HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20130521A AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, May 21, 2013
SITE VISIT: noon, at 360 Lake Ave.
REGULAR MEETING: 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. 360 Lake Ave., Hallam Lake Bluff review
B. 420 E. Hyman, (Zocolito building), Growth management review
C. P&Z recommendations with regard to off-street parking
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
A R Y 0 U A N
an�ect,& "I r,`�tect, e contractor,deVe{o en' or pees business or applies Err pemuts with lily of: err?
We are under ring updates and changes to the
way we o 6usiness and want to keep you
informed so you can conduct 6usiness
as efficiently as possible.
Please sign up to receive updates and
k �
_news from ourOhew a newsletter
stay;informed.
I `
• ��s �.taiS,a� --tom,_
GO TO WWW. ASPENPITKIN . COM
Click on this icon at the bottom of the page.
Sign up for"Development in Aspen News and Updates
RUBEY PARK REMODEL PROJECT
Background Information
When Rubey Park was designed and constructed thirty years ago, no one imagined that it would
serve as the Grand Central Station of the valley. As more and more people have chosen to ride
the bus, both to and from Aspen on RFTA's regional bus routes and within Aspen on the city's
local bus routes, use has grown to over 4 million passengers per year. Bus ridership will increase
even more when the VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit service begins in September.
Such heavy use of Rubey Park is a great problem to have. It means that many of our
community's transportation and environmental goals are being achieved. At the same time,we
recognize that Rubey Park needs to be fixed if it is to continue to serve as a major transportation
center. The solution is a two-part one: first, rehabilitate and remodel Rubey Park to
accommodate immediate and near future needs; and second, create a plan for long-term transit
needs. The Rubey Park Remodel project accomplishes the first part of the
solution. The city is partnered with RFTA and the Elected Officials � ta
Transportation Committee—made up of elected officials from the
upper valley—to ensure the rehabilitation's successful completion,
including being recommended for a Colorado Department of � � a
Transportation FASTER grant to pay for part of the work.
Some have asked why complete the remodel project when l
a long-term plan may determine that Rubey Park needs to ,
LJ
rL
► 1 1 i �
► 1 r
be re-constructed or relocated. Rubey Park has been regularly maintained over the years, but
now that it is 30 years old, a major rehabilitation is needed in order to solve immediate problems.
As these problems are being fixed, it is anticipated that we will begin work to achieve the second
part of the solution,the long-term plan and detailed design. The process to create a long-term
plan and the detailed design to implement the plan, and to construct the new improvements could
take ten or more years. The Rubey Park Remodel project is intended to keep Rubey Park in
good operation and repair during this time,while not precluding future opportunities.
Currently, Rubey Park cannot adequately and safely support bus, rider or transit operation needs.
Buses cannot properly stage to pick up and drop off passengers, and are forced to mix with other
traffic—including hotel shuttle vans, delivery trucks,taxis and cars. Buses often travel in circles
through downtown waiting until a staging space is available, and sometimes are sent out of town
to wait at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot. Riders experience cracked and failing concrete paving,
insufficient and uncomfortable outdoor waiting areas that conflict with pedestrians and bus
staging,too few bike parking spaces, small indoor waiting areas, and non-commercial grade
restrooms. Rubey Park staff experience inadequate room for ticket sales and other customer
service activities, and uncomfortable work and break areas.
Work on the Rubey Park Remodel project is just beginning.
A consultant team, led by Aspen-based Bluegreen, is under contract -
�a
to work with staff to create a preliminary plan and design for =k
improvements to fix these immediate problems.
The planning and design will be determined during an
extensive public outreach process held over the course of
r
this spring, summer and fall. Er I'
1
�r
�
VA
MEMORANDUM P1
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission •
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: 360 Lake Avenue—Hallam Lake Bluff Review
Resolution No.� Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: May 21, 2013
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Bell 26, LLC,
.3
REPRESENTATIVE:
Steev Wilson of Forum Phi Inc.
LOCATION:
360 Lake Avenue
CURRENT ZONING:
R6 (Medium Density Residential)
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests Hallam Bluff
Review to remodel and expand the
existing building and to reconstruct a Photo: Map of 360 Lake Avenue. The star indicates
portion of the bluff. the subject property and the blue hatching shows the
protected Hallam Bluff area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with
conditions.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals to remodel and expand the existing building:
• A Hallam Lake Bluff Review (Chapter 26.435.060, Hallam Lake Bluff Review) for
development within the bluff area. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final
review authority.)
BACKGROUND:
The existing house was constructed in early 1990, a few months before Hallam Lake Bluff
review was adopted into the Land Use Code (November, 1990). A large portion of the natural
Page 1 of 4
360 Lake Avenue
Hallam Lake Bluff Review P&Z Memo
5.21.2013
P2 r
slope was removed during construction to make room for the house, which sits within the
landscape.
The purpose of Hallam Lake Bluff Review is to protect the ecological, environmental and scenic
significance of Hallam Lake through a heighted review process for new development.
Development within the Hallam Lake Bluff review area is subject to a more stringent review to
reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and
landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve
and ensure the aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The current configuration does not meet the Hallam Lake Bluff review criteria. The applicant
proposes to improve the non-conforming structure to better meet the criteria by reconstructing a
portion of the slope that was removed and relocating some of the square footage that infringes on
the Hallam Bluff setbacks and height limit to the front of the home. The applicant also proposes
to land a transferrable development right (TDR) to increase the maximum floor area by 250
square feet, which requires approval by City Council.
The Parks and Engineering Departments have been working closely with the applicant to
determine an appropriate location and method to restore a portion of the bluff(see Exhibit B for
comments). The existing trees are proposed to be retained and protected during the bluff
reconstruction. A basic landscape plan and a lighting plan are included in the application. The
images below show the existing top of slope(pink flags) and the proposed top of slope(at the top
of the white stakes).
Page 2 of 4
360 Lake Avenue
Hallam Lake Bluff Review P&Z Memo
5.21.2013
P3
t
Proposed
Propos ed top of
top of
i r
slope slope �> y
> .-
vnm
Existing Existing
top of top of
slope
s
STAFF COMMENTS'
Staff is supportive of the proposal to bring the property into closer conformance with the Hallam
Lake Bluff review standards. Considering the scope of the remodel project and the current
configuration of the residence, Staff finds that the intent of the review standards is met with the
application. The review criteria are addressed in Exhibit A.
Numerous conditions are included in the draft resolution related to the reconstruction of the bluff
and the re-vegetation of the area to ensure that the project is successful and preserves the existing
natural vegetation and slope. The Parks and Engineering Departments will attend the site visit at
noon on May 21St and will also attend the public hearing to answer any technical questions about
the project.
Engineering is concerned about the severity of the reconstructed slope and whether the proposed
slope is able to meet Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) requirements. The proposed
reconstruction is about a 60 degree slope and the Engineering Department has determined that an
18 degree slope is the maximum slope that will meet URMP requirements. This determination
was made on May 16, 2013, which did not leave much time for Engineering and the applicant to
work out the technical aspects of the project.
Page 3 of 4
360 Lake Avenue
Hallam Lake Bluff Review P&Z Memo
5.21.2013
P4
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer and Parks Department have reviewed the proposed application. Their
comments are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated in the draft Resolution where appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with conditions. As mentioned above, the Engineering Department
does not find that a 60 degree slope is able to meet URMP requirements. Staff has included a
condition of approval that the slope is verified in the field by the Engineering and Parks
Departments. If the slope changes substantially, which in turn changes the impact of the
proposal on the Hallam Lake Bluff, the project will require a Substantial amendment by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Proposed Motion: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series of 2013, approving with
conditions Hallam Lake Bluff Review for the project located at 360 Lake Avenue.
Attachments
Exhibit A—Hallam Lake Bluff Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B—Parks and Engineering Departments Comments
Exhibit C - Application
Page 4 of 4
360 Lake Avenue
Hallam Lake Bluff Review P&Z Memo
5.21.2013
P5
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 360 LAKE AVENUE, LOT 1 OF THE ERDMAN
PARTNERSHIP LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2 73 7-182-24-008
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Bell 26, LLC, represented by Steev Wilson of Forum Phi, Inc. requesting approval of
Hallam Lake Bluff Review to remodel the existing residence; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for Hallam Lake Bluff Review; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-6); and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the
application; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2013, continued to
May 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No._, Series of
2013,by a vote, approving Hallam Lake Bluff Review with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT:
Resolution No_,Series 2013
Page 1 of 4
P6
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Hallam Lake Bluff Review
with conditions, as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 2: Hallam Bluff Reconstruction
A site plan detailing areas of impact on Hallam Bluff, specifically the location of
excavation, depth of excavation, type of machinery, storage of materials, location of
utility connections and other items shall be submitted with the building permit. Parks
shall approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit
approval process.
