HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20130319 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, March 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
a Ig �3 a�,d1 03 �-5 J13)
III. MINUTES 1 i
� J
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 501 W. Hopkins, Residential Design and Dimensional
Variances
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Code Amendment check-in
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
P1
ICA .
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRu: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Justin Barker,Planner
RE: 501 W. Hopkins Avenue- Consolidated Variance Review: Dimensional and
Residential Design Standards, Public Hearing
DATE: March 19, 2013
APPLICANT/OWNER' Photo of Subject Property:
Christopher Huckabee
REPRESENTATIVE:
Luis Menendez, Menendez Architects, P.C.
LOCATION:
501 W. Hopkins Avenue i
CURRENT ZONING'
R-6,Medium-Density Residential '
SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting '
one setback variance and two n
variances from certain Residential Design 501 W.Hopkins Ave lot,Looking southwest from
Standards in order to construct a new intersection of Hopkins Ave. and Fourth St.
single-family residence and attached
garage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny variances from the rear
yard setback and Residential Design Standard
for garage placement and approve a variance
from the Residential Design Standard for
window height.
LAND USE REQUESTS:
Applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family residence and attached garage at 501 W.
Hopkins Avenue and is requesting the following land use approvals:
1
P2
• Variance approval from the 10 feet rear setback for principal buildings in the R-6 zone
district.
• Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2,
Requiring the front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport
to be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the
house
• Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 D.3,
Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would
typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve(12) feet above the finished floor.
FIGURE 1: VICINITYMAP
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
A variance from the Residential Design Standards shall be approved, approved with conditions,
or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and
Zoning Commission under L.U.C. Sections: 26.410.020 D. Variances.
If the application for a dimensional variance is part of a consolidated application process, the
Planning and Zoning Commission may review the application using the standards and procedures
set forth in Chapter 26.314,Variances.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The current parcel was created under Ordinance #6, Series of 2006, rezoning the "Boomerang
Vacant Parcel" from the R-15 Moderate-Density Residential with a PUD and Lodge Preservation
2
P3
Overlay to R-6 Medium-Density Residential. The lot was also split into two parcels: Lot 1 of
7,500 square feet and Lot 2 of 12,237 square feet. Lot 1 is the parcel of discussion.
According to the ordinance, "Lot 1 is limited to one (1) single family residence and Lot two is
limited to two (2) detached free market residences, plus two ADU/CH units attached to one-
another." Both lots are required to provide affordable housing mitigation by developing one (1)
"for sale" accessory dwelling unit or carriage house. These units are located on Lot 2 in a duplex
configuration as a requirement of the ordinance. The ordinance also requires, "Vehicular access
to Lot 1 shall be taken from the South Fourth Street stub located directly to the east of the
property."
The applicant is proposing construction of a new single-family home that requires variances from
one setback and two Residential Design Standards. In 2009, a single-family home was previously
approved on the lot and excavation began. The project was abandoned and excavation was filled.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE:
The R-6 zone district requires principal buildings to be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the rear
setback line, but allows for the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage to be
reduced to five (5) feet. The applicant has the proposed garage within its allowable setback of
five (5) feet, but also proposes a sub-grade living space that shares the same foundation wall as
the garage. The figure below shows the location of the proposed wall and allowable setbacks.
FIGURE 2
9 I
s �
n�ncK
XTI
c ss I I
•&�i.LJ4 \ 0
W.LG3� lEDDJOM! \ .
ON. Wl1WwY ❑ 4 � ' C
aI $
WNK
tl6a
5�<I!
re.vv ❑ I
I Required 10'setback
Proposed construction below garage
s (5'setback)
N
3
P4
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements, the Board shall make a
finding that the following three(3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel,building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of
the parcel. The setback standard may be considered as an inconvenience, but not an
unnecessary hardship,particularly in the case of new construction. The applicant has expressed
that the previous project used uncertified backfill for the excavation. Though this might create
additional construction costs, it does not create a circumstance unique to the parcel that
deprives the applicant any right commonly enjoyed by other parcels. Applicant can still
construct a new residence, and have reasonable use of the property without the requested
dimensional variance. Staff recommends denial of the request.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES:
Under Land Use Code Section 26.410.010.A. of the Residential Design Standards, "The
purpose...is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's
streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking...that each home...contribute
to the streetscape."
