Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20130219 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, February 19, 2013 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. 605/675 S. Alps Road, 8040 Greenline and PUD Other Amendment B. 605/675 S. Alps Road, zone district recommendation for annexation petition VI. OTHER BUSINESS C. Discussion on future meeting date conflicts VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 1A P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan,Deputy Planning Directox�� RE: 1605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split—Subdivision— Other Amendment, PUD-Other Amendment,8040 Greenline Review Resolution No.� Series of 2013 MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 APPLICANT/OWNER: South Alps Road, LLC and Icie Jackson LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Planning Services LOCATION: 605 and 675 S. Alps Road, Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split t.. CURRENT ZONING: Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), with a Planned Unit of oses of Split Development(PUD)overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant seeks to amend the configuration of the two lots and amend the individual floor area permitted for each lot, while maintaining the overall floor area cap. An 8040 Greenline review is required of the P&Z as well as a recommendation of PUD - Other Amendment. r. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Lot 2,Moses Lot Split 605 &675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review/PUD Amendment P&Z Memo, 2/19/13 Page 1 of 4 P2 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • PUD — Other Amendment —An application for PUD — Other Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 B., Other Amendment, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the PUD Amendment. The City Council is the final decision-making body. The above land use review is for P&Z to make findings and recommendations to City Council for final action. The land use review below is for the P&Z to make the final decision. • 8040 Greenling Review for the development of approximately 800 sq. ft. addition onto the existing single family residence, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline review. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. BACKGROUND/PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The Moses Lot Split is a two lot subdivision that is located at the top of S. Alps Road, which is accessed off of Ute Avenue. The subdivision is adjacent to the 700 building of Aspen Alps South and backs up against Aspen Mountain and the boundary of the ski area. Both lots contain steep slopes. The Moses Lot Split contains a single family residence on Lot 2 (675 S. Alps Road), while Lot 1 is currently vacant. The subdivision has been through a number of changes over time as noted below: • Originally, the subdivision was approved in 1987. It created two lots and required that the existing houses on the site "become single-family residences," provided a maximum floor area per lot of 3,800 sq. ft. and dedicated a 15 foot trail easement along part of Lot 1 for the Ajax Trail. • In 1992, the property owner of Lot 2 acquired land surrounding certain buildings of the Aspen Alps and negotiated an increase of the allowable floor area of Lot 2 (5,000 sq. ft) as well as an increase in the lot size. Some of the land surrounding the Aspen Alps was conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 to the Aspen Alps. • In 2006, an 8040 Greenline review was approved for Lot 2 and the present house was constructed. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes to amend the maximum allowable floor area for Lot 1 and 2 while maintaining the overall total for the lots as noted in the following table. 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review/PUD Amendment P&Z Memo, 2/19/13 Page 2 of 4 P3 Table 1: Proposed Changes in Floor Area Existing Proposed Difference Lot 1 3,800 3,000 -800 Lot 2 5,000 5,800 +800 Total 8,800 8,800 0 The existing floor area allowances do not correspond with the floor area that is permitted by the underlying zone district, based upon lot area and factoring in a reduction of floor area based upon the presence of steep slopes. The following table outlines the difference between floor area based upon lot size compared to the floor area allowances granted by city approval. As the table shows, the approved floor areas for each lot that the city granted were not related to the floor area permitted by the underlying lot size. Table 2: Floor Area Analysis based upon lot size Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Floor area by Floor area by Difference Floor area by Floor area by Difference Approval lot size Approval lot size Lot 1 3,800 3,880 -80 3,000 3,378 -378 Lot 2 5,000 4,715 +285 5,800 5,021 +779 Due to steep slopes, the floor area of each lot has been reduced by 25%, the greatest deduction floor area can be reduced due to steep slopes. In addition to requesting an amendment of the allowable floor area for each individual lot, the applicant is proposing to expand the width of the existing trail easement to twenty (20) feet per the request of the Parks Department, increase the overall lot size of Lot 2 with a corresponding reduction in Lot 1 and extinguish a Transferable Development Right on Lot 2. Additionally, a portion of Lot 1 sits outside the municipal boundary of the city and