a full enclosure made of glass with a number of pitched roofs to a partial enclosure
with one sloped roof form and materials that are more consistent with the rest of the Club
building.
There are some fenestration changes which improve the overall feel of the building. Small patios
have been added to the ground floor Club units, which helps create additional interest to the
building and helps break up the mass. The increased number of windows and fagade
articulations also helps in this regard.
The materials palate is similar,but improved in this amendment. The wood shingles are replaced
with vertical wood siding, and all stucco is proposed to be removed and replaced with board
form concrete (see page 14.5). These are positive changes from staff's perspective, especially as
it relates to the stucco. The updated materials are of higher quality material and will ensure
greater cohesion between the Club and the Townhome units.
The applicant proposes to increase the rooftop patio in this proposal. The patio has increased in
size to enable more usage. The area includes a.trellis.structure, and additional egress (see pages
8 and 9). Staff is supportive of these changes, as it creates additional opportunities for Club
usage. . Staff is concerned that with added usage, an effort to weatherize the area and enclose
additional spaces may become of interest in the future. For this reason staff has included a
condition that the trellis structure cannot be enclosed in the future.
The previously approved and proposed North and West elevations of the Club building are
included below to help illustrate the changes proposed.
Page 3of5
Aspen Club Commercial Design Amendment— 12.18.2012
P4
Figure 1 —Previously approved North Elevation
IS
•Wes Y _,_._
eiYSYi
CLUB-IJORM MAMN
Figure 2—Previously approved West Elevation
masa��
CLUB•WM SL VATMYI
Figure 3 —Proposed North Elevation
jj
WM
CM-MATHURAnON
Figure 2—Proposed West Elevation
4iM.M1n Aw.M�.v� "+
�wWY�— aWNir
t `F
j.
4
CLL8 lAF3i BEtlANa1
Page 4 of 5
Aspen Club Commercial Design Amendment— 12.18.2012
P5
CHANGES TO TOWNHOME TIMESHARE UNITS (see Application pages 9, 12, 15, 15.5)
There are very minor changes proposed as part of the townhome units. The applicant proposes
to modify some of the decks, and to add roofs over the entries. The applicant also proposes
direct access to all of the lock-off units from the outside, rather than interior access. Finally,
some material and roof pitch changes are proposed.
Staff expressed some concern over the roof material initially proposed as part of the application.
The updated character imagery on page 16 illustrates the updated materials. The original
approval included shingles for the roof, and the applicant proposes amending that to standing
seam. Staff believes the shingle is more appropriate given the larger neighborhood context, but
can support the change with the condition that the material is not reflective. Staff has included
this as a condition in the Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project, with the following
conditions:
1. The trellis located on the roof of the club shall not be enclosed, and shall be consistent in
size with the approved roof plan.
2. The roof material on the Townhome units shall be wood shingle, or non-reflective
standing seam.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # Series 2012, approving a
Commercial Design Review Amendment for the Aspen Club project."
Attachments:
Exhibit A—Final Commercial Design Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B— Application
Page 5of5
Aspen Club Commercial Design Amendment— 12.18.2012
P6
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A COMMERCIAL DESIGN AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD (THE ASPEN CLUB), LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 15 OF CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID:2 73 7-181-32-019
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Aspen Club and Spa, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC requesting a
Commercial Design Review Amendment for the Aspen Club and Spa project previously
approved for a subgrade garage, twenty-one (21) timeshare units and twelve (12) affordable
housing units, and redesigned commercial spaces; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Conceptual Commercial Design Review from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on April 1, 2008 via Resolution 9, Series of 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received final Specially Planned Area (SPA), final Planned
Unit Development (PUD), final Timeshare, Stream Margin, Affordable Housing Growth
Management Allotments, Multi-Year Growth Management Lodge Allotments, Rezoning, and
Subdivision, to develop a sub-grade garage, twenty (20) timeshare units and twelve (12)
affordable housing units, and to redesign existing commercial spaces, from the Aspen City
Council on June 1, 2010 via Ordinance 2, Series of 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Final Commercial Design Review from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 2011 via Resolution 17, Series of 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received approval of a PUD Amendment and Growth
Management Allotments for one (1) additional timeshare unit, making the total approved
timeshare units twenty-one (21) on September 18, 2012 via Resolution 16, Series of 2012; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 18, 2012, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2012,by a_to L— vote,
approving a Commercial Design Review Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and
has taken and considered public comment; and,
Resolution No , Series 2012
Pagel of 3
P7
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal
meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Commercial Design Review Amendment
for the redevelopment of the Aspen Club, as illustrated in Exhibit A. In addition, the following
conditions shall be met:
1. The trellis located on the roof of the club shall not be enclosed, and shall be consistent in
size with the approved roof plan.
2. The roof material on the Townhome units shall be wood shingle, or non-reflective
standing seam.
Section 2•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this I8th day of
December,2012.
Exhibit A: Approved Commercial Design Review Plans
Resolution No , Series 2012
Page 2 of 3
P8
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No Series 2012
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A—Staff Findings P9
26.412.080. Amendment of commercial design review approval.
A. Insubstantial amendment.
1. Planning and Zoning Commission approval. An insubstantial amendment to a
commercial design review approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission
may be authorized by the Community Development Director if:
a) The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.412.060, the
change represents a minimal effect on the aesthetics of the proposed development, or
the change is consistent with representations made 'during the original review
concerning potential changes of the development proposal considered appropriate by
the decision-making body; and
Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is met. The project represents a minimal change
to the aesthetics of the development. The changes ensure more consistency and
continuity between the different elements in the project, and reduces the overall amount
of mass on site. The changes conform with the design standards outlined in 26.412.060,
as outlined below:
A. Public Amenity Space
Staff Finding: The project includes a number of open areas that meet the definition of
public amenity space. However, this standard is not applicable to the development as no
public amenity space is required in the RR zone district. The Commission found this
standard not applicable during Conceptual Review. Staff finds this standard is not
applicable.
B. Utility,Delivery, and Trash Service Provision
Staff Finding: The project includes an enlarged and relocated trash/service/utility area.
The area is located behind the club along Ute Avenue. The area is screened through a
change in grade (existing) and landscaping. The location will minimize conflicts in the
site between cars, pedestrians, and service vehicles. The RR zone district does not require
compliance with this standard. While the project meets the intent of the requirement,
Staff finds the standard is not applicable.
b) The change requires no other land use action requiring review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion is met. The project represents does not require
additional land use reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
'lC=�
�t
1
was ak
Vak
• '�' �` � Tom.
a,