The proposal has been designed to meet the majority of the design standards. The two (2) design
standards that are not met by the proposal are:
1. Parking, garages and carports: The front faeade of the garage or the front-most supporting
column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the
front-most wall of the house
2. Windows: Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor
level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the
finished floor
4
P5
Parking, garages and carports The standard requires that all residential uses that only have access
from a public street provide a garage that is set back from the front facade of the house by at least
ten (10) feet. The intent of the requirement is to "minimize the presence of garages and carports
as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist." The applicant has proposed the
garage almost eight (8) feet in front of the front-most wall facing Fourth Street as shown in the
figures below.
FIGURE 3
7 14
i
7 f
f 1 14
f
/ F
PROPOSED ATTACHED -
/ / 2-GAR GARAGE OVER
BASEMENT4.'o
1
s
FIGURE 4
®®® ®®® �.
,� EAST ELEVATION(FOURTH ST�E�
5
P6
There are two review standards that the applicant is required to meet if the Commission is to
grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2):
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures,the immediate neighborhood setting
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section Of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 26 410.040E. Though the garage faces Fourth Street, it would
still be easily seen from Hopkins if it was the furthest out element, which would not be typical for
the development of the neighborhood. Though Fourth Street does not service much vehicular
traffic, it functions as an access point for pedestrian traffic to the Midland Trail and Little Cloud
Trail. The proposal places the garage right along this access point where it is visually
dominating, and does not meet the intent of the guideline to minimize the presence of garages
where alleys do not exist. The proposal is required to access the garage along Fourth Street, but
has the opportunity to move the location further from the street. The lot has the space to meet the
intent of the standard and is not unduly burdened with an unusual site specific constrain. Staff
believes that the requested variance does not meet the variance criteria. Staff recommends denial
of the request.
Windows The standard requires that street-facing windows shall not span through the area where
a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above
the finished first floor. The applicant has proposed windows that extend 10.5 feet above grade on
the living room wall behind the garage and to the south as shown in the figure below.
FIGURE 5
i, ®®® ®®®
2 FA¢ SAST ElF:VN EAST ELEVATON(FOURTH STYNEWJ
6
P7
The same variance review standards apply.
Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E. The intent of the guideline is to prevent
windows where a second story floor plate is typically located. Since the windows are located on
a one-story mass and are only 1'6" taller than the limit, the impact will be minimal. The
windows are largely hidden from view by the garage, but there are no site-specific constraints
that suggest the need for taller windows. Staff finds that the requested variance meets standard
,,a. " of the review criteria by providing an appropriate design or pattern of development
considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular
standard.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning'Commission deny variances from the rear yard
setback and Residential Design Standard for garage placement and approve a variance from the
Residential Design Standard for window height.
RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2013, denying variance requests from the rear
yard setback and garage placement Residential Design Standard and approving a variance request
from the window height Residential Design Standard to construct a single-family residence
located at 501 W. Hopkins."
Exhibits:
A. Review Criteria—Variances
B. Review Criteria—Residential Design Standards
C. Public Comment—Craig Navias—March 12, 2013
D. Application
7
P8
Resolution No._
(SERIES OF 2013)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING
VARIANCES FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND GARAGE PLACEMENT
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE
WINDOW HEIGHT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD TO CONSTRUCT A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 501 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 273512466002
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Christopher Huckabee, represented by Menendez Architects, PC, requesting Variance approval
from the rear yard setback and Residential Design Standards for garage placement and window
height for the construction of a single-family residence and attached garage located at 501 West
Hopkins Avenue; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.410.D, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
may approve a Residential Design Standard Variance, during a duly noticed public hearing after
considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.314.020, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission may approve a dimensional variance as part of a consolidated application process
authorized by the Community Development Director pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B.1;
and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variance Review Standards; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended denial of variances from the rear yard
setback (Land Use Code Section 26.710.040.D.3) and the Residential Design Standards —
Parking, garages and carports (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.C.2.b); and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Variance from Residential
Design Standards — Building Elements, Windows (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.D.3.a);
and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2013, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. Series of 2013, by a _ to _ vote,
denying a rear yard setback variance and Residential Design Standard Variance for garage
placement, and approving a Residential Design Standard Variance for window height; and,
P9
-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,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; 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.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Section 1•
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies variances from:
• Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district rear yard setback Section 26.710.040.D.3
• Residential Design Standard: L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.C.2.b., Parking, garages and
carports (requiring the front facade of a garage to be set back at least ten (10) feet further
from the street than the front-most wall of the house)
Section 2•
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance from the following Residential
Design Standard:
• L.U.C. Section 26.410.040.D.3.a., Building Elements,Windows (prohibiting street-facing
windows from spanning between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished first
floor)
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.