Hallam Bluff Stabilization:
Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for protection of the Hallam Lake
Bluff. The detailed plan shall identify the location of erosion control measures. The
project is subject to Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) standards.
Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for construction staging. This plan
shall detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and
locations of vehicles so that any trees remaining on site will not be impacted and to
prevent unnecessary impacts to the Hallam Lake Bluff.
The Parks and Engineering Department shall approve the final slope stabilization plan.
The work should be designed and completed by a company that has experience in this
specific line of work. The company of choice shall provide examples and an
understanding of the history working with this type of stabilization.
Site Protection:
The applicant should detail how the existing structure and other improvements will be
accessed, removed and restored without creating additional impacts to the undisturbed
portions of the property along the Bluff.
Section 3: Parks Department:
Re-vegetation/Resto ration:
Parks requires approval of a full re-vegetation or restoration plan that should include seed
mix, plant species, irrigation and a noxious weed control plan. Approval of the
landscape plan and building permit is contingent on an approved re-vegetation plan.
Noxious Weed: The contractor shall be responsible for the control of noxious
weeds during a one year warranty period. The City of Aspen shall perform
monthly inspections of the area during construction.
Inspection of materials: The contractor will be required to provide a fax, hand
deliver or participate in a on-site inspection of the specifications for the seed mix,
certified weed free straw and top soil.
Resolution No Series 2013
Page 2 of 4
P7
Irrigation: Restoration areas require supplemental above ground irrigation
system. Irrigation shall be installed in a manner that provides full coverage of the
disturbed area for a period of two years.
Section 4: Engineering
Slope Reconstruction: The slope reconstruction is subject to Engineering and Parks
Departments approval. The location and degree of the slope shall be verified in the field.
Significant changes to the slope shall require a substantial amendment by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department.
Section 5•
The proposed project is subject to a floor area amendment to the Erdman Partnership Lot
Split by Aspen City Council.
Section 6•
All material,representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal. approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 7•
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 8•
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 21"
day of May, 2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Asst. City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Resolution No_, Series 2013
Page 3 of 4
P8
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No Series 2013
Page 4 of 4
P9
Exhibit A—Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards
26.435.060.0. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shall be permitted
within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development meets all of the following requirements:
1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take
place below the top of slope.
Staff Response: The top of slope currently goes through the house as shown below in green.
The actual top of slope is located along the tree line closer to Hallam Lake as roughly shown
below in red.
The house was constructed in early 1990 before the Hallam Lake Bluff review was required. A
large portion of the natural slope was removed during construction to make room for the house,
which sits within the landscape. The current configuration does not meet the Hallam Lake Bluff
review criteria. The applicant proposo&to improve the non-conforming structure to better meet
the criteria by reconstructing the portion of the slope that was removed and relocating some of
the square footage with the required setbacks and height limits to the front of the home.
Reconstructing the bluff involves extensive soil stabilization and revegetation to ensure that the
newly created bluff does not damage the existing natural bluff below. Conditions of approval
are included in the draft resolution that requires Parks and Engineering approval of various
aspects of the design of the reconstruction and a contractor experienced in slope construction and
stabilization to complete the work.
The review criterion is geared toward new construction and not a remodel. Staff finds that the
proposal to improve the existing non-conformity by reconstructing the bluff and removing non-
conformity floor area from the Hallam Lake setbacks is appropriate and meets the intent of the
review criterion to preserve the natural environment.
P10
2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback from the top of slope shall be at
grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the fifteen-foot setback shall
not be approved unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the
following conditions can be met:
a. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top-of-slope
setback will create an unworkable design problem.
b. Any intrusion into the top-of-slope setback or height limit is minimized to the
greatest extent possible.
c. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the
top-of-slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible.
d. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the
setback from all adjoining properties.
Staff Response: About 2,577 square feet of the existing building sits within the 15 foot setback
and the applicant proposes to remove most of the non-conformity; however a portion of the
building is proposed to remain within the setback. In addition, the applicant proposes a large area
of hardscape within the 15 foot setback. The proposed intrusions into the top of slope are
minimized considering the applicant is working with an existing building and decreasing the
non-conformity. The applicant does not propose any additional onsite screening beyond the
existing trees and vegetation, all of which are proposed to be retained and protected during
construction of the bluff and remodel. Staff is supportive of the applicant's effort to decrease the
existing non-conformity and finds that, considering the scope of the remodel project, the review
criteria above are met.
3. All development outside the fifteen-foot setback from top of slope shall not exceed a
height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five-degree angle from ground level at the
top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community
Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.104.100
and the method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to reduce the amount of intrusions into the 45 degree
angle; however the remodeled building still infringes on the height limit. As mentioned above,
the applicant is working with an existing building that does not meet the current Hallam Lake
Bluff requirements. The applicant proposes to decrease the non-conformity but not completely
bring the building into conformance with the review standards.
P11
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan
shall include native vegetative screening of no less than fifty percent (50%) of the
development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening
shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable
material should it die.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes to maintain the existing trees and vegetative screening,
which adequately screens the existing house. The images below are taken from the property
looking toward Red Mountain(left photo) and looking toward Hallam Lake(right photo).
l
a
r `
f T y
}
A condition of approval to re-vegetate the reconstructed bluff according to the Parks
Department's specifications is included in the draft resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the
nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section
26.575.150.6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope.
Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be
drained down the slope.
Staff Response: The proposed lighting plan meets the review criterion. All of the lights comply
with the lighting code and do not shine toward the nature preserve.
P12
6. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be
submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and
pertinent elevations above sea level.
Staff Response: The applicant has met this condition.
•P13
Memorandum
Date: April 29, 2013
To: Sara Adams, City of Aspen Planning
From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department
Re: 360 Lake Ave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) Site plan:
1) The City will need a site plan that shows or identifies the areas of impact on the Hallam
Lake Bluff-where will excavation take place, how deep,type of machinery, storage of
materials,what utility, etc.....
B) Tree Protection:
1) A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or
groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines.A formal plan
indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set It is
recommended that this protection fence be placed along the extent of impact on the Hallam
Bluff.
2) No excavation,,storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of
equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site.
This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before
any construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20
3) Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times
C) Utility Connections:
1) How and where utility connections are made is a major concern relative to impact on the
existing trees and areas of protection.
D) Tree Permit:
If a tree(s) is requested for removal,the applicant will be required to receive an approved
tree removal permit per City Code 13.20, this includes impacts under the drip line of the
tree. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to approval of the demo
and/or building permits. If a permit is necessary, contact the City Forester at 920-5120.
P14
Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site per City Code 13.20. Parks will
approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the
landscape estimates.
E) Hallam Bluff Stabilization:
Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for protection of the Hallam Lake Bluff. The
detailed plan shall identify the location of silt fencing. Minimum requirements include a silt
fence and possibly straw bales placed in a manner preventing erosion protecting the Hallam Lake
Bluff from residual run-off.
Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan for Construction staging. This plan shall
detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of
vehicles so that trees remaining on site will not be impacted and remain protected.
As required by Ordinance 26.440.060 The Parks and Engineering Department will have to
approve the final slope stabilization plan. The work should be designed and completed by a
company or companies that have experience in this specific line of work, providing examples
and an understanding of the history working with this type of stabilization.
F) Access:
The applicant should detail how the existing structure and other improvements will be
accessed, removed and restored without creating additional impacts to the undisturbed
portions of the property along the Bluff.
G) Re-vegetation/Restoration:
Parks requires approval of a full re-vegetation or restoration plan that should include seed
mix, plant species, irrigation and a noxious weed control plan. Approval of a landscape
permit is contingent on an approved re-vegetation plan. The following specifications will
help in the design and plan for restoration of the site:
City of Aspen Restoration Specifications
A. The contractor is required to restore the disturbed area to City of Aspen standards.
A plan will be required for review and approval and shall include, but not be limited
to; seed mixes and amounts, plant materials and amounts, proper plans for
installation, seeding and irrigation. The Parks Department is available to meet with
the contractor prior to submitting a design.