the applicant has agreed to clean up this discrepancy by annexing that portion of the lot into the city. Table 3: Proposed Changes in Lot size Existing Proposed Difference Lot 1 26,223 15,072 -11,151 Lot 2 44,780 54,762 +9,982 Total 71,003 69,834 1,169* Note: * There was a discrepancy in the boundary of the property and the surveyor has used the more conservative land area. STAFF COMMENTS: PUD— Other Amendment: The proposal is to concentrate the addition on Lot 2 to an area that is already developed with a single-family residence and located it on existing hardscape areas of the property. Undisturbed areas on the lot are uphill, steeper slopes leading towards the ski area 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review/PUD Amendment P&Z Memo, 2/19/13 Page 3 of 4 P4 that will remain undisturbed. The mass and scale impacts of the addition are minimal and create some benefits for the area by reducing the developable floor area on Lot 1. Additionally, the reallocation of some of Lot 1's land area to Lot 2 will concentrate any future development on Lot 1 away from the subdivision's steeper slopes and create further distance between potential development and the Ajax Trail, a natural resource for the community. The proposal will provide a larger, standard trail easement for the Ajax trail, also a benefit. Extinguishing a TDR encourages a program that reduces development pressures on historic resources and lands it on a lot that is part of a subdivision with an existing cap in floor area. 8040 Greenline: The proposal will add additional square footage onto an existing single-family residence that has previously received 8040 Greenline approval. The impact of the addition will be minimal as the addition is proposed on existing hardscape areas. The property contains some steep slopes. Technical studies have been provided within the application to ensure that the proposed addition can be safely developed and withstand hazards such as mudflows. Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline review with the following condition that is included in the resolution. The applicant shall meet one of the ways to mitigate the potential for mud and debris flow damage outlined on pages 8-10 of the Tetra Tech, report dated 8/29/12, and included as Exhibit 17 of the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline review and recommend approval of the PUD Amendment. The proposal will provide a larger, standard trail easement for the Ajax trail. The proposed lot configuration will push any development on Lot 1 further away from the mountain and will extinguish a TDR as part of the proposal without increasing the overall floor area permitted on the subdivision. Additionally, the separate annexation application will clean up some jurisdiction issues. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # Series 2013, approving an 8040 Greenline review and recommending approval by City Council of a PUD-Other Amendment, with conditions. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A— Staff Findings, 8040 Greenline review Exhibit B—Staff Findings, PUD—Other Amendment Exhibit C—Renderings of the proposed Addition Exhibit D—Application 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review/PUD Amendment P&Z Memo, 2/19/13 Page 4 of 4 P5 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PUD-OTHER AMENDMENT FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION,COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 AND 675 S. ALPS ROAD,CITY OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel IDs: 273718256003 and 273718256001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from S. Alps Road LLC and Icie Jackson LLC (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting approval of a 8040 Greenline review and a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission and also requesting Subdivision — Other Amendment, which is only subject to review by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests 8040 Greenline review to build an addition to the residence located on 675 S. Alps Road, PUD-Other Amendment to amend the individual floor area allowances for Lot 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split but not increase the total floor area granted to the two lots, and Subdivision -,Other Amendment to adjust the lot lines between the two lots; and, WHEREAS, as part of the application, Applicant offers to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right(TDR) on Lot 2; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed 8040 Greenline review and PUD—Other Amendment and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on February 19, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposal and approved an 8040 Greenline review as well as a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment for City Council by a----to ---- (_-_)vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the 8040 Greenline review to build an addition onto the existing single family residence located on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split (675 S. Alps Road) and recommends approval of the PUD Other Amendment to amend the allocation of the individual Floor Area allowances for Lot 1 and 2. A. 8040 Greenline review. The 8040 Geenline review is approved as represented in Exhibit 1 of this resolution. The approval is subject to the terms and conditions of the Land Use Code Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. --,Series 2013 , Page 1 of 4 P6 _ unless outlined below. As part of the 8040 Greenline approval, the following conditions shall be met: 1. Building Envelope. The building envelope for Lot 2 shall be amended to contain the existing footprint of the building, proposed addition, and existing hardscape improvements to the lot such as retaining walls, etc. so that the requirements of Section 26.575.110, Building envelopes, are met. The amended envelope shall be depicted on the 1St amended lot line adjustment plat that is to be approved by City Council. 