Section 5•
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.
P10
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting on March 19, 2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer,Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: East elevations (representing approved window height variance)
P11
EXHIBIT A
Fl-
- a
2 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION
r.
I'I}
flXCD N'sU.�Et
M1FD WX0�T ELF:iEL'fiG�al
G.Jt-GE CYFt K i�Wnii i5
EAST ELEVATION(FOURTH ST.VIES
P12
EXHIBIT A
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements, the Board shall make a
finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use
of the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone
district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere
inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the
Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings
in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied
by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district
Staff Finding: Staff finds that the R-6 dimensional standards do not prohibit reasonable use of
the parcel. The setback standard may be considered as an inconvenience, but not an
unnecessary hardship, particularly in the case of new construction. The applicant has expressed
that the previous project used uncertified backfill for the excavation. Though this might create
additional construction costs, it does not create a circumstance unique to the parcel that
deprives the applicant any right commonly enjoyed by other parcels. Applicant can still
construct a new residence, and have reasonable use of the property without the requested
dimensional variance. Staff recommends denial of the request.
P13
EXHIBIT B
There are two review standards that the applicant is 'required to meet if the Commission is to
grant a variance from the standard, Section 26.410.020 (D)(2):
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the
context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of
the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting
or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is
warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 26.410.040E. Though the garage faces Fourth Street, it would
still be easily seen from Hopkins if it was the furthest out element, which would not be typical for
the development of the neighborhood. Though Fourth Street does not service much vehicular
traffic, itfunctions as an access point for pedestrian traffic to the Midland Trail and Little Cloud
Trail. The proposal places the garage right along this access point where it is visually
dominating, and does not meet the intent of the guideline to minimize the presence of garages
where alleys do not exist. The proposal is required to access the garage along Fourth Street, but
has the opportunity to move the location further from the street. The lot has the space to meet the
intent of the standard and is not unduly burdened with an unusual site specific constrain. Staff
believes that the requested variance does not meet the variance criteria. Staff recommends denial
of the request.
Staff Finding: The South Fourth Street stub is not an improved section of road, but is still a
public street, as defined in Section 2641-0.040E. The intent of the guideline is to prevent
windows where a second story floor plate is typically located. Since the windows are located on
a one-story mass and are only IT' taller than the limit, the impact will be minimal. The
windows are largely hidden from view by the garage, but there are no site-specific constraints
that suggest the need for taller windows. Staff finds that the requested variance meets standard
"a. " of the review criteria by providing an appropriate design or pattern of development
considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular
standard.
12 March 2013
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Re:501 West Hopkins Aspen 81611
Dear Commission,
My name is Craig Navias,and I am writing to you because I believe that plans submitted for the
subject property, which is directly East of my home at 505 West Hopkins,violate the City's
Residential Design Standards as well as the original Intention of the Boomerang Lot Split
Subdivision.
I have included for your reference the original Boomerang Lot Split Exemption Plat,which
shows how the parcel of land was split into Lot 2, containing three already built structures and
Lot 1,on which the subject property Is planned. I would hope that the original intention was
for all homes to work together, and I do not believe that the proposed home will be
harmonious with the existing homes.
When I purchased my home in 2010, 1 understood that the home at 501 West Hopkins would
have a single story element adjacent to my single story element, per the original 501 West
Hopkins West Elevation (attached for your reference). I frankly thought this was to be in
compliance with the inflection clause of the residential design standards. When I pointed out
to the Community Development Department that the new design does not have a single story
element adjacent to my single story element, I was Informed that the inflection standard only
applies to street facing elements. I would like to point out that the Midland Trail runs directly
behind my home and the lot at 501 West Hopkins,and that the Residential Design Standards
define a Street as "A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley,containing a public access
easement and used or intended for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic" When I pointed out
to the Community Development Department that this is exactly what the Midland Trail is and
that therefore the rear of my house should be considered street frontage as well,they
informed me that while the Midland Trail does indeed fall broadly under the definition of
street, it is clearly a trail and is not considered as a street for the purposes of the standards. I
must respectfully disagree with what the Community Development Department says because
the Midland Trail is clearly intended for pedestrian traffic and that is indeed how it is well used.