P15
B. At the completion of the work,the Parks Department,will meet on site to inspect
and sign off on the finished work and give approval for completion of the
restoration.
All areas of disturbance shall be restored to the following standards:
Top Soil:
All disturbed areas shall be restored with a minimum of eight (8) inches of topsoil.
Top soil shall be sifted and free of structural materials.
Top soil should be integrated into the disturbed area in order to match existing
grades.
Parks Department Staff will need to inspect soil quality and depth.
Seeding Procedure:
Hand broadcast in areas of disturbance (phase one of seeding is complete coverage of area,
phase two is distributing seed at a 90 degree angle to the phase one distribution)
1. Rake seed into soil
2. Hand broadcast Bio-sol fertilizer
3. Cover area with certified weed free straw
4. Tackify area of disturbance (stabilize straw)
Restoration Seed Mix:
• Indian Rice Grass 'Nez Par' -Achnatherum hymenoides 'Nez Par' 3.0 lbs/acre
• Sideoats Grama - Bouteloua curtipedula 'Pierre' 4.0 lbs/acre
• Sandberg Bluegrass - Poa secunda 'Sherman' 0.51bs/acre
• Thickspike Wheat Grass - Elymus lanceolatus 2 lbs/acre
• 'San Luis' Slender Wheatgrass - Elymus trachycalulus 3lbs/acre
• 'Garnet' Mountain Brome- Bromus marginatus 'Garnet' 3 lbs/acre
• Arizona Fescue - Festuca ovina 'Arriba' 2.5 lbs/acre
• 'Arriba'Western Wheatgrass- Pascopyrum smithii 'Arriba' 2.5 lbs/acre
• Hairy Golden Aster- Chrysopsis villosa 0.25 lbs/acre
• Lanceleaf Coreopsis - Coreopsis lanceolata 0.5 lbs/acre
• Silver Lupine - Lupinus argenteus 1.0 lb/acre
• Blue Flax- Linum lewisii 1.0 lb/acre
• Rocky Mountain Penstemon Penstemon strictus 2.0 lbs/acre
• Siberian wallflower 0.151bs/acre
• Sweet William Pinks US lbs/acre
• Perennial Gaillardia 0.35 lbs/acre
• Annual Baby's breath 0.10 lbs/acre
• Cornflower 0.15 lbs/acre
• Shasta Daisy 0.25 lbs/acre
• California Poppy 0.15 lbs/acre
P16
• Corn Poppy 0.10 lbs/acre
• Purple Coneflower 0.15 lbs/acre
• Firecracker penstemon- Penstemon eatonii 0.1 lbs/acre
Possible seed vendors:
Arkansas Valley Seed Pawnee Butte Seed Granite Seed
303 320 7500 1800- 782-5947 1801- 768-4422
Noxious Weed:
The contractor will be responsible for the control of noxious weeds during a one year
warranty period. The City of Aspen will perform monthly inspections of the area.
Inspection of materials:
The contractor will be required to provide a fax,hand deliver or participate in a on-site
inspection of the specifications for the seed mix, certified weed free straw and top soil.
Irrigation:
Restoration areas require supplemental above ground irrigation system. Irrigation shall be
installed in a manner that provides full coverage of the disturbed area for a period of two
years.
P17
Engineering Comments—Exhibit B
(this was an email sent to the applicant)
I understand that the intent of the slope reconstruction was to bring the Hallam Lake Bluff back to its
historical condition and that is why I have thus far supported the idea, especially since the underlying
concept was to do no harm to the slope above Hallam Lake. The slope from the fence above the lake to
the existing top of slope is approximately 60 degrees. The reconstructed slope proposed was staked to
match this severe slope condition. As you know,upon seeing the severity of the angle my gut feeling was
that 60 degrees was far too steep. You asked that the Engineering Department investigate what angle we
could support for the reconstruction project. We have been working on the maximum allowable slope
above Hallam Lake and here is our guidance.
The Hallam Bluff code language reads that no water is to be discharged over the slope. While you have
stated that the runoff from the house and the area above the reconstructed top of slope will be controlled
via pavers or some other method,there is really no way to control the precipitation falling between the top
of slope as it exists today and the proposed top of slope. Therefore, any rainfall that lands on the
reconstructed slope cannot be controlled. The runoff will sheet flow down the new slope and eventually
turn into channelized flow at some point on the existing slope. The URMP allows for a discharge of
7fps. Using the Mannings equation for sheet flow, we have determined that the maximum slope that can
be constructed with a discharge below 7fps is approximately 18+/- degrees or a 3:1 slope. The 3:1 slope
is an aggressive slope because after the flow runs down the new, proposed slope and eventually becomes
channelized on the existing slope, the flow velocity will increase, and thus increase the chance for
erosion.
We continue to support a reconstruction of the Hallam Lake slope at 360 Lake, however, at a much
reduced angle.
"'7" 20'3. '""" RECEIVED
P18 MAR 2 7 2013
ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION
tO.IECT: CITY OF ASPEN
'ame: 360 Lake
ocatlon: 360 Lake Ave, Aspen CO 81611 - Lot 1 - Erdman Partnership Lot Split
Indicate street address, lot&block number, legal description where appropriate)
arcel ID#(REQUIRED) 273512132001
XPLICANT:
fame: Bell 26 LLC (Dennis Burch)
Adress: P.O. Box 1860 Bentonville, AR 72712
hone#: 480-659-0259
:EPRESENTATIVE:
fame: Steev Wilson
Adress: 117 South Spring St. Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611
hone#: 970-279-4109
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment.
❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
® ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA
Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other:
❑ Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.
Existing Single Family Residence that is not in compliance with the Bluff Review and the site
has been altered from its historic topography.
'ROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.
To remove some of the noncompliant structure from the lake side and place that square footage on
the other side. The restoration of the 'Historic' top of bluff line and drainage patterns.
lave you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 5,14 0.0 0
fl Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment#4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards
3-D Model for large project
X11 plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
lectronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
P19
ATTACHMENT 3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: 360 Lake
Applicant: Dennis Burch, Bell 26 LLC
Location: 360 Lake Ave. Aspen, Co 81611
Zone District: R-6
Lot Size: 23,954.75 sf.
Lot Area: 15,624.75 sf.
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: N/A Proposed: N/A
Number of residential units: Existing: N/A Proposed: N/A
Number of bedrooms: Existing: 4 Proposed: 5
Proposed% of demolition(Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
TDR
Floor Area: Existing: 4064.00 Allowable: 4718.00 Proposed 4635.50
Principal bldg. height: Existing: 301-7-- Allowable: 251-01, Proposed.• 241-11,
Access. bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: N/A Proposed: N/A
On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: 2
% Site coverage: Existing: 10% Required: 2 5% Proposed: 12.3%
% Open Space: Existing: 90% Required: N/A Proposed: 87.7%
Front Setback: Existing: lo- Required.• 10, Proposed.• lo,
Rear Setback: Existing: 20, Required: 10, Proposed: 20,
Combined F/R: Existing: 30, Required: 20, Proposed: 30,
Side Setback: Existing: 20, Required: 20, Proposed: 20,
Side Setback: Existing: 30, Required: 30, Proposed. 30,
Combined Sides: Existing: 50' Required.• 50' Proposed.• 50'
Distance Between Existing N/A Required: N/A Proposed: N/A
Buildings
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: see the attached 'Scope of Work' letter.
Variations requested: See the attached 'Scope of Work' letter.
P20
Hallam Lake Bluff review—Summary Letter
The proposal is for a major remodel of a residence and the reconstruction of a portion of the bluff on
the lot at 360 Lake. The existing house has cut into the bluff lowering the uniform bluff line creating a
bench. On this lowered bench a house was constructed that protrudes into the bluff and is located far
closer to Hallam lake than would be allowed under the current code. The proposal would remove the
sections of the existing house from the area of the historic Hallam Lake Bluff, reconstruct the bluff,
and replace the demolished area of the structure on the side opposite the bluff facing side of the house.
This project does not seem to fall under any of the exemptions to the Hallam Lake Bluff Review
process. The existing non-conforming structure, and the non-conforming cut in the bluff itself, will
require us to do work in those areas requiring review in order to decrease the non-conformity and
restore the bluff.