2. Residential Design. Recognizing the existing conditions of the site and residence, the 8040 Greenline approval permits the development of a site specific design that is compatible with the local terrain and mountain character; however, the new additions shall be subject to applicable residential design standards with the exception of secondary mass (section 26.410.040 B.1.). The addition shall replicate the design approved by the Planning Commission and incorporated as Exhibit 1 of this resolution. B. PUD-Other Amendment. The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the change in the size of Lots 1 and 2, amend the Floor Area allowance for each lot as noted in the table below, and require the extinguishment of one Historic Transferable Development Right as part of the amendment to the PUD. Lot 1 Lot 2 Floor Area 3,000 5,800 Lot Size 15,072 54,762 Section 2: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant design shall also be compliant with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The application shall meet the mitigation requirements of the Mud and Debris Flow Analysis prepared by Tetra Tec, Inc., dated August 29, 20123 and provided in Exhibit — of the staff memo reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 19, 2013. Section 3: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. Section 4: Utilities The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 5: Sanitation District Requirements Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2013 Page 2 of 4 P7 Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, at the time of construction, which are on file at the District office. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 6: Exterior Liahtin All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 7: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 8: Building Permit Application The Applicant, the Applicant's General Contractor,-the Architect that produced the construction drawings, and representatives from the Building Department, Community Development Department and any other person deemed necessary by the City shall attend a meeting prior to the submission of any type of Building Permit for the Subject Property. The purpose of the meeting shall be to ensure clarity relative to the submission requirements, the requirements of this Ordinance, timeframes for processing Building Permits, and any other issues raised by any party. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9 (Series of 2012). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted City standards. e. A construction management plan (CMP) pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 9• 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, 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 10: Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2013 Page 3 of 4 P8 This resolution shall not effect 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 11: 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 19th day of February, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer,Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Exhibit I —Exterior elevations and site plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.--, Series 2013 Page 4 of 4 jj-jj ji A ASA A A A A A A 44414444413ijil* W I L L I A M L GEORGIS A R C H I T E C T ...._......F...__...._.._.._. w; i y i I i ..__.............,_:_:.— C iERINC KITCHEN ADDIT ON ...._............ �i: 135 SOFT. I © .--- 4 PF� --i R Oull! o� 0 1 I is T.� l OFFICE/YOGA STUDIO ADDITION OVER EXISTING TERRACE - - 295 SOFT. ............ TOTAL ADDED SQ.FT. = 630.00 nil - j � i IJ I MUDROOM ADDI710N R� -- --- 750 SOFT. O N LI TLE NELL RESIDENCE UPPER LEVEL PLAN-PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SQ.FT. 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 7 NOVEMBER 2011 SCALE;1/8 -fl GEORGIS I e, i .:•w :gin•.- k ............. n x _ ,�5rU�I _ — PROPOSED YOGA STUDIC OFFICE _ ..:.... (( O �1'".""""'f-- q €Lp I I . _ r-. �.:� -� 'i..,• a .... a--- ._. - - _ pp{pn?pp_T�P.KiEWOft 3TN0.-. _.. .. ... :ti.. —I', �.+ ; I '4�=Z:�::f..�--• J f F- �,., wv A I , /-" , ,<i»• /fin /\ M t.. 6 ,•/\ ,• . - , PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDTION , I I ,1I_,I P¢a°o•�v aiapt I '7 , I I I.... ' ❑' ' � ❑ IJ �5 a i O 19 a 1 I ' `J 0O G `J EAST ELEVATION (F Fd NT) 1 I i 1 , s I' L'.m f-----I� I !J Y AD -- � LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APRIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GEORGIS : I ` a' t 1 t• r I r'h.' µ. ..., I. —_ II II E l�ti III ,yI t v'gar..—. ..I.. .._ .. ,.,•x.•e;,nom_.. _. ...... -........_--,�.v z r.__ .�I(t.-,'f�_�+•.. _' _ / I 1 j I �__..... ..q ,. „ I _�.._. PROPOSED KITCHEN ENCLOSURE i l , �W"�T EI r' T ON fREAf2j 1 I , r°3r, ll F'i I `.l ETI L .... .t I 1c — �..