The general purpose of the Residential Design Standards makes it clear that the standards are
P15
largely intended to make our neighborhoods conducive to walking, and the Midland Trail is
used as much or more than West Hopkins for that very purpose.
I have also attached a picture of the East side of my home at 505 West Hopkins (which includes
the lot at 501 West Hopkins) as well as a picture of the rear of my home from the Midland Trail
for your reference.
I ask for your consideration and again submit that the proposed home at Sol West Hopkins
violates the inflection clause of the Residential Design Standards and is not harmonious with its
neighbors.
Respectfully Submitted,
Craig Navias
505 West Hopkins
cinavias arrowtube.com
214 564 6369
-v
rn
T„aEE40AT EXTEaro¢ .
aaa B�sTO�E�A¢
Y2 6 wATEa SHEiD,TAU.
vEVEEa OVER]V.YEaS
OF�xATERVPOOF BllY'JIN'a vAVER
lBgWZ�OMAI w�p
BTaH
501 W. HOPKINS
- WEST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS r.c.
, BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT SUBDIVIS -LON EXEMPTION PLAT
`'s r•"] f•"' DVNER'S CERTIFIUTE
TW.i eAPT 9f LOTS A,B AMI C LY W IF:RTH31:Y DF l IIF)-t CF INE CI-Y AMC f � '''7 /�� xM1l av iyEy9 fwSlfEttf R,i MvU,c,r..n,uc.A�.nfE L:NrA
( f0KN6•TE OG T IAC4RDIN0 TO TXE 19)1 PE3L'P'hY Br We BUREAU 4F L,HD C f YpG
PAHAOEIhTI. IHE 60UT Y F�F.TXERC I , 1'••• IIAYiiiT fue/aY . rxE 4ca9S e.l�f axe
f�A� 1'f.alp THE WITH!!FFeT OF ' }
:DTS D AHD 1{IF VDA�30µEEi OF LQ 5 .`NN pl F51D!lE ryP'll 50 oET Of_GT •�,� { � yf o"��•?•� LS•tEr r
.i1�CEx fi. TT D iORlll.£Dc FEII, r IN OCll C:IIYAD:
t` OOIRA:HIND 0.153 ACREf•/ �j �mlA<:nawn'ivrvs::�vnikv..Gi iT.iH Hcoi�vi°.�e jox`foiHef ar wi
e 'P w j~. �aio�aiv i su.lrlslm Emei:o,"Hf'°Itt oa nfeex.IxIM
�...1'
a 3 :x.s of II n ,.w fnw,,no Ar• `` �J 0 5 `�r"en�G�E .Ti�v nrrivn:lii1.`w�f
i v WI•,.,, aP.,. Pw,E I�G,. EE
;,7 477 ax+! rf� 9wa-3 •w���,I:�9® •/''•FEr f.
1 I T k •Rr :. .. E
7.O �%` � i 30� o; AYrA,UR ``�-�` ilb'li?;..vASE'u'L11L`�C_`C"�8Y•.`I•i_'`7�i`.Rim,.
!r•a.l 'p w• F.RTIFICATE
1 '1"4�?\•_\ /� � 8 MORTGAGEE'S C
� 'Y1C � abvf.e,`` :-�',Lx�;�°Ff(pE 9tTS r:uT pN�o p'EV rdTi i,aio�xconxwuu nxxlnrlm
i C ..T ew nar n 'r2 e"wA':�`L`�iO4m•°AEiiB x V'�
� -•\\ :,� � � 7--, ,h`�'
D of n D9u,m fm3 "_s_DAV a'
•,\ R \;.. Lax a / �_..`- •,m.�.� \ :1 E "'
15 STLt AJAX APFOBDAR Lt HOVd[N4 • \�5\,J 'E% � s2 � s
A.m af!9w3. •'\ ; '°+0 1\ +<,3:l � /r 'l3 � ° � �_(--�._ 1 � ,ND ra '7 3w9,E
�`�,v.f.Y 'n�' ;:1T*.�. ...�::. "•i S`• ., \ F � LDT I � �8« Ak. �• �� _.a.:. ^7�.r)... �S . '1
���`r;,•t TFT T CS'T •' "d..h ";::F:r• '\. 4. c`.?fE'.ua.. - ° '
r T,C T ...Pt I'i:.�•''•' ,,•,i w'7'n"t „' w i- `__j.,., r ! I '` y / TITLE CEPTIGIUTE
/
�.:�.�Iwl�"�wi•._::t'�:rl..