Hallam Lake Bluff Review standards—summary of reduction of non-conformity.
1. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all of the
following requirements: The existing nonconformity of the bluff cut to create the bench
anomaly would be removed and made continuous. The portion of the nonconforming structure
protruding past the historic bluff line would be entirely removed. The remaining core of the
existing structure would be reduced in its nonconformity considerably; both the area of the
footprint of the structure within the 30' bluff set back, as well as the reduction of those portions
of the structure which intrude on the 45 degree top of bluff height allowance. Pending the
design of the structure, this fits the intent of the Hallam Lake Bluff Review, reducing non-
conformities and reducing visual impact of the structural;This project has the support of the
Planning Staff as a significant improvement to the existing nonconformity. From a meeting with
Sara Nadolny on 10/19/2012.
2. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place
below the top of slope. The bluff that has been removed as part of a previous project will be
restored, rehabilitated, and revegetated to match the native slope and vegetation.
3. All development within the fifteen foot setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any
proposed development not at grade within the fifteen foot setback shall not be approved unless
the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the following conditions can be met:
a) A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top-of-slope setback will
create an unworkable design problem. The existing residence which is being remodeled is
not only in front of this set back, but in many places it is in front of the historic bluff line
itself.
b) Any intrusion into the top-of-slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent
possible. The new development will remove the portions of the existing structure beyond
the bluff line and the new development will be behind the the rehabilitated top of slope,
within perimeter of the remaining existing structure, and below the existing ridge height of
the existing structure. Attached you will find drawings which use a similar methodology to
the percent exposure calculation for FAR, to calculate the amount of surface area exposed
above the height limit. The existing structure has a non-conforming surface area which
encroaches on the bluff of 2,577 SF of wall area. The proposed remodel to the existing
P21
structure will restore the bluff and decrease the non-conforming surface area to 1,884.5 SF.
The remodel will move the building away from the bluff considerably and reduce the non-
conforming surface area by 692.5 SF. The existing ridge will be maintained and all
development proposed in this remodel will occur below it.
c) Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top-of-slope
setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. The primary part of the addition
is located outside the bluff setback. The idea being that we are removing non-conforming
square footage from the bluff side of the residence and replacing it away from the bluff
below the existing ridge.
d) Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from
all adjoining properties. The screening to the neighbors is in place and well established, the
landscaping of the bluff will restore its original topography and vegetation and will increase
the screening of the existing development from the shore of the lake and from ACES.
4. All development outside the ffiteen foot setback from top of slope shall not exceed a height
delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five-degree angle from ground level at the top of slope.
Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the
definition for height set forth at Section 26.104.100 and the method of calculating height set
forth at Section 26.575.020. See the explanation of non-conformity reduction in section 2b, and
the drawings attached. The proposed remodel will be reducing the encroachment into these
areas significantly.
5. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include
native vegetative screening of no less than fifty percent(50%) of the development as viewed
from the rear(slope)of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity
and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. We are not removing
any vegetative screening from the slope side of the residence and we will be revegetating the
restored slope to screen from the lake and will maintain it accordingly.
6. All exterior lighting shall below and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature
preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. We will
comply with this, see the attached lighting plan.
7. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns
and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. The existing
bench cut into the bluff and the site drainage associated with this cut are not in conformance
with the URMP and are contributing to the erosion of the Hallam Lake Bluff, while inserting
untreated storm water to Hallam Lake. The top of bluff can be restored responsibly using a
series of small lifts which are appropriately retained, compacted, and planted considering that
while the stabilizing vegetation is being established the fill must be controlled for sediment
leaving the site. With the bluff restored to its historic grade the fill area creating an open space
between the structure and the edge of bluff can be use to create detention and treatment area for
storm water in conformance with the URMP. As part of this Major Development the exposed
drain pipes that project into the bluff, those areas of surface drainage which are causing erosion,
and general site drainage conditions will be upgraded to conform with the URMP. Pending the
design of the specific treatment, detention, and erosion control plan, as well as a maintenance
agreement for the vegetation retaining the constructed slope; this project has Engineering's
support, as we feel it would be a significant improvement to the existing nonconformity and
will bean asset to the longevity of the bluff. From a meeting with Josh Rice on 10/19/2012
8. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted
showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above
sea level. Please see the attached drawings.
N
N
`:�'��•.�.-.q; vii ��s: � I ry�
AWN 00010
fL
1r�4 •`'1 � � argy�•' �11 � � t LL ato.
a 1 J
11 I E02, Tk" I I 4 kloom Lao SN1 \
Ir
X314. 312. I t 1
�IGILLE4pIE 37
I
s99, 433•
515, 3
710, 11,
406. 701.
❑ � `IT LOCATION
PEARL CT z
I_ I DGM 1u1 lal Spi I 1
1
y 6t a,
365.
618, 0 415, 411, 401,
61 T. �f L — — — — —I I MU1<M Lai SFYI r
Mallain LSka
A I 390, r
I I C3 r
"may... WZ*wi We Adj. I I
J 329,
p aaxbd w:tihtlds•Car�jR1GY 19322072 LiRf hc. I �a2J. 1 I q .
�.
MEMORANDUM P 1
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
RE: 420 E. Hyman Ave—GMQS and Subdivision
Resolution No._, Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: May 21, 2013
APPLICANT/OWNER:
John Martin.
REPRESENTATIVE: SF
Charles Cunniffe Architects.
P'
P
LOCATION:
420 E. Hyman Ave.
CURRENT ZONING: .
CC (Commercial Core) F'
SUMMARY: x '�
The Applicant requests growth c� -
management and subdivision reviews
for a scrape and replace of the building
that currently houses Zocalito and CB
Paws.
j'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the .:
request. ' =
Photo: Location of 420 E. Hyman and picture of
Building viewed from Hyman Mall.
Page 1 of 5
420 East Hyman Ave.
GMQS and Subdivision P&Z Memo
P2
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is
requesting the following land use approvals to scrape and replace the existing building:
• A Growth Management Review (Chapter 26.470.080.1, Expansion or new commercial
development) for the development of new net leasable commercial space. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.)
• A Growth Management Review (Chapter 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of
multi family housing) for the replacement of existing multi-family housing with
affordable housing and free market residential units. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority.)
• A Growth Management Review (Chapter 26.470.070.4, Affordable Housing) for the
development of affordable housing. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final
review authori ty.)
• Subdivision approval (Chapter 26.480, Subdivision) for the creation of multiple
residential units in a mixed-use building. (City Council is the final review authority after
considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission)
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two story building and to construct a new
three story building. The building currently contains commercial and free market residential and
is proposed to comprise commercial, free market residential and affordable housing, The
property is about 3,009 square feet in size and it located within the Commercial Core Historic
District. The original application for this redevelopment was made in March of 2012, and is
subject to the Land Use Code in place at that time which permitted new free-market residential
units and an overall allowed height of 38 feet to 42 feet. The project meets the dimensional
requirements of the zone district.
Existing Conditions and Previous Approvals:
The existing 1970s mixed use building contains commercial uses on the basement, first and
second floors. The second floor also contains three free market residential units — two studio
units and one 1-bedroom unit.
On July 25, 2012, HPC granted approval for off-site public amenity for the required 10% (300
square feet) subject to review by the Parks Department. The third floor is approved to be 38 feet
in height which meets the 38 — 42 feet height limit in the Commercial Core. HPC denied the
request to increase the height to 40 feet considering the adjacent historic landmarks to the east.
HPC was concerned about the impact that the material palette could have on the mass and scale,
and added a condition of approval that mass and scale shall be addressed during Final Review
when the materials are finalized.
During call-up procedure on August 27, 2012, City Council remanded the application back to
HPC to resolve the mass and scale of the project at Conceptual Review rather than during Final
Review. On November 14, 2012 HPC re-reviewed the project and approved the mass and scale
for Conceptual Review.
Page 2 of 5
420 East Hyman Ave.
GMQS and Subdivision P&Z Memo
r
P3
Proposed Development:
The applicant proposes a new three story building as follows:
Basement: Commercial
First Floor: Commercial
Second Floor: Commercial, Free Market Residential, Affordable Housing
Third Floor: Free Market Residential, Affordable Housing
Table 1: FAR analysis
Allowable Proposed
Commercial 2:1 or 6,018 sf. 2,545 sf.