--- - — - I iif I PROPOSED YOGA STUDIO/OFFICE LMIt l t I _ - - ` [ 5� kI � it {{ .JI Y S z iL—VA?ION LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE ' 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 f PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P12 Exhibit A C. 8040 Greenline review standards. No development shall be permitted at, above or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or,where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Staff Finding: The property contains some steep slopes. Technical studies have been provided within the application to ensure that the proposed addition can be safely developed and withstand hazards such as mudflows. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding. The addition to the existing house is minimal and any new development is required to meet the city's urban runoff standards with the application for a building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Staff Finding: The addition to the existing house is minimal and will not have a significant adverse affect on air quality. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: The new development is an addition to areas of the site that are already hardscape in nature such as on an existing terrace, patio and entry porch. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Finding: The property is currently developed and the areas being proposed for the addition will not disturb the terrain vegetation and natural land features as the areas are already hardscape features. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. 8040 Greenline review P&Z,February 19, 2013 Page 1 of 2 P13 Staff Finding: The property is currently developed and the areas being proposed for the addition will not require any additional roads, cutting and grading, etc. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding: The house exists and the proposed additions are one story elements to be added to the building. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding: The house exists and is currently adequately served by utilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Finding. The property is served by S. Alps Road which is an access that provides vehicular access to both the Moses lots and Aspen Alps buildings. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding. S. Alps Road provides adequate access to this lot and the property has received a certificate of occupancy for the existing house, meaning that the fire department has signed off on the existing development. The proposed addition will not affect access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are implemented in the proposed development,to the greatest extent practical. Staff Finding. The Parks department reviewed the application and has no comments with regard to this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8040 Greenline review P&Z,February 19,2013 Page 2 of 2 P14 Exhibit B 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 compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcels in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well as any adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The area close to the subject property is a mix of single family residences and multi-family development. Adjacent residences are also located in the same zone district (R-15) so underlying dimensional requirement are the same as the subject parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: As mentioned above, the area close to the subject property is a mix of single family residences and multi-family development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area, as the area is substantially built out and appropriate utilities and access are in place if any development occurs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Under the current proposal, the application is exempt from growth management review. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 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 PUD-Other Amendment P&Z,February 19, 2013 Page 1 of 8 P15 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. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The underlying zone district permits a single-family residence on each lot and the sites are located next to multi-family buildings that are similar in mass and scale. The addition being proposed on Lot 2 is minimal and any natural hazards can be mitigated through appropriate construction techniques. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the addition to an area that is already developed with a single-family residence on Lot 2. The areas that are currently undisturbed on the lot are uphill, steeper slopes leading towards the ski area that will remain undisturbed. The reapportioning of some of Lot 1's floor area to Lot 2, as well as some of the lot's acreage will concentrate any future development on Lot 1 away from the site's steeper slopes and permit less square footage than currently permitted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any 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. PUD-Other Amendment P&Z, February 19,2013 Page 2 of 8 P16 d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The residence meets the minimum off-street parking requirement by providing a two stall garage and the vacant lot will meet the required parking standards if developed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service both lots and the maximum density, a single-family residence, is already constructed on the Lot 2. Staff finds that this standard is not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically,the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: Both lots have areas of steep slopes that may contain natural hazards; however, appropriate mitigation techniques can be instituted when construction commences as out lined in the technical report provided for the proposed addition to Lot 2. Staff finds the criterion not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan. PUD-Other Amendment P&Z, February 19,2013 Page 3 of 8 P17 b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing an increase in the permitted density on either lot; therefore this standard is not applicable. 