:.•t,;'Ht,
•":t„t:ii ri:I• "'!•9..,,. -E=FG` / /' ,.�J' / :��I ro�ir��GPs,
^�uwYli�..i ,Yfs,CDR Er.et Y'n"c'.��1T�9.'fl Al°:°p.re 3F
lft.” s AfF tf,rtt"�.,E°E
.:.Z'.-'...7:C:. :':,1"..i1:fl.. :..1...,r... 4 aw CC.•o- �/ 'q urn,....A'-'1f°i."ae.:,r� "w',.werq�.ir9, nE.,aa�muuu�Ee
.;:,!. '•w a�fti �,a , / �
..1::19+Clfi... Ir.:M.: ' by.I, S' n;iwm'aol•N"'�Z�:�'
.°':'::.i�a�a.'w .ay'•\ l l '•N•fa/ �•,� "� � ,s 1 �w i4A'
• r11T I � b'J
,.:t'°�,:��•1ww,it:w�T'�.1.�...�if:1„r Tt:^.. A:tT:�.D: •\ / ;5ft” % I'� / .Ht 9YjE+�w2�7Rr'el�t.
1 j}f T 1 9' C•� f f r ..v t i.,.. I LOT p n f%•KGGTLrq,Y°'�#r`!'f.At
i 1519.3 T.�'�w} 'C I~. ••'..'7.ei MARY 8 �o• f j °�'�Us�a�,
I}
lit M9 n„ila ..r Ew:' I Ip„�t 5189 Itl , rWwrzIi t.T
`T:.Ua• 1�I1:7.,. 11fF r,e 4N Yr" \ +c...! ..
�1 SURVEYOR'S CERT FE�IG fE /
Ri OE OF ASPE �waC' mQ<lD,
? ,y �C .feH A
r••t:':t.....is r.EE�� ..: r, t.w.i.Tl.e.. OSLS
1IO8ND AND N � � '/ or rve nlf:ax wvrn.cB,fA`ttii� 1 o recaoi Im
�dvR::TI'i:•i,�.:9;::� i w''f.'i:'e:l:.x.wiS�.� 1+41.�l.'Ci: LAMING CLAIM •w'^a? sm e v nom.
;j•:T'� r , /•`i.iT o F9aw 9e 3�T rw5i••imrnHr A3 9:f°Iltw fiDg9, � u9e.
f 9::::•T,°r.i. a., a7" ...........r.,..C.i t': '•\ e I sz an ,
xi��t3.S..�q:• }i:Ti:'•�:T.: `.:1'It:: i•y'• VIGfNITY AEAr O JWVF.II?III�'II�I'ItFIIyIII;I'II CTYsCOUNC•L•APPROVAL
,�• :!° ".�:.i-`:S}'i°'•C'r;•"!':r^S.'2, °. :,rl. k:T1R:`, I. _e.. •A{'s� �E• 't`r"N =, ,}�.QI3� ow°'HT••
i.•::�.. ,":_ ::Tn :G:�1;.. �T ".:F r"+ °°`'--788 t :7' A
,�..�.,3 �YInE•;;r.n``-�y
l.�ll�i:«.«.`Iw••1.r.Mw�w,..,l.' r.,.«.I.. - '2?°N�� _ ,�'° •,fa3.•i]B�MPUU:S?"wofir. Sx^.we. K;:,A�
,��;I:, ,.,,....TI:f'T:C::t:'°:;:'Y:::.' �`o�' � E��eP '� 1 FIVw_39 r E.,�. i•.