Affordable Housing No limit 2,266 sf.
Free Market Residential 0.75:1 or 2,257 sf. 2,256 sf.
Total 2.75:1 or 8,275 sf. 7,068 sL
Table 2: Net Livable and Net Leasable Area analysis
Existing Proposed Increase
Commercial 3,610 sf. NLA 4,396 sf.NLA + 786 sf. NLA
Free Market Residential 1,292 sf. NLA 1,874 sf. NLA + 582 sf.NLA
Affordable Housing- 0 1,292 sf. NLA + 1,292 sf. NLA
The maximum building height approved by HPC is 38 ft. A mechanical area is proposed at the
rear of the roof. No rooftop deck is proposed.
STAFF COMMENTS:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW
The applicant proposes to increase the existing net leasable by 786 square feet, which requires a
mitigation of 1.59 full time equivalents (FTEs). Multi-family replacement is triggered by the
demolition of three existing free market residential units. The Land Use Code that the project is
subject to (Section 26.470.100.6 On-site housing serves multiple affordable housing
requirements) permits a mixed use project to only mitigate for the larger housing requirement
when actual units are provided onsite. The multi-family replacement provision requires more
affordable housing than the expansion of commercial net leasable.
The applicant proposes to utilize the 100% replacement option, which requires three affordable
housing units, three bedrooms and at least 1,292 square feet of net livable area. One new free
market residential unit is proposed, which is mitigated through the multi-family replacement
provision.
1 0.75:1 is permitted only when affordable housing equal to 100%of the free-market residential floor area is
developed on the same parcel.
Page 3 of 5
420 East Hyman Ave.
GMQS and Subdivision P&Z Memo
P4
The 100% replacement provision requires replacement of no less than 100% of the number of
units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The chart below outlines the existing and
proposed units.
Table 3: 100%Multi-family Replacement Requirement
CONDITIONS:EXISTfNG Free net
bedrooms livable
1 studio 305 1.25
1 studio 315 1.25
1 1-bedroom 672 1.75
total(required
replacement): 3 3 1,292 4.25
PROPOSED - -• size per FTEs
REPLACEMENT: housing bedrooms APCHA
units area
1 studio 506 4 500 1.25
1 studio 507 4 500 1.25
1 2-bedroom 967 4 950 2.25
total: 3 4 1,980 4.75
In reviewing the Growth Management portion of the application, staff finds that the proposal
meets all applicable review requirements (see Exhibit A). In accordance with the Land Use
Code, the applicant is providing onsite affordable housing mitigation in the form of Category 4
rental units. A referral from APCHA is included as Exhibit C.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
A subdivision review is required for this mixed-use building because multiple dwelling units are
proposed. The applicant proposes to develop a free market residential unit, three affordable
housing units, and additional commercial net leasable space. The subdivision is similar to the
other subdivisions seen throughout the downtown area.
In reviewing the Subdivision portion of the application, staff believes the proposal meets all
applicable review requirements. The project is currently served by utilities and the new building
shall meet all applicable building and fire codes. In addition, the applicant will meet all
applicable engineering requirements, including all drainage requirements.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Building
Department, Parks. Department, and APCHA have all reviewed the proposed application and
their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. A copy of
the Referral Agency comments is attached as Exhibit C.
Page 4 of 5
420 East Hyman Ave.
GMQS and Subdivision P&Z Memo
e
P5
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the project, with the following conditions:
1. The project is subject to all conditions included in HPC Resolutions #17 and #28, Series
of 2012.
2. All areas labeled"roof' and"green roof'may not be used as deck space.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series 2013, approving Growth
Management Reviews and recommending City Council approve a Subdivision Review for the
project located at 420 E Hyman Ave."
Attachments:
Exhibit A-Growth Management Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B- Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit C - DRC Comments
Exhibit D - Application
Page 5 of 5
420 East Hyman Ave.
GMQS and Subdivision P&Z Memo
P6 •
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION APPROVING FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, AND
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBDIVISION, FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE (1) FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNIT,
THREE (3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, AND 786 SQ FT OF NEW NET
LEASABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420
EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LOT O, BLOCK 88, AKA DUVIKE
CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-037-39-020 THRU -027
AND 2737-073-39-801
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application from
John Martin, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, Inc. requesting approval of
Free-Market Residential, Affordable Housing, and Commercial Growth Management
Allotments, and Subdivision, to demolish the existing building and to construct a new
three story building to include one (1) free-market residential unit, three (3) affordable
housing units, and 786 sq ft of new net leasable commercial space; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission Free-Market Residential, Affordable Housing, and Commercial Growth
Management Allotments; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to the City Council for Subdivision approval; and,
WHEREAS,the property is zoned Commercial Core (CC); and,
WHEREAS,the property is located within the Commercial Core Historic District
and is not considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2012 and on November 14, 2012 the Historic
Preservation Commission granted Conceptual Commercial Design Review and
Conceptual Major Development Review approval via Resolution # 17 and Resolution
#28, Series of 2012
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code
standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the
application; and,
Resolution No Series 2013
420 East Hyman Ave
Page 1 of 5
P7
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 21, 2013, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2013, by a
vote, approving one (1) Free-Market Residential Growth Management Allotments,three (3)
Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotment, and 786 sq. ft. Commercial Growth
Management Allotments, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a
Subdivision; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public
comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the
development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth-in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management
allotments and approvals for one (1) free-market residential unit, three (3) affordable
housing unit, and 786 sq. ft. of new commercial net leasable space for a total of 4,396 sq.
ft. of commercial net leasable space.
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of
Subdivision.
The project is subject to all conditions included in HPC Resolutions #17 and #28, Series
of 2012.
Section 2: Dimensions
All dimensions shall meet the requirements of the Land Use Code in effect on April.4,
2012 (date of initial application), attached as Exhibit B.
The approved floor plans are attached as Exhibit A. Minor changes from these are
permitted at building permit and during Final Commercial Design Review by the Historic
Preservation Commission. Areas labeled as "roof' or "green roof' are not permitted for
use as a deck.
Resolution No_, Series 2013
420 East Hyman Ave
Page 2 of 5
P8
The project is subject to all conditions included in HPC Resolution 17 and HPC
Resolution 28, Series of 2012.
Section 3: Engineering
The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the
Engineering Department.
A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This
includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee-
in-lieu of detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas. All new
impervious areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Any discharge from the site
must be made to the south mall side of the building opposed to the north alley side.
Minor events must be tied into the storm sewer with a manhole. The manhole lid must be
located below the mall bricks. Major events must discharge to the mall.
Any proposed grade changes to the mall require approval by the Engineering
Department.
The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking,
staging/encroachments, and truck traffic.
Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, the
Engineering Department shall require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building
permit submittal.
Section 4: Affordable Housing
The three on-site affordable housing units, two studio units and one 2-bedroom unit, shall
be deed restricted to Category 4. A deed restriction, approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA), shall be recorded prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for free
market residential component and the commercial component of the project. The
affordable housing units shall be compliant with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Guidelines.
Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with C.R.S. 38-12-301(1)(a) and
(b), this Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and deed restriction to limit rent
on the property subject hereto and to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner
waives any right it may have to claim that this Deed Restriction violates C.R.S. 38-12-301.
More detailed information regarding the management and maintenance of the unit shall be
provided to APCHA with the proposed deed restriction prior to CO.
The owner shall have the right to rent the unit to tenants qualified under the APPCHA
Guidelines. If the owner cannot provide a qualified tenant, the unit shall be rented through
APCHA's normal advertising process. At no time shall the tenancy of the unit during a
Resolution No_, Series 2013
420 East Hyman Ave
Page 3 of 5
P9
lease period be tied to continued employment by the owner. Tenant leases, however, may
be terminated for cause or at the end of the lease period upon termination of employment.
The tenant in the rental unit shall be required to be re-qualified by APCHA on a yearly
basis.
If the owner elects to sell the unit, or they are required to be sold due to noncompliance,
owner shall condominiumize the unit and form a condominium association for the
management and maintenance thereof. The affordable housing association shall be
separate from the free-market residential unit's and commercial unit's association(s).
In the event the rental unit is required to become ownership unit due to noncompliance,
APCHA or the City_may elect to purchase them for rental to qualified tenants in accordance
with APCHA Guidelines.
Section 5: Fire Mitigation
All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is
not limited to approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section
903 and 907).
