Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20130305 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, March 5, 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. Obermeyer Place— 101 Founders Place, PUD Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Discussion on Code Amendments VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: _ Pi "For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change" CITY AGENDAS City Council-2"d and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on Tuesdays) P/Z-1St and 3rd Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd &4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of February 25, 2013 3/5 P&Z(a) 4:30 (Jessica will cover for Jen) Notice: 2/11 Obermeyer, PUD Amendment, PH — SN Discussion of Code Amendments (ESA) -JG 3/19 P&Z(a-4:30 Notice: 2/25 501 W. Hopkins, RDS and setback variance, PH —JB 4/2 P&Z R 4:30 Notice: 3/11 616 E. Hyman, GulfCo, GMQS/Commercial Design, PH -JP 4/16 P&Z 0-4:30 Notice: 3/25 Boogies, GMQS, PH —JG Gap Building, GMQS, PH —JB 5/7 P&Z (aD- 4:30 —CANCELLED— Election 5/14 P&Z (7 4:30 —Special Meeting -tentative 5/21 P&Z 0-4:30 (Chris will cover for glen) P2 Community Development Update February 2013 Project: Aspen Valley Hospital Contact: Jennifer Phelan,429-2759 Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The Hospital has applied for approval of Phases 3 and 4. These include the addition of new medical office space, new hospital space, and a new entry. Update: P&Z recommended approval of the project on January 8th. Council approved first reading on February 25th, with second readings to be held in March and April Next Steps: City Council second readings March 11, 18, April 8, and 22. Project: 110 W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to increase the number of lodge rooms on the property from 45 to 53, add 4 new free-market residential units,add on-site affordable housing, and create an underground parking garage. The lodge rooms average less than 300 square feet. Update: Staff is still reviewing the initial application. The project's conceptual commercial design review will be conducted by HPC. HPC reviewed the project on January 9 and February 1 3and continued their review to March 13. Next Steps: Review by HPC on March. 1.3. Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778 Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E Cooper, commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12, 2012. City Council did not call the project up. Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final commercial design review. Project: 610 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Page 1 of 8 P3 Description: The applicant proposes to designate and expand an existing free-market residential unit and add two-story commercial addition to the property. The building houses the Charles Cunniffe offices. Update: Review by Staff. HPC is reviewed the project on May 23, 2012 and recommended a continuance. The was approved, with conditions regarding work required to in order to-qualify for designation, by HPC on October 10th. City Council approved the designation on January 14th, and gave the applicant 30 days to accept the decision. The applicant accepted the designation decision. Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final HPC review. Project: 601 E Hyman Ave (Victorian Square) Contact: Sara Nadolny, 429-2739 Status: Completed review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes demolishing and replacing the existing building with a mix of commercial space and one free-market residential unit. The applicant proposes to use an affordable housing credit for their affordable housing mitigation. The building is commonly known as the Garfield and Hecht office building. Update: Review-by Staff. P&Z reviewed the project at their June 19th and July 3`d meetings, and approved the project by 4:2. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to P&Z for further review of the public amenity space. P&Z reviewed and approved a slightly revised design. P&Z approved a Growth Management Review for commercial space and free-market residential space on December 4 th Next Steps: Applicant is determining if they will apply for subdivision approval. Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for their final design review with HPC. Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27. Project: 602 E Hyman Ave Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Page 2 of 8 P4 Description: The applicant had proposed to remodel the existing building and add a new third story. The development would have include updated commercial space, a new affordable housing unit, and an updated free-market residential unit. The applicant has since withdrawn their application and submitted a request to designate the property under AspenModern. The new application includes an updated free-market residential unit and updated commercial space. A small addition in the rear is proposed. Update: HPC will review the requested designation on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27th and then City Council reviews. Project: 419 E Hyman (Paragon Building ) Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is requesting a height variance for roof features and amenities The variance is required because of the recent changes in the height allowances in the CC zone. Update: City Council will review the request at their meeting on April Stn Next Steps: City Council review on April 8th. Project: 420 E Hyman (CB Paws/Zocalito) Contact: Sara Adams, 429-2778 Status: Pending review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 420 E Hyman with a new three-story mixed-use building. Update: HPC approved the project on July 25, 2012 by a 3:2 vote. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to HPC for further review of the mass and scale. HPC approved the massing on November 14th. The Applicant applied for subdivision and growth management reviews on February 15th. That application is being reviewed by staff and has not yet been scheduled for P&Z review. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. Project: 204 S Galena (Gap) Contact: HPC - Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 GMQS - Justin Barker, 429-2797 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property with a new one to two story building comprised of commercial space and a roof-top deck. The building is commonly referred to as the Gap building. Page 3 of 8 P5 Update: HPC voted to approve the conceptual design of the project on August 8, 2012. Final HPC Review was granted on December 12, and notice of call up was provided to City Council. The applicant received an amendment to their approval on February 13th to change the second story massing. The applicant has made a growth management application for the changed second floor space and to utilize the basement for commercial space. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively scheduled for April 16. Project: 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) Contact: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780 Status: Pending Review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes to add a third story free-market residential unit, and convert a second floor deck to commercial space. The building is commonly referred to as the Boogies Building. Update: HPC approved conceptual design of the project on July 11, 2012 by a 4:0 vote. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and accepted HPC's decision. The applicant has applied for growth management and subdivision reviews. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively scheduled for April 16. Project: 616 E Hyman Ave Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 616 E Hyman, with a new commercial building. Residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment. Update: P&Z approved the conceptual design of the project in November 2012, and City Council has exercised their call-up authority to review the decision. Council accepted the decision. The applicant has applied for growth management and subdivision reviews. Next Steps: P&Z review for growth management and subdivision reviews. This is tentatively scheduled for April 2. Project: 420 E Cooper Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposed to demolish an existing one-story commercial building, commonly known as the Red Onion Annex (currently houses the poster shop). The applicant proposes to replace it with a new two—three story mixed use building including commercial space and one free-market unit. Page 4 of 8 P6 Update: HPC reviewed the project on September 12, 2012 and approved it on October 24. City Council has exercised their call-up authority, and remanded the project back to HPC for view plane review. Next Steps: HPC reviewed the remanded project, and approved it with no changes. The applicant will apply for growth management and final design reviews. No application has been made to date. Project: Jewish Community Center Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The Jewish Community Center has applied for an Essential Public Facility growth management review for their project. They propose to amend the site plan to replace the social hall with a parsonage for the Rabbi. Update: P&Z recommended approval of the Essential Public Facility growth management review on December 18th. City Council approved the amended application on February 1 lth Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final design review with HPC. Project: 233 E Hallam Lot Split Contact: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 Status: Pending Review by City Council Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant proposes a lot split for the property at 233 E Hallam. They are requesting removal of a non-historic addition to the historic home. Update: HPC approved the request for removal of a non-historic addition on the property on November 14. City Council Lot Split Review is required and will take place in February and March Next Steps: City Council first reading on February 25th and second reading on March 11th. Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined. Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building (commonly known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012. They have applied for their final design review with HPC. Update: HPC will review the final design application on February 27. Next Steps: HPC review on February 27. Page 5 of 8 P7 Project: CC and C-1 Zones Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780 Status: Complete Closing Date: Jan 2013 Description: City Council amended the allowed height and free-market residential floor area in the CC and C-1 zones in April 2012. The allowed height is 28 feet for 2-story buildings, and a .5:1 FAR for free-market residential in non-historic buildings, only if equal amounts of affordable housing are provided on-site. Historic properties have a..5:1 free-market residential FAR by right. At the time, City Council indicated an interest in allowing three-story buildings, but that the exact height and uses deserved more discussion. Update: Over 200 individuals participated in the public outreach process on the project. City Council approved a"Policy Resolution"that provided staff with direction for specific code amendments. That direction included a ban on free-market residential uses downtown, and the ability to have 3 story buildings through some kind of review process with City Council. Staff is working on the amendments and will bring those forward later this fall. Council passed a Policy Resolution on August 27th, providing general direction to staff for code amendments. Next Steps: Staff will present proposed code language to City Council at 1St reading on November 12 and 2"d readingh on Nov 26, Dec 10 and Jan 14. City Council approved changes to the zones at their January 14t meeting. Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow 429-2780 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Spring/Summer 2013 Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is to "examine the desirability and sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen." As part of this effort, staff is conducting a lodging study to examine our existing inventory and to understand the current state of the lodging market. Staff is utilizing a two-phase approach to Council's Lodging Goal. The first stage includes an overview of the City's role in the lodging sector, interviews with key players in the lodging industry, and an inventory of lodging in Aspen. Phase two would begin with a series of facilitated roundtable.discussions between lodging owners,planners, developers, general businesses, ACRA, the Aspen Skiing Company, Stay Aspen Snowmass, and outside lodging experts. The discussion would focus on three topics: 1) Is there a problem in the lodging sector as it relates to product diversity? 2) Should the City have a role is addressing any problems? 3) If so, what can the City do? Update: The Phase 1 Report is available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and- Zonin/Long Range-Planning/ Phase 2 consisted of a charrette with Aspen's lodging stakeholders to discuss the issues, challenges and opportunities in the lodging sector. The group also discussed what rles the City could or should have in the lodging sector. The charrette was held on October 23`d and included Page 6 of 8 P8 representatives from Aspen's lodges, ACRA, SS, SkiCo, and the lodging development community. Two lodging consultants from Denver also attended and are writing a report on their conclusions from that meeting. Staff with present the findings and a summary of the meeting at a December work session. Next Steps: Staff is moving forward on the next steps presented to Council at their December 11 th work session. Project: ADUs Code Amendment Contact: Chris Bendon 429-2765 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Jan/Feb 2013 Description: Council, P&Z, and APHCA have all expressed interest in eliminating ADUs as an option when mitigating for housing impacts in single-family and duplex development. This code amendment eliminates the ADU mitigation option,creates a system to remove existing ADUs, and changes the mitigation trigger to any time new floor area is created in a single-family or duplex development. Update: City Council approved policy direction on November 12th, and approved code language at first reading on November 26th. Second reading on December 10 was continued to January 281H Next Steps: Staff is taking direction from the January 28th council meeting and working on the proposal. It will come back to City Council at a later date. Project: Employee Generation Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow, 429-2780 Status: Complete Closing Date: Feb 2013 Description: As part of the implementation of the AACP, City Council asked staff to update the employee generation study completed 10 years ago. This study has been completed, and there were a few changes in the employee generation numbers within different zone districts. This code amendment will update the figures in the code. In addition, Council has previously given staff Policy Direction to eliminate the provision in the growth management code that allows multiple mitigation requirements to be satisfied by mitigating for the largest requirement when on-site housing is provided (also referred to as the "double dip"provision). These two item will be address in the same code amendment. Update: Staff requests Policy Direction from City Council on January 28th, with 1St and 2r'd readings in February. Council approved Policy Direction on January 28th, and the code amendment was approved on February 25tH Next Steps: The code amendment goes into effect 30 days from approval (March 27). Project: Sign Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745 Page 7 of 8 P9 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Feb/Mar 2013 Description: City Council has asked staff to simplify the sign code. Update: City Council provided Policy Direction at their December l Otn meeting. First and second readings will be held this spring, but no dates are currently set. Next Steps: Council review at 1St and 2"d readings. Dates to be determined. Project: Business Obstacles Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745 Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Mar 2013 Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is related to improving City Codes to eliminate barriers to businesses. As part of this effort, Community Development has identified some obstacles in the Land Use Code that could be eliminated, including size caps on business types. Update: Staff requests Policy Direction from City Council on February 1 ltn, with 1St and 2"d readings in February and March. City Council approved policy direction on February l ltn, and first reading on February 25tH Next Steps: City Council second reading on March 18tH Page 8 of 8 -P� 3 -� 1�3 Council with a more detailed scope of work, including funding needs, later in 2013. While this priority was not officially voted on, 3 Council members expressed interest in pursuing potential updates. 