Cuy;:A��wOB orQ01��"'_'rj °SMfT�rile°n"E u:rfie"3:;�:L:oy i5:3
A GAP �'^�` CITY ENO:h<ER'S APPROVAL s
:y. ' "�• "G�+y.ti rt.ii`j:%i'�ci`/.<i 1r!•'1.i':J�FEOe�IiAju-,m rof ll¢.fsunrlwv a ys°ni�fa,�i�`•�E or ti7r?afaxn w cEVU.to
Al
ASPEN S . f awn w .ww N . UmQm:TY DEVELOPMLN-APPROA
mw.A F ui a° o`y7 4Y "°p"P,er E: °nom U',oxo�`ATtiart"mm LExi
MM rf>91 99, SITE ���'`- ''mRf�16'75=g .�w E art• 'e
e.ae :o.osD PARKS DEPAR--HENT A-FROVAL
CLERK MC PECOROER'S ACCEPTAKC. ^,'jt9.;µ=ri[eo'lMtTl'c,'{:,•aP` '4;<'--'
:l
'E" `Y� ao•0A'J: n •°`',r7-,ra�:�'ximFo�°:i'•iiiF w•,rc acx „n N
tx i}�"5.�1f.���•�! ^�T:"t�'�
V
,mss i
mrq -
'
i
i
t `LA 1 q.r
yn Y
hit
4� 7z
Rev. .
r Vie �y
iL
pia "
1 Y
wqp
Oj
jw
' ++pint�.♦1R��1�a�17Cti i-. ^n s�: �r - H� .r...Ak�;._
1 M1.
1 ��.�'. ,9i4 ' �• X21 + .�; - ���
F
wz:,
111 -
i -
v, R
t
:
r
l
+.'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: 3.5.2013 Code Amendment Check-in Follow Up
PUD, SPA, ESA, and Subdivision Reviews
MEETING DATE: March 18, 2013
SUMMARY: Staff met with P&Z on March 5th to review potential code amendments related to
the PUD, SPA, ESA, and Subdivision Reviews. The Commission provided initial direction and
comments on these potential amendments, which are summarized by code section below. The
purpose of this meeting is to confirm P&Z direction on these items. P&Z is asked to review the
summary, and provide comments on any changes during the work session portion of the March
19th regular meeting.
Also included is a summary of comments from staff's meeting with local architects and planners
on these same potential code amendments.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA: The P&Z supported the idea
that Conceptual PUD and SPA reviews should have more meaning. Under the current system,
Conceptual Review does not technically lock a developer into a specific development program or
massing—it only enables them to apply for Final Review. There was some frustration that under
the current system projects can change dramatically between Conceptual and Final, which
creates uncertainty for everyone involved in the review process. The Commission felt that
making certain aspects of the Conceptual reviews binding, such as massing, height, building
placement, lot locations, parking, and general use mix, that the community, staff, and review
bodies would not be "surprised" at Final. The Commission felt that creating clearer Conceptual
review criteria would assist in focusing on these issues, and would be an improvement to the
current process.
There were mixed opinions regarding how the review process for Final PUD and SPA should be
amended. One option was to have Conceptual Review approved by City Council Ordinance
after considering a recommendation from P&Z, and then Final Review (to work out final detail)
approved by P&Z, with Council having the ability to call up the approval. This option would
lock a developer in to a specific building massing, use mix, etc at the Conceptual PUD and SPA,
then the Final review would only be focused on detail work, such as exactly where utility lines
are located, what final materials are used, etc. This process is similar to the current Conceptual
and Final Commercial Design Review process. Some Commissioners felt that certain projects
are so complex or large that the full four-step review process that is used today should remain in
place. The Commission suggested that certain thresholds could be set to determine if a PUD or
SPA goes through the current four-step review with P&Z and Council review at both Conceptual
and Final. This could be based on the size of the project, or the amount it is deviating from the
underlying zoning.
There were some concerns from the Commission that there is too much negotiation in the PUD
and SPA processed. They felt that PUDs and SPAS should rely more on underlying zoning than
they do today. There was some disagreement on exactly how that would work, but the
Commission supported exploring ways to limit dimensional variations in the PUD and SPA
processes.
The P&Z supported staff's recommendation to create an "intermediate" SPA amendment review
with P&Z, which would mirror the current PUD process. The Commission agreed that all SPA
and PUD Amendments need clearer, more straightforward review criteria. One general criterion
the Commission supported as an addition to the general PUD and SPA review criteria was to
encourage site planning and the layout of roofs to encourage solar gain.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: The P&Z's main goal with the ESA code amendments
is ensuring these areas are protected when development is proposed in an ESA area. They felt
one way to do so would be to explore a requirement that building envelopes be required for
development in ESA area as a way to ensure it is not occurring on the steepest slopes of a site.