Section 6: Utilities
All requirements of the City's most recently Adopted Water System Distribution
Standards (currently 2012) must be met. Fire suppression is required. Fire flow
calculations are required to confirm service size. Additionally Electrical Service should
be discussed 'immediately with the Electric Department to ensure System capacity. If
there is not System Capacity it may be necessary for the Developer to place a transformer
on site. That Transformer would need to meet all pertinent Electrical Codes, and all City
Electrical Setbacks (i.e. 10' in front of doors or free to alleyway, free to sky above [no
overhangs]).
Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved
Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio
drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT
traps) are required for all food processing establishment. Locations of food processing
shall be identified prior to building permit. Even though the commercial space is tenet
finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing establishments are
anticipated for this project. ACSD ,will not approve service to food processing
establishments retrofitted for this use by small under counter TRAPS at a later date.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways.
Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may
impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district.
Section 8: Parks
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements, Chapter 21.20. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are
Resolution No_, Series 2013
420 East Hyman Ave
Page 4 of 5
P10
not approved by the City Parks Department and the Engineering Department. Off-site
public amenity equal to or in excess of$22,500 is subject to Parks Department approval.
Section 9•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 10:
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 11:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 21 st
day of May, 2013.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Asst. City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No Series 2013
420 East Hyman Ave
Page 5 of 5
P11
Exhibit A—Staff Findings, Growth Management
26.470.050. General requirements.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to
meet this standard.
Staff Findings: Adequate growth management allotments exist for the request. Staff finds .
this criterion is met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as
well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Findings: There are no applicable adopted Master Plans for this property. This is a
mixed-use building that includes residential and commercial uses, which conforms with
and is compatible with the uses in the immediate block and the zone district in general.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Findings: The development meets all of the dimensional and use requirements of the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district. Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Findings: The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic
Preservation approvals, including Conceptual Design Review. Staff finds this criterion is
met.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to
Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be
approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4
rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category
designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit
as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished
pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the
Certificate.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings,Growth Management
Page 1 of 7
P12
Staff Findings: This application proposes new commercial space and a new free-market
residential unit. Because housing is proposed on-site, only the larger of the mitigation
requirements must be met; in this case the multi family replacement is the larger
requirement. The expanded commercial space will require 1.59 FTEs as mitigation,
calculated as follows:
floor existing
basement 1739 5.35
1 1560 6.40
2 311 0.96
existing FTE credit 12.70
pLqposed - floor level net leasable (sf) FTEs generated
basement 2314 7.12
1 1780 7.30
2 302 0.93
3 0 0.00
proposed FTEs 15.34
15.34 (proposed)—12.7 (credit) =
2.64 FTEs
#of FTEs requiring
mitigation @ 60%: 1.59
2.64 FTEs * 60% mitigation rate = 1.59 FTEs
The 100% multifamily replacement option for the residential portion of the project requires
4.25 FTEs to be housed as follows:
bedrooms FTEs
existing conditions: units
1 studio 1.25
1 studio 1.25
1 1-bedroom 1.75
total (required
replacement): 3 3 4.25
The applicant proposes to mitigate with three on-site affordable housing units, as
described below, to meet multifamily replacement requirements which meets the larger of
the two requirements. Stafffinds this criterion is met.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings, Growth Management
Page 2 of 7
P13
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural
or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least
thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the
finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall
be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment
of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square
Footage Conversion.
Staff Findings: As mentioned in Criterion 5, above, the applicant is proposing to mitigate
with on-site affordable housing, so only the larger of housing mitigation requirements is
needed. The new free-market residential unit is mitigated through the proposed 100%
multifamily replacement option. The applicant is proposing to deed restrict the unit at
Category 4. Staff finds this criterion is met.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy
and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste
disposal,parking and road and transit services.
Staff Findings: The addition of commercial space, affordable housing units and a free
market residential unit will represent minimal additional demand on public infrastructure.
The applicant proposes a trash utility area.to accommodate the new building, and the
applicant has agreed to make any necessary upgrades related to water, sewer, and
stormwater service. Staff finds this criterion is met.
26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to
hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings,Growth Management
Page 3 of 7
P14
Staff Findings: The proposed units comply with all applicable requirements outlined in
the AHPCA Housing Guidelines. The Board of Directors reviewed the case and
recommended approval of the proposal. Stafffinds this criterion is met.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly
built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits.
Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant
to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a
cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council
approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing
Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community "
Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of
the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these
methods.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes three new affordable housing units at Category 4
as described below. Staff finds this criterion is met.
REPLACEMENT:PROPOSED required
size per FTEs
units bedrooms net livable area category APCHA generated
1 studio 506 4 500 1.25
1 studio 507 4 500 1.25
1 2- bedroom 967 4 950 2.25
total: l 3 1 4 1 1980 1 1 4.75.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Staff Findings: The proposed units are entirely above grade. Staff finds this criterion is
met.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified
purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The
owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned
qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The
deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to
own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing
Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings, Growth Management
Page 4 of 7
P15
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by
an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with
the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to
this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes deed restricting the units as Category 4 rental
units. The APCHA Board of Directors reviewed the proposal and recommended approval.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for
mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such
non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Findings: The proposed development does not propose non-mitigation affordable
housing. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. The City's neighborhoods have
traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working
residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment and because of the
physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the
redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second-home
use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an
integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-
rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now
minimal, will continue to decrease.
Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen
have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve
to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals
who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air
pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the City's
neighborhoods.
The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working
residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority have provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the
City limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of
the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations and the
steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen
area businesses and the City's tourist-based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert
with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition or conversion of
Exhibit A Staff Findings,Growth Management
Page 5 of 7
P16
existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to
ensure that the private sector 'maintains its role in the provision of resident housing and to
prevent a housing shortfall from occurring.
The combining, demolition, conversion or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on
compliance with the following requirements (see definition of demolition.):
1. Requirements for combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping free-market multi-
family housing units: Only one (1) of the following two (2) options is required to be met
when combining, demolishing, converting or redeveloping a free-market multi-family
residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical
mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the
existing development and proposed development shall be allowed.
a. One-hundred-percent replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market
multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement
housing consisting of no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the number of
units, bedrooms and net livable area demolished. The replacement units shall be
deed-restricted as resident occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines
of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Each replacement unit shall be
approved pursuant to Subsection 4, Affordable housing, of this Section.
When this one-hundred-percent standard is accomplished, the remaining
development on the site may be free-market residential development with no
additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in
the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess
of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.070.3, Expansion of free-market residential units within a multi-family or
mixed-use development.
Staff Findings: The project is required to replace the existing number of free
market residential units, bedrooms and net livable area with affordable housing
units. The existing condition includes 3 units, 3 bedrooms and 1,292 square feet of
net livable area. The applicant proposes 3 units, 4 bedrooms 1,980 square feet of
net livable area.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings, Growth Management
Page 6 of 7
P17
residential Free
market
EXISTING •
• • bedrooms
1 studio 305
1 studio 315
1 1-bedroom 672
total (required
replacement): 3 3 1292
Affordable
PROPOSED housing net livable
REPLACEMENT: units bedrooms
1 studio 506
1 studio 507
1 2- bedroom 967
total: 3 4 1980
Staff finds that the proposed affordable housing units, as described above, meet the
requirements for 100% replacement. The applicant proposes one free market
residential unit which does not require mitigation, as it is within the existing number
of free market residential units originally on the property. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
1. Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing commercial
building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial
building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements
outlined in Section 26.470.050.
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of 26470.050, as
outlined above. Stafffinds this criterion is met.
2. New free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project. The
development of new free-market residential units within a multi-family or mixed-use project
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050 above.
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of 26470.050, as
outlined above. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings,Growth Management
Page 7 of 7
P18
Exhibit B—Staff Findings, Subdivision
26.480.050. Review standards.
A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and
requirements:
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height,-bulk, architecture,
landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory
master plan.
Staff Findings: There are no applicable adopted Master Plans for this property. The
applicant proposes a new mixed-use building that includes residential and commercial
uses, which conforms with and is compatible with the uses in the immediate block and the
zone district in general. In addition, the approved Conceptual Commercial Design is
consistent with the heights, bulk, open space, and architecture in the area. The applicant is
providing off-site public amenity space, which was approved as part of their Conceptual
Commercial Design Review. Stafffinds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
Staff Findings: The development meets all of the dimensional and use requirements of the
Commercial Core (CC)zone district and the area. Staff finds this criterion is met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
Staff Findings: The development does not adversely affect future development in the area.