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. PUD-Other Amendment P&Z, February 19, 2013 Page 4 of 8 P18 Staff Finding: The subdivision contains two lots and is permitted a single-family residence on each lot. Development is located on the flatter sections of the lots. Both lots have existing access to the street system via S. Alps Road. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: As single-family residences, no landscape plan is required. As part of the annexation application for a portion of Lot, the existing Ajax Trail will be enhanced with a wider trail easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials,weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. Staff Finding: The addition proposed to the existing house is minimal and provides a mass and scale that is similar to other buildings in the neighborhood. Quality materials PUD -Other Amendment P&Z,February 19,2013 Page 5 of 8 P19 are used on the existing house and the house exhibits typical architectural features of a residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: Both sites are required to meet the outdoor lighting standards for residential development as adopted by the city which requires full-cut-off light fixtures for lighting over a certain height and requires glazed glass on lower fixtures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD,the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Finding: There is no specific common open space for the benefit of the development; however, one trail on the site is for the benefit of the public and is being provided an appropriate easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the PUD -Other Amendment P&Z, February 19,2013 Page 6 of 8 P20 public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Both lots within the subdivision either contain or have previously contained a single-family residence. Utilities and infrastructure are available for each lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Finding: S. Alps Road provides adequate access to the lots and each lot is required to provide a certain amount of off-street parking with the development of a residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: PUD -Other Amendment P&Z, February 19, 2013 Page 7 of 8 P21 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. Staff Finding: The development is not proposed to be phased. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. i i i PUD-Other Amendment P&Z,February 19,2013 Page 8 of 8 1 . .fie � ��' ' � • . 6' ' � •; v t',f ' . b. M r AL SON bit it gr1� f •� Y � pok � �• � . Ili' �..�.. - — r _40 r ,+ ,•� y � +� ��L IDS , yy: + , 1f i ■ s ;"d ' a • i t r If ;b Alv4 PR, 7J I 1 , ,.T,.r. fl .. 1�. - 1 + 11•' ± 4 Y 4 1 ti . • •�1'I.IY F! 11 AV V'�y1 r.My', ,.��•r�' 1 '`y '11 �' 1'� 1` {��, Elk .1 R 1 t a• �«bay ►'� �'� .• y`, tA. law PP •Ii - � -r""'� �fy. _.",-:- �.7 , r' � fir. - . :K• `p •' .` 1�.��,- 7'�•-Sp`L'�'its '. r''.,,' _ � �I�R,y,, �.�;•. � y � _ �.,/t+" �3; A�` "`!_§�f, •'� - I � �. 1 r � ..�'F � 4ayt�el�."' +1!+_ - 1 -+`I.L - •� ''F'1�.,^11.. . ���11' P +` P, �}r ; .'' � � ��'ry�' 1•/I�1 i .�r�,l:�n. J.µ'Vi.. tr9 i - I Fes'" ', �.�b' .i. •.Ff� 7 ��• - 4 � � � �'! �� - a 'a• �a r � 1 �I a r,. it I 48 o '���•� � ol?• r� .�' n s.. .-Sv f.:•-� O Vf 1 fit• �_' _ M �� _ I•.i. ��.. OF AN y. Pi MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan,Deputy Planning Director RE: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split—Zone district recommendation Resolution No._, Series of 2013 MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 APPLICANT/OWNER: South Alps Road REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Planning Services LOCATION: 605 S. Alps Road, Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split CURRENT ZONING: ^ Ski-Rec as designated by Pitkin County with a request for Moderate-Density Residential with of oses of Split a Planned Unit Development overlay(R-15/PUD). SUMMARY: A portion of Lot 1 is currently located outside of the municipal boundary. The Applicant is currently petitioning to annex that portion into the city and is seeking a recommendation of zoning to accompany the annexation request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split Zone District Recommendation P&Z Memo, 2/19/13 Page 1 of 3 r P2 • Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Man pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the zone district designation request. The City Council is the final decision-making body BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to annex a portion of Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split Subdivision into the City of Aspen. Currently a portion of the lot is outside the municipal boundary. Annexation Nprocedures are governed by the standard steps outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. State Statutes require certain procedural steps to be followed in an annexation and criteria for whether a property can be annexed. Following is a map showing the portion of Lot 1 located in Pitkin y County. I Figure 1: t Subject 6 1 1} property HLVes LcA=iytl 6U5, fw 1 _ Triangular portion of � Lot 1 outside I municipal boundary t I SKI•REC AiWi Cnaxiae' � 1 t j AR-I 0 Lot 1, Moses Lot Split Zone District Recommendation P&Z Memo, 2/19/13 Page 2 of 3 I P3 RESOLUTION NO._ (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE DITRICT DESIGNATION FOR A PORTION OF LOT 1,MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 S.ALPS ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273 71825 6003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from S. Alps Road LLC (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting annexation of a portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, part of Lot 1 is currently located within the city's municipal boundary and part of it is within unincorporated Pitkin County; and, WHEREAS, the portion of Lot 1 located within the city's municipal boundary is designated Moderate-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R- 15/PUD); and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with recommending a zone district designation to City Council for properties that are petitioning to annex into the city; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed annexation petition and recommended a zone district designation of Moderate-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-15/PUD); and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on February 19, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing and approved a recommendation to City Council of a zone district designation of R-15/PUD by a ---- to ---- (_-_) vote, with the findings listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval if a zone district designation of Moderate-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay (R-15/PUD) for the portion of Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split Subdivision legally described as: All that certain property situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, being within the Southerly portion of Lot 1, as said Lot 1 is shown upon that certain plat entitled "Moses Lot Split" filed in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado on June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83, said real property being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence North 05° 31' 27" West (shown on said plat of"Moses Lot Split" as N 05° 19' 34" W) 154.87 feet along the Westerly boundary line of said Lot 1 to the intersection of the City of Aspen"City Limits" line as said"City Limits" line is shown between station SA7 and station SA8 upon that certain map entitled"South Annexation Planning'and Zoning Commission Resolution No.--,Series 2013 Page 1 of 2 P4 to the City of Aspen, Colo" filed in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado on March 24, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 132; thence along said "City Limits" line South 70° 37' 21"East (shown on said map of"South Annexation to the City of Aspen, Colo" as S 700 37' E) 131.76 feet to the intersection with the east boundary of said Lot 1,thence S 440 43' 37" W (shown on said plat of"Moses Lot Split" as S 450 00' 00" W).155.43 feet to the point of beginning. 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, 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 effect 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 19th day of February,2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer,Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. --, Series 2013 Page 2 of 2 P5 Exhibit A 26.310.090. Rezoning- Standards of review. 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 compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The subject acreage being considered for annexation is part of a lot that is located both within and outside of the municipal boundary. Recommending an R-15/PUD zone district designation will permit the land that is outside the municipal boundary to have the same zoning as the portion of the lot that is within the municipal boundary. The neighborhood contains a mix of multi-family and single-family development and the zoning is consistent with other single- family development within the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Existing city facilities currently serve the subject lot as most of the lot is situated within the municipal boundary. The lot has previously contained a single-family residence that was served with adequate access, utilities and facilities. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed annexation and zone district designation will not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment. As noted previously the area being annexed is a portion of a lot that sits outside the municipal boundary and has previously contained a residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed zone district designation will match the balance of the lot's acreage that is located within the city. The neighborhood contains a mix of single-family residences and multi-family development and single-family use is permitted in the R-15 zone district and is complimentary to the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Rezoning P&Z,February 19,2013 Page 1 of 1