5. Amend and update the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Chapter of the Code. This code amendment will update the review procedures and review standards for the ESA Reviews (Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, Hallam Lake Bluff, and View Planes). These code sections have not been updated in at least 10 years, and staff believes there are some ways to better ensure these sensitive areas are protected when developed. This priority received 2 votes. 6. Update Commercial Design Standards. City Council members expressed interest in updating certain sections of the Commercial Design Standards related to materials and corner elements. This priority received 2 votes. 7. Explore amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. City Council members expressed some interest in exploring the multi-family replacement program and discussing if the program continues to meet the stated policy objectives, and determine if any amendments are needed. This work program item requires more discussion with city Council to determine Council's overall policy goals. This priority received 2 votes. Potential Work Items for P&Z: City Council provided direction that the Planning and Zoning Commission could play an important role in getting a jump start on other work program items. These were not highlighted as Council priorities, but City Council expressed interest in the conversation and gave the Planning and Zoning Commission the option to discuss them and return to Council at a later date to discuss if pursuing a code amendment would be appropriate. These include: 1. Amend residential zone districts, and floor area, height, and site coverage calculations. The P&Z has expressed an interest in updating the floor area and gross square footage calculations in the city's residential zones. While there was not overwhelming support from City Council to pursue specific code amendments, they indicated a willingness to have a conversation on the issue. Council also indicated that this could be an area that P&Z begins work and outreach on prior to returning to City Council to determine if any amendments should be made. 2. Update parking requirements. P&Z has expressed interest in looking at the parking requirement outlined in the code. Council members indicated this was an area the P&Z could begin work on and then return to City Council to discuss potential next steps. Any update will require consultant assistance, but the initial steps to explore overall goals could begin at the P&Z. 2.4.2013 Council Work Session follow up memo Page 3 of 3 aAP10 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202,PUD—Other Amendment MEETING DATE: March 5,2013 APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony SUMMARY: Planning & Zoning Commission and M. Deborah Clancy- 101 Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012 approved a privacy Founders Pl, Unit 202, Aspen, CO screen to be erected along the western side of the 81611 balcony of Unit 202, intended to extend the length of the patio as outlined in yellow in Figure C of this memo. REPRESENTATIVE: Scott What was built was beyond the scope of this approval, Lindenau, Studio B Architects — 501 and includes the majority of the patio's perimeter. Rio Grande PI, Suite 104, Aspen CO 81611 The applicants are attempting to bring this privacy screen LOCATION: Obermeyer Place, 101 into Founders Place,Unit 202 compliance at this time CURRENT ZONING & USE: by Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) requesting Zone District with Specially Planned approval of Area (SPA) and Planned Unit what was Development (PUD) overlays; the actually subject site is used residentially. See built. Figure B,below, for a location map. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicants are requesting amendments to the Obermeyer PUD �• that will permit a length of existing Figure A: privacy screen to be maintained on image of the balcony of the site. subject site - 1 P11 Figure B:Vicinity map indicating —` location of the - subject property. LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicants are seeking the following approvals: • Amendment of PUD development order(Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Resolution 10, Series 2012, approved the construction of a fence along the walkway on the property's western edge, as well as a privacy screen of an approved length (as depicted in Figure C, following) that would serve to further provide screening for the applicant's second story unit. The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part of the Obermeyer Place COWOP Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003, permitting the construction of a mixed use project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units. 2 P12 Figure C:Exhibit A to Resolution 10,Series 2012, depicting the area where the privacy screen was approved by the Planning& A Zoning Commission. 4 Yellow depicts the approved area of privacy screen; Red f/ depicts the unapproved area - ' Existing Patio of privacy screen PROJECT BACKGROUND: In May of 2012 the applicants requested to increase the privacy of their residential unit at 101 Founder's Place, Unit 202, by constructing a wooden slatted screen along the perimeter of the unit's balcony wall. The screen was proposed to sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap of the unit's second story balcony. Through Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered staff's recommendation and approved the placement of the privacy screen at the unit, limited to the majority of the western portion of the balcony wall (as outlined in yellow in Figure C, above). However, the privacy screen was built beyond the approved scope, encompassing the nearly the entire length of the unit's patio wall, as depicted in Figure D,below. 3 P13 Figure D:Yellow indicates T? approved area of patio,per Resolution 10,Series 2012. y.r V Blue indicates area that was built beyond the scope of this approval. ` Exis_Ling Patio ►� ,r V p ` 6 PROJECT SUMMARY: At this time the applicants are requesting approval to maintain the existing wooden slatted privacy screen that surrounds the second floor balcony of condominium unit 202, amending the PUD to bring the non-approved portion of the screen into compliance. The J j privacy screen sits on top of the concrete wall cap that surrounds this second story unit. The wall cap measures approximately 127" in height. The screen provides an additional 30" to the wall, creating a height of approximately 15'2" as measured from finished grade, and stretching a total length of 44'9". '' N" Figure E:East facing -- side of Unit 202,as viewed from ground - level walkway. 4 P14 STAFF COMMENTS: The privacy screen addition to Unit 202 is proposed within Obermeyer Place, which is subject to the site specific development plan.approval by the PUD. Any changes to the land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space must undergo review and may be permitted through an amendment to the final development plan. The PUD review criteria discusses the compatibility of changes in light of architectural character, and is concerned with the compatibility and/or enhancement of visual character and relationships to surroundings. While staff finds that the the proposed screen does not change the land use, density, landscaping, or open space of Obermeyer Place, it does create some changes to massing (bulk) that are of concern. The privacy screen adds significant height to the existing deck of Unit 202, particularly along the eastern ' side of the unit where the wall is at its tallest point (see Figure E, above). The r 30" privacy screen adds additional height to an already large and prominent wall along the pedestrian way. Furthermore, the materials that are used, while seeming of high quality and attractive, are not found elsewhere within Obermeyer Place. To the extent that they are used around the entire patio, they become much more T�6 prominent than if they were found only along the western edge of the unit's balcony, and do not fit in with the character of the immediate area. y' Lastly, staff fails to recognize the need for such screening outside of that which Figure F: North facing side of Unit 202 had already been approved by Resolution 10, Series 2012. Unit 202 is raised at a second story level on its north and east facing sides, and therefore does not experience the same level of visibility as found on its western side, which is at grade with the neighboring lot. The addition of the screen at these locations is out of character with the architecture of the area, and sets a precedent to allow every other unit owner with a patio to request such a screen purely for aesthetic rather than functional reasons. 