Slope protection was one of the key points the P&Z wanted to focus code amendments on. In
addition, the Commission felt that cutting into slopes and building sub-basements areas were not
appropriate anywhere, but especially inappropriate in an ESA. The Commission agreed to
further work on this issue as they explore potential code amendments to floor area calculations.
With regard to Stream Margin reviews, the Commission asked staff to examine the different
lines used to determine if a development must comply with the Stream Margin section.
Currently three different lines are used, which can create confusion. Staff has proposed
simplifying the section to be based on only one line. The P&Z wanted to make sure that moving
to one line does not exempt development that is currently subject to the Stream Margin review.
SUBDIVISION: The Commission had a number of comments related to subdivision, with a
particular focus on simplifying the process. The Commission supported the idea of creating
different tiers of subdivision reviews. For example, large subdivisions that actually divide land
into new lots, like Burlingame, would go through the current Subdivision process with reviews
by P&Z and Council, while a project that divides a single building into multiple ownership
interests, like a downtown mixed-use building, would through an administrative review such as
condominiumization. The P&Z felt that downtown buildings are subject to an extensive design
reviews and growth management reviews, where the massing and use issues are addressed, and
that the subdivision review creates confusion for all involved because it re-addresses issues that
have been previously approved. The Commission expressed a desire that the City use the
Commercial Design Review process more effectively to address any issues or concerns related to
massing, heights, building placements, materials, landscaping, etc.
The Commission also expressed a desire to have clearer review criteria for all levels of
subdivision reviews. There were also some comments related to encouraging a landscape buffer
P3
between the sidewalk and street, particularly for downtown projects. The Commission supported
creating clear standards for this throughout town.
PRIVATE PLANNER/ARCHITECT COMMENTS: Staff met with a group of private planners and
architects prior to the meeting with P&Z. That group provided detailed comments on potential
code amendments to PUD, SPA, ESA, and Subdivision.
The group had similar comments regarding PUD and SPA as the P&Z did. The group felt that
the current four step SPA and PUD processes are unpredictable and that applicants are often
surprised during final reviews when issues they thought were resolved at Conceptual are brought
up again during Final. The group strongly supported the idea that Conceptual PUD and SPA
reviews should be binding. They supported the process changing to a three step process — a
binding Conceptual approval by Council after considering a recommendation from P&Z, and
final review for details at the P&Z level. The Conceptual review would outline the allowed
heights, massing, uses, etc and lock an applicant into those elements. If the Conceptual Review
is changed to be more meaningful, the group stated the time period to apply for Final Review
would need to be increased beyond the year that is currently in the code. This would enable
them to better work out the final details. The group felt strongly that it is important the SPA and
PUD process continue to allow a development to vary from underlying uses and dimensions, as
there are site specific issues that generally result in the need to request a PUD or SPA. Finally,
the group stated the review criteria for PUD needs to be consolidated and updated.
Regarding ESA Reviews, the group felt minor adjustments are needed. They stated a better
definition of where the Hallam Lake Bluff and Stream Margin review apply would be helpful.
They also stated that in general the section needs to be clarified, especially as it related to
defining what kinds of projects are subject to review. The group stated there has been confusion
in the past if a demolition and exact replacement triggers the reviews. With redards to View
Planes, the group suggested leaving the process substantially similar, but looking at ways to
clarify the language related to have a building in a view plane is reviewed. Again, the main
focus was on the need to clarify applicability and review criteria.
Finally, the group had similar comments regarding Subdivision as the P&Z did. In fact,
changing the subdivision process was their top priority for this round of code amendments. The
group strongly supported the creation of different tiers of subdivision review. In particular,
projects where a single building is divided into different ownership interested and actual land is
not being divided should only be required to go through an administrative condominiumization
process. They felt the Commercial Design review process address the issues raised at
Subdivision reviews, and that using the Commercial Design process to evaluate mass and scale
of buildings is more appropriate and predictable. Finally, the group stated that one of the tiers of
review should allow property boundary changes and exchanges between properties when
property owners agree to it. Today, the only property boundary changes allowed are those to
correct surveying errors.