It complies with zoning and is consistent with the other subdivisions in the area. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the
Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion is met.
B. Suitability of land for subdivision.
1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable
for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow,
rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or
other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents
in the proposed subdivision.
2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Exhibit B—Staff Findings,Subdivision
Page 1 of 3
P19
Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision is located on a parcel suitable for the
subdivision. There are no known hazards and no steep topography. In addition, the
proposed subdivision is in a single mixed-use building so the spatial pattern is efficient.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the
proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter
26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with an applicable
adopted regulatory plan, Title 28, the municipal code, the existing, neighboring
development areas and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide
justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by
professional engineers as necessary.
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of 26.580. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and conditions have been added to the
Resolution to ensure all Engineering requirements are met. Staff finds this criterion is met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units
shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. A subdivision
which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of 26470. Staff finds
this criterion is met.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth
at Chapter 26.620.
Staff Findings: The applicant will comply with all required school land dedication
requirements. A cash-in-lieu payment will be made as part of the building permit. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted
or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing
Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management
approvals if the newly created parcels) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
Exhibit B—Staff Findings, Subdivision
Page 2 of 3
P20
Staff Findings: The proposed development meets the requirements of the Growth
Management Quota System, Chapter 26470. If the growth management requests are
granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this criterion will be met. .
Exhibit B—Staff Findings, Subdivision
Page 3 of 3
P21
Exhibit C- DRC comments
Fire Department:
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but is not limited to the installation of approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm
systems.
Parks Department:
A) Site plan:
1) The City will need a site plan that shows or identifies the areas of impact on the mall—where
will excavation take place, how deep, type of machinery, storage of materials, what utility,
etc..... Staging and construction use of the mall area is prohibited except for the specific utility
connection.
B) Tree Protection:
1) A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or
groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan indicating the
location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set.No excavation, storage of
materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed
within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city
forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. As
referenced in Chapter 13.20
2) Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all times
C) Utility Connections:
1) How and where utility connections are made is a major concern relative to impact on the mall
and mall users. It is strongly recommended that alternative means for utility connections be
explored in order to prevent impacts to the mall area.
D) General:
1. All mall work, related to any utility installation should be completed before the summer
or winter seasons—consult with the Engineering Department for specific dates work is
allowed.
2. The mall side of the project should be safe and fenced off during the entire project.
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
P22
3. If mall brick is disturbed for construction the replacement has to follow the mall brick
standard and it is suggested that the project consult with the current contracted mason for
the City.
4. All bricks removed for any construction related activity are required to be saved and
reused at the close of the project.
5. All trash and debris around the site is the responsibility of the project.
6. Trash and snow removal around the site is to be cleared by the project, during the winter
pushing snow on to the mall is prohibited.
7. Removal, damage or trimming or trees is prohibited.
8. Parking of vehicles on the mall is prohibited.
9. Deliveries should be coordinated through the adjacent alley.
Building Department:
1) The building does not qualify as a single exit building as proposed. Travel distance does
not meet 2009 IBC 1021.2 .
2) Openings at the easement will need to be calculated per 705.8 at 5' to an imaginary lot
line at the west property line.
3) Elevators are not permitted to open into an exit enclosure 1022.3
4) Four residential dwelling units in a building requires them all to be type B per
1107.6.2.1.2 and ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003.
5) All units in this proposal will be required to have access to the elevator per 1107.7.
6) A accessible route to the trash area is required 1104.
ACSD:
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,
which are on file at the District office.
ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof,
foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system.
On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD.
Oil and Grease interceptors (NOT traps) are required for all food processing establishment.
Locations of food processing shall be identified prior to building permit. Even though the
commercial space is tenet finish, interceptors will be required at this time if food processing
establishments are anticipated for this project. ACSD will not approve service to food
processing establishments retrofitted for this use by small under counter TRAPS at a later
date.
Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance
establishments.
Driveway entrance drains must drain to drywells.
Elevator shafts drains must flow thru o/s interceptor
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
P23
Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements.
Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system.
One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where
more than one unit is served by a single service line.
Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans
will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or
easements to be dedicated to the district.
All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can
develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district.
Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve
capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional
proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment
capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all
development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity
of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees
to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The
District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the
material cost difference for larger line).
Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to
any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have
approved containment facilities.
Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet
vertically below an ACSD main sewer line.
We will be able to comment on this application in greater detail once detailed plans have been
submitted to the District.
Engineering Department:
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet
submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Drainage:General note: The design for the site must meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan
Requirements. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these
requirements. A full review will be completed when adequate information is provided.
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
P24
A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This includes
detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee-in-lieu of
detention (FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas. All new impervious areas
will need to discharge at historic rates. Any discharge from the site must be made to the south
mall side of the building opposed to the north alley side. Minor events must be tied into the
storm sewer with a manhole. The manhole lid must be located below the mall bricks. Major
events must discharge to the mall.
Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage Principals:
1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment.
3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control.
6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the
environment.
7.Use a treatment train approach.
8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
Hyman Ave Mall Grade Changes- Any proposed grade changes to the mall must be approved.
Construction Management—Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this
site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck
traffic. Note that the current code does not allow for any encroachments during the on-
seasons (November 1 —April 15 and June 1 —Labor Day).
Excavation Stabilization—Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation
of the building the City will require an excavation stabilization plan prior to building
permit submittal.
Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a
portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal
Code.
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
P25
Housing:
The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held May 1, 2013 and
recommend approval of the three on-site units with the following conditions:
Rental Units:
1. As rental units, the deed restriction shall require that all tenants are approved PRIOR to
tenancy through APCHA and must re-qualify on a YEARLY basis, the tenants shall be no
higher than a Category 4, and at such time the unit is found to be out of compliance for one
year, the owner will be REQUIRED to sell all of the units through the lottery system. If the
units become ownership units,the conditions stated below under the Sales Unit section shall
come into play.
2. The rental deed restriction will be recorded with the following conditions:
a. The use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units shall henceforth be limited
exclusively to housing for employees and their families who are employed in Pitkin
County and who meet the definition of"qualified Category 4 employee" as that term
is defined by the qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority
on an annual basis. The Owner shall have the right to lease the Employee Dwelling
Units to "qualified Category 4 employees" of his own selection.
b. The Employee Dwelling Units shall not be occupied by the Owner or members of
the immediate family ("Immediate Family" shall mean a person related by blood or
marriage who is a first cousin [or closer relative] and his or her children), unless the
family member is a qualified employee and obtains approval by APCHA prior to
occupancy. The units shall at no time be used as a guesthouse or guest facility.
C. Written verification of employment of employee(s) proposed to reside in the
Employee Dwelling Units shall be completed and filed with the Authority by the
Owner of the Employee Dwelling Units prior to occupancy thereof, and such
verification must be acceptable to the Authority.
d. The Employee Dwelling Units shall be required to be rented for periods of no less
than six (6) consecutive months. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Units,
the Owner is granted forty-five (45) days in which to locate a qualified employee. If
an employee is not placed by the Owner, the Authority may rent the Employee
Dwelling Units to a qualified employee.
e. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category 4, studio or two-bedroom,
rental rate as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may
be adjusted annually as set forth by the Guidelines. The maximum permitted rent
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
P26
for the units on the date of execution of this deed restriction as stated in the
Guidelines at the time the deed-restriction is recorded. Rent shall be verified and
approved by the Authority upon submission and approval of the lease. Employees
shall be qualified by the Authority as to employment, maximum income and asset
limitations on a yearly basis. The signed lease must be provided to APCHA.
f. The Units must meet minimum occupancy; i.e., one person per bedroom.
g. Owner agrees to provide to APCHA upon request all information reasonably
necessary to determine if there is full compliance with this Agreement.
h. In the event that APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner and/or tenant is
violating the provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA, by its authorized
representative, may inspect the Property or Affordable Housing Unit between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, after providing the Owner
with no less than 24 hours' written notice.
i. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall send a
notice of violation to the Owner and/or tenant, as may be applicable, detailing the
nature of the violation and allowing the Owner or tenant fifteen (15) days to cure.