5 P15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to amend the Obermeyer PUD to allow the extended privacy screen at Unit 202, and require the removal of all sections not previously approved by Resolution 10, Series 2012 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2013, approving amendments to the Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA, with conditions." Attachments: EXHIBIT A— Staff Responses to PUD—Other Amendment Review Criteria EXHIBIT B—Meeting Minutes from May 15, 2012 hearing EXHIBIT C—Memo and Resolution No. 10, Series 2012,from May 15, 2012 hearing EXHIBIT D—Application 6 P16 RESOLUTION No._ (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT—OTHER AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE,AKA OBERMEYER PLACE, UNIT 202, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009 WHEREAS, Anthony and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Other Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission;'and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone district with PUD overlay; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69, Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Obermeyer PUD was approved through Resolution 10, Series of 2012, which included the construction and continuation of a privacy fence along the western edge of the property line, and the erection of a 30" tall privacy screen, limited to a portion of the western edge of the balcony's concrete wall at Unit 202; and WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the PUD Amendment; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 5, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen.Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The PUD is hereby amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for Unit 202, aka Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit 202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution. 1 P17 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 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 5t' day of March,2013. LJ Erspamer,Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Resolution Exhibit A: Site plan 2 P18 Resolution Exhibit A Site Plan '1 � • !p' g :ai! - Existing Patio w - : ISO 4 MOILIM... Green=Privacy screen approved by this resolution P19 Exhibit A PUD—Other Amendment Review Criteria 26.445.100(B) Other Amendment. An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing pursuant to Subsection 26.445.030.C, Step 3. The action by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered the final action,unless the decision is appealed. Subsection 26.445.030.C, Step 3: Standards of review—Section 26.445.050 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual,final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height,bulk, and architecture, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Response: The privacy screen is not found to be compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity in terms of height, bulk and architecture. The 30"privacy screen, as it is built, surrounds the patio of Unit 202. The subject site is a second story unit, and reaches to a height of nearly 13' on the unit's east side. The screen adds another 2.5' to the height of the wall, bringing it to nearly 15.5' in total height. Staff finds this to be a significant height increase in a pedestrian area that already contains a tall, blank wall. This height and slight setback of the screen on the patio perimeter adds a bit of bulk to the building at an area that otherwise contains a degree of transparency. Lastly, the building materials, while attractive and seemingly good quality, are not found at any other location throughout the Obermeyer Place PUD, and are not a good fit when wrapped around the unit's patio wall. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Response: The proposed development is not consistent with the character of the other residential units found in the immediate vicinity. Those units with balconies do have safety railings, however they do not have additional screening surrounding any of the units. Staff believes the applicants are afforded a reasonable degree of privacy by 1 P20 the nature of their residence being an end unit, and it being raised from the pedestrian walkway to a second story height. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Response: The proposed privacy screen will not affect the future development of the surrounding area; however, it does set a precedent for more of these screens to be requested by neighboring units, thereby changing the character of the PUD. 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 Response: The proposed development includes maintaining a privacy screen on the patio of an existing residential unit. This proposal is exempt from GMQS requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The 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. Staff Response: Staff finds the privacy screen to be incompatible with the existing upper story units in the surrounding area. Unit 202 is a second story unit, and as such is removed from the ground level by nearly M Resolution No. 10, Series of 2012 granted the applicants permission to erect the privacy screen along the western edge of the patio, which was at grade with the neighboring parking lot and is also visible by the adjacent staircase. However, the unit receives a reasonable degree of privacy from its second story level. No other upper residential unit in the area has such a screen, they only have safety railings. Therefore, the requested screen is incompatible with the other upper level units in Obermeyer Place, and furthermore, sets a precedent to other unit owners to allow aesthetic changes to their patio units. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Responses: The privacy screen is expected to have no contributing effects to natural or man-made hazards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2 P21 c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Response: The privacy screen is expected to have no effect on the natural characteristic of the property, overall, although it may contribute to the shade on the subject property. This property contains no steep slopes, waterways or significant vegetation and landforms in the subject area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Response: The privacy screen will have no foreseeable effect on the surrounding area in terms of contributing or detracting to noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources in the area. 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 Response: The PUD sets a height limit for buildings at Obermeyer Pl. not to exceed 35'. The highest point of the privacy screen, when measured from ground level, is 15'5': Although this does not violate the height limitation set by the approvals of the Obermeyer PUD, Staff believes it does create a concern. At the ground level on the east side of the unit the wall measures approximately 127': Staff finds this to add height to an already tall, blank wall along a pedestrian corridor, and to create a scale that is out of context with a pedestrian environment. Staff finds this criterion to not 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. Staff Response: There are no changes to parking associated with this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Response: There are no changes to parking associated with this proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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. Staff Response: There are no changes to public transit or other facilities associated with this proposal. Public bus transit is available on Main Street, directly adjacent to Obermeyer Place. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3 P22 d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Response: The proposal does not change the proximity to the commercial core or Aspen's activity centers. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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. Staff Response: The proposal involves a patio-mounted privacy screen for a single residential unit and does not change the water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities that currently serve the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be meta b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Response: This proposal is for a second story privacy screen that will surround an existing unit. There will be no change to the roadways/walkways that will negatively impact the ability to provide fire protection, snow removal or road maintenance. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. Staff Response: The proposed privacy screen does not affect the suitability of the Obermeyer Place PUD on the land. The privacy screen is at the second story level and will not impact ground stability. Staff finds the criterion to be met. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. Staff Response: Staff does not find reason to believe the privacy screen will create a detriment to the natural watershed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Staff Response: The privacy screen will have no pernicious effect on the air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. 4 P23 Staff Response: This application is to permit a length of privacy screen, not previously approved, to be maintained on the subject_ site through an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD. The screen is not incompatible with the natural terrain and will not cause harmful disturbance to the critical natural features of the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. 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. Staff Response: The applicant, is not requesting an increase in the permitted density within the Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exist no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density within the Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Response: The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted density within the Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 5 P24 Staff Response: There are no changes to the overall PUD, including changes to unique and historic features. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Response: There are no changes in the structures that will affect the open space or protected vistas on the site, although it should be noted that the privacy screen does reduce views through the subject site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Response: There are no changes to the orientation of the structure to the street and pedestrian walkway. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to the position of buildings or access ways that allow emergency and service vehicle access to the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Response: There are no changes proposed to the existing pedestrian and handicapped access within the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Response: The privacy screen does not affect the site drainage for the unit or the Obermeyer PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Response: This application does not propose any changes to the nonresidential land uses within the Obermeyer Place PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 6 P25 Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved A landscape plan is not part of the proposal. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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. Staff Response: The privacy fence, as it wraps around the perimeter of the patio of Unit 202, is not compatible with the existing architecture of the surrounding buildings. Although the materials are attractive and seem to be of high quality, they are unique to the area, as there is no other place in the vicinity where these materials are used Furthermore, they increase the scale of the subject unit, creating a heightened screen barrier where there previously was none. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 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. Staff Response: The proposal is for a privacy screen and does not include any natural heating or cooling properties, solar access, shade and vegetation, or mechanical systems. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Response: This proposal is for a privacy screen that measures just a couple of inches in width and 30" in height, and will sit on top of the existing concrete wall cap of the subject unit's patio. It is unlikely that the screen will further contribute to the 7 P26 shedding of snow, ice and water any more than the existing concrete wall cap. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. Staff Response: The screen does seem to be constructed of quality materials and is attractive, although it does not compliment the materials used throughout the PUD, or the character of other patios in the area. 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. Staff Response: There is no lighting proposed with this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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 Response: There is no lighting proposed with this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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. Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 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. Staff Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. 8 P27 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 Response: There is no common park, open space or recreation area proposed as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not-applicable. H: Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Response: This proposal is to permit a privacy screen to be maintained along the perimeter of the balcony of Unit 202 requiring no further public infrastructure outside of that which is already provided to the unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Response: Staff anticipates no adverse impacts on the public infrastructure. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Response: There are no oversized utilities or public facilities associated with this project. The site improvements include a 30" tall privacy screen that circles the majority of the second floor balcony of Unit 202. This screen has already been constructed at the cost of the owner, and no developer will be reimbursed for the improvements. The screen was constructed beyond the scope that was originally approved by Resolution No. 10, Series 2012, and is not appropriate as compared with this approval. Staff finds this criterion to not 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. Staff Response: Unit 202 currently has adequate access to Main Street, a public street, as well as the pedestrian walkway that is part of the general common element of the Obermeyer PUD. This proposal involves permitting a privacy screen to be maintained on the existing patio of the subject unit, and involves no changes that will create barriers to access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9 P28 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 Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. This development will have no impact on the surrounding roadways. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. No further connections to areas of trails are proposed with this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable, regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Response: There are no recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans regarding any of the above that are part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. No changes to any streets are being proposed as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 6. Security gates,guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Response: No security gates, guard posts, or entryway expressions are proposed as part of this application, and will remain unchanged. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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: 10 P29 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. Staff Response: Staff Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 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 Response: The applicants are requesting a PUD amendment that will allow a privacy screen to be maintained on the balcony of their second story unit, a length that was not originally approved. Phasing is not a part of this plan. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §24; Ord. No. 3-2012, §12, 13, 14 & 15)) 11 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 15, 2012 Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre Cliff Weiss, Keith Goode and Stan Gibbs. Jiro DeFrancia, Bert Myrin and LJ Erspamer were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy'Community Development Director; Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Assets; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jasmine Tygre said she had a processing question on PUD Amendments. Jasmine said that it used to be when you had a PUD or SPA Amendment that there was a process that you had to-support the-amendment Iike.changed circumstances and there is no mention of Section 26.440.080 in the code. Jennifer Phelan said there was 070 to 090 and wondered what was going on. Cliff Weiss asked what happened to the request for appreciation for the boards by- providing an ARC Membership. Jennifer Phelan said that she would talk to Chris tomorrow. Keith Goode said that the City was waiting on a certificate of occupancy for the Motherlode. Jennifer responded that it will be issued soon. Jennifer said.that she would do a long range update once,monthly at the beginning of the month. Jennifer said that they will be booked with current land use cases up to the 2nd week in August. Jennifer introduced Sara Nadolny as the Planner Technician and it presenting 2 cases. Minutes MOTION.- Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of May I"as amended on page 6; seconded by Keith Goode. All in favor APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated Public Hearing: 101 Founders Place (Obermever Place) PUD Amendment 2 P31 Regular City Planning& Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 15, 2012 Stan Gibbs_opened the public hearing for 101 Founders Place. Sara Nadolny stated that Scott Lindenau was represented by Studio B Architects; the owners of this property were Anthony and Deborah Clancy. Sara said the issue at 101 Founders Place Unit 202, the Crescent Building, was a privacy screen; these were both PUD and SPA as they deal with architectural elements and character. The applicant wanted to enhance the residential.space; the west.side of this space overlooks the City of Aspen impoundment lot. The privacy screen would sit onto of the wall cap surrounding the entire patio on the second story unit.-Second is to continue an existing fence that sits along the property line between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen Parking Enforcement Lot. Sara said the privacy screen was 3 feet 4 inches on the West side and sits atop the concrete wall cap and 12 foot 7 inches on the East side of the Unit. The screen will be constructed of wooden slats and metal and proposed at 44 feet 9 inches in total length. Sara said the fence proposal was to continue the fence that already exists on already a small portion of the northern side of the property line between Obermeyer and Aspen and figure G gives you an idea of what the fence already looks like. The fence proposal extension will extend 76 feet to follow the walkway shown on figure H. Staff is recommending conditional approval of this application. Jasmine said the upstairs neighbor did not object to the fence but requested a gate in the fence; is there a gate planned for this fence. Jennifer replied that walkway was a limited common area to the Crescent Building so when the applicant submits a building permit they will need to obtain approval from all the unit owners. Cliff asked if this fence or screen would have any visual affect on any other unit in Obermeyer. -Sara replied they are both on the property line and unit 202 is the only unit that would see it on the West end and the West side of Unit 202's patio faces onto the parking lot. Scott Lindenau distributed photos similar to the ones in the packet (Exhibit D); his client's unit was pretty much in the parking lot and photos were all different. Jennifer stated that Bill Murphy's letter would be (Exhibit Q. No public comments. 3 P32 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 15, 2012 MOTION: Jasmine Tygre move to approve Resolution #10, series of 2012 approving an amendment to Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA with the conditions and.the correct diagram; seconded Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss,.yes; Jasmine Tygre,yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 4-0. Public Hearing: ' 0 Doolittle Drive Water lace Affordable Housing) SPA Amen ent St Gibbs opened the public hearing. Sara Nadolny said represent g the owner of th roperty, the City of Aspen, is Jeff Pendarvis, City Assets partment. Sara said th uilding was part of the essential public facility to be co erted into an affordabl ousing unit. Sara said to do this conversion staff i requesting the Planning & ning Commission an SPA Amendment, Growt, Management Review, an in Use Review, 8040 Greenline Review an d Design Variances. Sara said the SPA is a ' e specific approval and this application would be approved administrativel ue to the change in use ofthe originally approved site plan; tonight staff is see in , proval of the SPA Miendment to assure compliance with APCHA Sta rds. The applic4fit is proposing to convert the existing emergency response fac, ty to a deed nAtricted single family unit; this building was currently vacant. Th` uilding S-,;located on the edge of the Water Treatment Affordable Housing with tie fror��'of the building perpendicular to the street and 580 square feet of net livable 'ce. They are proposing a covered 70 . square foot.covered entry and an 11 by 2 of carport and a 44 square foot storage closet. .� Sara said the 2 Residential Design,Variances wer\' indow ng does not face the street and the street orientated enance and princ will not face the street. The City is proposing a,�'ategory 3 or 4 hPCHA standards read Category 3 or 4 would be 7004quare feet. APCH 20% reductiomfor a . studio unit at Category 4 or:"ower. f Cliff Weiss asked wher "`the parking was located. Sara replied thtparking is located directly to th0 east of the unit on A11. Jeff Pendarvis said t whole area is paved. Cliff said no more asphalt is going to be.laid for this. Jeff rep no. Jeff Pendarvis.introduced himself; his understanding was that it was built back in the late 19908 with this in mind, to be converted to affordable housing. Jeff said the conversion of the City's water process occurred in 2010 and no longer needed 4 P33 ( hjC� P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202,PUD and SPA Amendment MEETING DATE: May 15, 2012 APPLICANT/OWNER: Anthony and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff M.Deborah Clancy,Obenneyer Place HOA recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the PUD/SPA amendment. REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Lindenau, Studio B Architects SUMMARY: The applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval to amend the PUD LOCATION: Obenneyer Place, 101 Founders and SPA to permit a privacy screen around the Place,Unit#202 second floor balcony of condominium unit#202. Applicant further requests approval to continue the existing fence along the western portion of the property,to more fully privatize the limited common element walkway between the Obermeyer Place ti SPA/PUD and the adjacent City of Aspen Parking Department's impound lot. Figure A:Unit#202, t � west side: proposed privacy screen location CURRENT ZONING &USE: Service rF, Commercial Industrial(SCI)Zone District with ! Planned Unit Development(PUD)and Specially '`^ Planned Area(SPA)overlays, residential use. . 311B PROPOSED LAND USE: The owners of Unit Figure B:west #202 request approval to construct a privacy :', side of screen on the 2nd floor unit's private balcony that property: proposed faces an adjacent parking lot,and to continue the continuation of length of fencing that currently exists along the general western edge of the property on the limited common element fence common element walkway for the Crescent Building. P34 P2 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Planning and Zoning Commission Approvals: • Amendment of PUD development order(Subsection 26.445.100.B, Other Amendment) to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority. • Amendment of SPA development order(Subsection 26.440.090,Amendment to development order)to construct a privacy screen for Unit 202 and add a general common element privacy fence. The Planning Zoning Commission is the final review authority. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The residences at Obermeyer Place were approved as part of the Obermeyer Place COWOP Project via City Council Ordinance 18, Series 2003, permitting the construction of a mixed use project containing commercial net leasable, affordable housing, and free market residential units. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicants request approval to construct a wooden slatted privacy screen to surround the second floor balcony of condominium unit#202. The privacy screen is proposed to sit atop the existing concrete wall cap,which measures approximately 3'4" in height from finished grade on the west side, and approximately 127" in height from finished grade on the east side. The privacy screen would provide an additional 30" to these wall measurements, bringing the west side to approximately 5'9"in height and the east side to approximately 15'2"in height, as measured from finished grade, and to a total length of 44'9". The applicant fiirther requests approval to construct a wooden fence on the western edge of the property between Obermeyer Place and the City of Aspen Parking Department lot, on the Crescent Building's limited common element walkway, which will complete an existing fence. The existing wooden fence measures 4'10" in height. The proposed fence will match the existing fence in height, color, and material, and continue for approximately 75'6" towards the southern edge of the Obermeyer Place property. The completion of this fence will serve to privatize the walkway and screen adjacent the parking lot. The project is before the Planning and Zonin-Commission because Staff found the proposed privacy screen to be inconsistent with the representations of the project's original approval, and therefore does not qualify as an administrative insubstantial PUD amendment. P35 P3 STAFF COMMENTS: PUD and SPA Reviews The privacy screen addition to Unit#202 and the limited common element fence are proposed within Obermeyer Place,which is subject to the site specific development plan approval by the SPA/PUD. Any changes to the land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space must undergo review and may be permitted through an amendment to the final development plan. Both the PUD and SPA review criterion discuss the compatibility of changes in light of architectural character, and is concerned with compatibility and/or enhancement of visual character and its relationship to its surroundings. Staff finds the proposed privacy screen to be compatible in materiality and color with the existing architecture of the Obermeyer SPA/PUD. Furthermore,the proposed screen will not change the land use, density, bulk, landscaping, or open space. It will add height to the existing deck of Unit#202, which will be minimal in nature and serve to create an element of privacy from the adjacent parking lot. The fence continuation is proposed to be maintained at the same height as that of the existing fence(4'10"),and will match the existing fence in color and materials. It will serve to privatize the Crescent Building's limited common element walkway between Obermeyer Place and the adjacent parking lot property for users. Staff finds the proposed fence to be compatible with the existing SPA and PUD. Given the minor architectural changes that are proposed to occur with this application and the compatibility with the existing architecture found within the Oberreyer SPA and PUD, Staff finds the review criterion to be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the fence extension,and finds the design to be compatible with the existing land use, and the materials and design to be consistent with the existing architectural character of Oberrneyer Place. The fence will serve as an extension of the existing general common element for Obermeyer Place and will further privatize the walkway between this property and the adjacent parking lot. Staff recommends approval of the privacy screen. at Unit 4202, to the extent that it be a1_1_owed on the west side of the unit. The unit's west side directly faces the City of Aspen's Parking Enforcement lot at grade, and therefore the applicants are currently unable to enjoy use of their patio with some sense of privacy that one may expect at a private residential unit. The screen, as proposed, would afford the applicants a degree of privacy. Furthermore, it is found to be compatible with the visual character of Obermeyer Place, and would not add significant height to the wall. However, Staff recommends denial of the extension of the privacy screen to the south and east of the unit. Unit#202 is raised at a second story level on its southern and eastern sides, P36 P4 and therefore does not experience the same level of visibility as found on its western side. A degree of privacy is further afforded by the tree that is growing on the unit's southern end. i 7Y � 8 ,b3 - - --- l � t ng Existing Patio y/ /�i`1 o wall / ,r, �. t:, Figure C: Proposed privacy screen, plan view. Yellow, Staff approved. Red,Staff denied. Ir,.:,. Figure D: Unit#202,west side of property; staff proposed limits of the privacy screen I P37 P5 -------------------- --------- ry V f yy, t Figure E: Unit#202,southwestern view w Figure F: Unit#202, southeastern view OUN 1N �. ASP "'sue +'1Y t yst�^• Figure G: Existing fence,west side ! Figure H: Proposed fence extension of Obermeyer Place property P38 P6 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2012, approving an amendment to the Obermeyer Place PUD and SPA as proposed,with conditions. Attachments: EXHIBIT A—SPA and PUD Amendment Review Criteria EXHIBIT B - Application P39 RESOLUTION No. 10 (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT.DEVELOPMENT—OTHER AMENDMENT AND SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 FOUNDERS PLACE,AKA OBERMEYER PLACE, UNIT 202, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND ON A LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-073-05-009 WHEREAS, Anthony .and M. Deborah Clancy submitted a request for Planned Unit Development(PUD)Amendment and Specially Planned Area(SPA)Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) zone district with PUD and SPA Overlay; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development approval for the Property was originally approved by the Aspen City Council via Ordinance No. 18 Series of 2003, and the Obermeyer Place Plat is recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County at Plat Book 69, Page 44, Reception No. 498396; and ' WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended. approval of the PUD and SPA Amendment; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on May 15, 2012, the• Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets 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, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission -finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety, and welfare. P40 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a privacy screen for-Unit #202, aka Obermeyer Place Condominium Unit#202, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Resolution. Section 2: The PUD and SPA is hereby amended to allow the addition of a fence along the western portion of the Obermeyer Place property, on a limited common element walkway,as depicted in Exhibit B of this Resolution. Section 3: 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 4: 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 5: clause, phrase, If any section, subsection, sentence, e, 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 15th day of May,2012. . Sys/�p/2— Chairman A ROVED AS TO FORM: ` av ,t 6 vy CA, Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney I 2, P41 ATTEST: 6packie Co hian,Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Privacy screen plans Exhibit B: Fence plans on limited common element 3 P42 Resolution Exhibit A Existing Patio Yellow=Approved length of privacy screen Red= Denied length of privacy screen P43 Resolution Exhibit B Proposed Fence location and Length existing / � ndo v�iall Existing Patio C - Q terminate new I fence at existing 9 ' / fit` / • •,f "`- concrete wall new wood fence to a. match existing ter'fl to!connect a� ga. fence to V� l 27 February, 2013 ASPEN Sara Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen 130 S.Galena St. Aspen,CO 81611 RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 i I To: Sara Nadolny I own the Bleeker Street Gym which is located directly across from 101 Founders Place Unit 202. 1 do not have any issue with the wood and metal railing constructed there and in fact never really noticed it.If it provides privacy for those owners in this dense neighborhood,it is fine that it remains as is. Don't hesitate to call me. Regards, Joe Vernic i 2� D isRe Michael Sailor I Chartered Financial Consultant p:970.920.9500 1 800.9313778 ma . S a I Q r Obermeyer Place f:970.920.2363 101 Founders Place I Suite 104 e:michaelOsailorinsurance.carn n S u r a n C e Aspen,Colorado 81611 HEALTH INSURANCE SOLUTIONS FOR BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUALS - LIFE • DISABILITY - LONG TERM CARE • RETIREMENT PLANS WEALTH TRANSFER February 27, 2013 Sara Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Sara, I have my insurance office here at Obermeyer in Unit 104 and feel fortunate to own my space in this locals complex and 1 know many of my neighbors both professionally and socially. I am aware of the wood railing in question in the unit above me at the South end of my building which the Clancy's own and I did speak to Scott Lindenau as their architect who works across the 'mall'from me. visited the patio and I do not have any issue with it or its construction. It gives privacy from both the path from Main Street and from the surrounding neighbors as that patio is in a very public spot. Please call me should you have any additional questions. Sincer q ly, i 1 l Sailor Steve Seyffert 102 Founders Place #201 Aspen, CO 81611 March 1, 201.3 Sara Nadolny Planner Technician City of Aspen 3-30 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Clancy railing, sox Founders Place, Unit 202 Sara, As a adjacent neighbor(one who's unit most directly faces towards the Clancy's patio and residence)and board member of the Obermeyer Place Condominium Association, I have spoken to the Clancy's regarding their patio railing and the concern the planning department has. I do not feel this impacts the neighborhood negatively nor has any implications to the Obermeyer community. It does provide them uch-needed privacy for the Clancy's. I am absolutely fine with it staying as is. To my knowledge none of my neighbors have a concern about it either. Please call me with any questions at 544.3344 or 309.9698. Sin erely, tev 5 ffe 1o2z Founders Place #201 Saturday, March 2,2013 12:21:23 PM Mountain Standard Time Subject: 101 Founders Place, Unit 202 Date: Saturday, March 2, 2013 7:47:30 AM Mountain Standard Time From: Steve Wilson To: Scott Lindenau Dear Sir or Madam: I understand that the short fence that the Clancy's have installed is in partial violation of city code. My wife and I live next door to the Clancy's at 101 Founders Place,#201. We pass by that fence daily and find that it is esthetically pleasing and provides privacy for the Clancy's as well as for those passing. We like the fence as it is. To require that they remove part of that fence will actually make it more noticeable. The Clancy's have done an excellent job, with neighbor and HOA approval,of keeping the architectural integrity of the- Obermeyer Place with the fence design. We support keeping it as it is. Regards, Steve and Clare Wilson i i i 1 i I fi I i I Page 1 of 1 P44 MEMORANDUM e TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Code Amendment Check-in PUD, SPA,ESA, and Subdivision Reviews MEETING DATE: March 5, 2013 SUMMARY: Earlier in 2013, City Council held a work session with staff and P&Z to review the Community Development Department work program. At that time City Council re-affirmed existing priorities, and directed staff to move forward on potential code amendments related to the PUD, SPA, ESA, and Subdivision Reviews. This meeting is a check-in with P&Z to hear what specific changes the Commission is interested in seeing in these code sections. Staff is also holding a check-in on these issues with other City Departments and with the private planners and architects who use these sections on a daily basis. CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS: All code amendments require a three-step process. This meeting represents a portion of Step One—gather feedback from key stakeholders. Because P&Z uses these code sections, staff wants to make sure the Commission has an opportunity to weigh in early on the potential code amendments. The second step is City Council passing a Policy Resolution, which provides official direction to staff to craft a code amendment. The Third and final step are public hearings with City Council to adopt the code amendment. DISCUSSION: This memo outlines the different code sections P&Z is asked to provide feedback on. P&Z's feedback will be used to craft the potential code amendments, and will be presented to City Council as part of their review. PUD and SPA: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Specially Planned Area (SPA) portions of the land use code allow variations to the allowed uses (SPA) and dimensions (PUD) on a project specific basis. They are similar processes, requiring an individual project to demonstrate that a variation from uses or dimensions in the underlying zone district provides a benefit to the community and results in a desirable development pattern. These sections have not been updated in many years and an update to ensure the chapters reflect up to date standards is desirable. Staff believes many of the review standards should be updated to reflect modern concerns related to engineering issues, environmentally sensitive areas, utilities, etc. In addition, staff believes examining the landscaping and architectural character requirements to ensure they are meeting today's needs could be beneficial. In addition, the code outlines specific documents that are needed for recordation prior to receiving a building permit. Some of these may be more detailed than desired, specifically related to the location of utilities and grading. Staff will work with City Departments to ensure changing the recordation Page 1 of 2 P45 documents requirements makes sense. If P&Z has any comments on this issue staff is also interested in hearing them. One of the common criticisms from members of the community and applicants is the nature of Conceptual and Final Reviews. Conceptual currently does not lock an applicant or the City into anything, and effectively lengthens a review proves by one to two years. Another idea could be to make the Conceptual review binding, or have it mean more than it does today. Staff is interested in hearing from P&Z on this point in particular. One specific change that staff is interested in seeing in the SPA section is to add a P&Z level amendment review. Currently, only administrative and council level amendments are allowed for SPAS. Staff is interested in aligning the SPA process with the PUD and Subdivision processes, which include an "intermediate" P&Z level amendment process. In both sections, staff believes some clearer review criteria for the "intermediate" amendment could be beneficial. ESA: The Land Use Code requires a heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, within an established view plane, located near Hallam Lake, or located within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. These code sections have not been updated in ten (10) years for stream margin and more than 20-30 years for the other sections. Staff believes there are some ways to better ensure these sensitive areas are protected when developed. Staff does not propose to change the View Plane Standards, but would like to clarify some of the language related to the review process. Staff is interested in hearing what specific changes or goals P&Z has for 8040 Greenline, Hallam Lake Bluff, and Stream Margin reviews: One specific item both Community Development and Engineering staff would like to make is to use one line of measurement for Stream Margin. Currently the code references three (3) different lines that are used to determine where the stream margin area is located. Staff believes simplifying this will assist the city and property owners in determining what portions of a property are subject to review. In addition, Parks and Community Development Department staff is interested in adding language in all the reviews related to maintaining existing native vegetation, as well as any required re-vegetation. Subdivision: Staff believes the subdivision chapter as written creates confusion and does not clearly outline what is required for final development documents. The chapter has not been updated in many years, and as such some of the requirements may be outdated, especially as they relate to engineering requirements. Many projects are currently subject to a subdivision review, even if they are not physically dividing Property. Staff is interested in looking at these and creating different levels of subdivision review depending on project size and scope. The review criteria in subdivision are intended for the actual division of physical land. However, the code currently treats large subdivisions like Burlingame the same as a single downtown building in terms of review standards and process. Staff believes these are different in terms of impacts and the actual subdivision issues presented. Like the current PUD process, Subdivision includes an amendment process with P&Z, which does not have any review criteria. Staff is interested in adding some specific review criteria to enable an easier review by P&Z. Page 2 of 2