Said notice shall state that the Owner or tenant may request a quasi-judicial hearing
before the APCHA Board pursuant to the Grievance Procedures of the APCHA
Guidelines within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no
hearing is requested and the violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period,
the Owner or tenant shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing
is held before the APCHA Board, the decision of the APCHA Board based on the
record of such hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining if a violation has
occurred and for the purpose of judicial review.
j. There is hereby reserved to the parties' hereto any and all remedies provided by law
for breach of this Agreement or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to
litigation with respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall recover damages and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
k. In the event an Affordable Housing Unit is leased without compliance herewith,
such lease shall be wholly null and void and shall confer no title whatsoever upon
the purported tenant. Each and every lease, for all purposes, shall be deemed to
include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants herein contained, even
without reference therein to this Agreement.
1. In the event that the Owner or tenant fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may
resort to any and all available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
P27
performance of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring compliance by
Owner and/or tenant.
m. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related
document shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law;
but if any such provision shall be invalid or prohibited under applicable law, such
provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without
invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement or other document.
n. This Agreement is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Colorado.
o. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this
Agreement shall be valid against any party hereto except on the basis of a written
instrument executed by the parties to this agreement. However, the party for whose
benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the unilateral right to waive such
condition.
P. The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this Agreement shall
be effective only when made in writing signed by both parties and recorded with the
Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
q. The terms and provisions of this Deed Restriction shall constitute covenants running
with the title to the Affordable Housing Units as a burden thereon for the benefit of,
and shall be specifically enforceable by,the Managing Agent,the Association and/or
Owner, by the Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Colorado, and by their
respective successors and assigns, by any appropriate legal action including, but not
limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of non-qualified tenants.
r. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit shall
provide for a rental term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and
executed copy of the lease shall be provided to the Authority by the Owner within
ten(10)days of approval of employee(s) for the Employee Dwelling Unit.
S. Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-
301(1)(a) and (b), this Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and
deed restriction to limit rent on the property subject hereto and to otherwise
provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any right it may have to claim
that this Deed Restriction violates CRS 38-12-301.
t. When the option to convert any unit to a sale unit is exercised, the owner must
adopt a new deed restriction in the form adopted by APCHA that is applicable to
sale units and/or if found to be out of compliance for one year.
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
P28
U. The owner must provide in the condominium documents the requirement to create
a separate homeowner's association if the three deed-restricted units become
ownership units.
Sales Units:
1. The units shall be ownership units and sold through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority lottery system upon request by the owner and/or at such time one of the units is
out of compliance for one year.
2. The units shall be classified as Category 4.
3. The condominium documents shall be created at the onset, or modified at the time the
three deed-restricted units become ownership units, to reflect that any common area
maintenance shall be paid by the free-market residential unit and the commercial owners,
and the other costs shall be assessed based on the actual values of the free-market homes
versus the deed-restricted units. The condominium documents shall be reviewed and
approved by APCHA.
A recorded deed restriction, approved by APCHA, shall be recorded on the units prior to the
Certificate Occupancy.
Exhibit C
DRC Comments—420 E. Hyman
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
John Kruger, Transportation Department Director
Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager
CC: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: May 16, 2013
RE: Staff Comments on Parking Policies
PURPOSE: In February City Council provided general direction supporting the Planning and
Zoning Commission to examine potential code amendments related to house size and parking.
At a March work session, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed these issues, and laid
the groundwork to propose specific code language changes related to parking requirements.
Staff is unable to attend the upcoming P&Z meeting on these issues, but did want to relay some
comments regarding past and current City policies on these issues for the P&Z to consider as
they move forward. Staff believes increasing parking requirements is contrary to the AACP and
long standing City policy, and therefore City staff cannot support higher parking requirements.
PARKING IN THE AACP: In February 2012 the City Council approved the Aspen Area
Community Plan, following the Planning and Zoning Commissions passage of the same
document in November 2011. The 2012 AACP outlines overall City goals and philosophies on a
number of topics, including transportation. The community's vision regarding transportation, as
articulated in the AACP, states "we are committed to providing an efficient, multi-modal and
integrated transportation system that reduces congestion and air pollution." In support of that
overarching statement, the AACP call for a future "in which the automobile plays a smaller role
in people's everyday lives." The focus of the transportation chapter is on alternative modes of
transportation and getting people out of cars. The Primary Transportation Policy states, "Use
Transportation Demand Management tools to accommodate additional person trips in the Aspen
Ares." This is consistent with the City's goals related to parking and transportation from the
1993 and 2000 AACPs, as well as current city policies focused on improving Transportation
Demand Management solutions and options for developers.
The AACP includes a policy and a number of action items specifically related to parking,
including amending the Land Use Code to establish maximum parking requirements to
discourage car use rather than a minimum. Moving to decrease on-site parking requirements and
instead establishing maximum parking requirements is a national trend, with cities such as
Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Bedford (MA) adopting such requirements.
RELATED POLICIES AND CURRENT WORK: The City has a long standing policy of
seeking to limit trips over the Castle Creek Bridge to 1993 levels. Through increases in transit
services, dedicated bus lanes, HOV lanes, expanded paid parking, and city TDM programs,
Aspen has successfully met this goal. In order to continue meeting this goal, and further
reducing trips, it is important for the city to continue focusing on solutions that get people out of
cars rather than enable increased car use.
Currently the City's Transportation, Engineering, Community Development, and Environmental
Health Departments are working on a comprehensive transportation study focused on increasing
TDM measures required of development. The project is focused on creating a fair, equitable,
and clear process related to understanding and mitigating transportation impacts associated with
development. In December 2012, City Council approved a contract with a consultant team to
examine the existing system and update it to be clearer, fairer, and easier to manage and
understand. City Council asked staff and the consultant to study the impacts development has on
our transportation system, and look to create a system to mitigate those impacts. In addition,
Council expressed interest in creating a reliable, defensible system that results in actual
improvements, not simply charging an additional fee on development. This work stems directly
from the AACP and will be presented to City Council later this summer.
It is important to note that parking requirements have an impact on the likelihood a building
resident or user will travel via car or alternative modes. Increasing parking requirements creates
a disincentive for individuals to walk, bike, or use transit, which is contrary to the city's current
efforts and longstanding policy of limiting trips into and around town.
In addition, increasing parking requirements may result in additional impervious area on a site,
which would move a site away from meeting the City's water quality and storm water
management requirements and policies. That policy states, "Impervious area (parking, roofs,
drives, etc.) is an important factor influencing .urban runoff and water quality issues. Many
impervious surfaces are necessary as a part of urban and sub-urban development (roofs over
buildings, to provide shelter; roads for vehicles, for example). Not all impervious areas in
typical developments are necessary, however. For example, in residential areas an extra-wide
driveway that is used only infrequently could be considered "unnecessary" impervious area,
especially if street parking is available nearby for infrequent additional parking. To reduce the
impacts of urban runoff on the environment, each site plan should be carefully evaluated to
eliminate unnecessary impervious surfaces."
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
r��es; I�-(nom—� :� '�Oo r✓� , 2013
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
1, �,�—c�t
��-��.� (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City-of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
I
(/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days pri or to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the day of , 20_, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this pZ day
Of M6L414 , 20Z by efAr�,r �l
PUBLIC NOTICE WITNESS 7�,{�HAND �77� 7 TO THE
fiE:RECOMMENDED
LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.515,OFF- YV IT1 V PASS M 1 l A V it AND OFFICIAL SEAL
STREET PARKING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday,May 21,2013,at a meet- /C - M commis ion expires:
ing to begin at 4:30 p.m.before the Aspen Plan- o p
ning and Zoning Commission,in the Sister Cities
meeting room,City Hall,130 S.Galena Street,As- t
pen,CO,to review the recommendations of the ' t
Commission regarding land use code Chapter e `
26,515,Off-street Parking.,The Commission will e ) i
consider a resolution to city council to initiate a land
use code amendment to Chapter 26.515,Off- Notary Public -
street Parking.For further information,contact "`J
Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen Community
Development Department,130 S.Galena St.,As-
pen,CO,(970)429.2759,Jennifer.Phelan @cityo- -
faspen.com. 1/291209/
S/W Ersoamer Chair �7 L 19
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on May 2,
2013.[9142521] ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:
* .COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF NEMRAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
I