HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20130611 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, June 11, 2013
SPECIAL 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. 700 Ute Ave (Aspen Alps), PUD Amendment and Subdivision
B. P&Z recommendations with regard to off-street parking,
Continued from May 21, 2013
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
P1
"For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Change"
CITY AGENDAS
City Council-2"d and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on
Tuesdays) P/Z-1st and 3rd Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd & 4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4
Week of June 3, 2013
6/4 P&Z Cad 4:30 (CANCELLED DUE TO RUN-OFF)
6/11 P&Z R 4:30 Special Meeting (Council Chambers)
Notice: 5/20
Aspen Alps— PUD Amendment -JG
6/18 P&Z A-4:30
Notice: 5/27
601 W. Hyman, Victorian Condos, Final Commercial Design, PH — SN
7/2 P&Z A-4:30
Notice: 6/10
Aspen Alps — PUD Amendment— JG (continued from 6/4 — if needed)
815 Vine—AH Credits—JB
614 E Durant—Commercial Design - SIN
7/16 P&Z R 4:30
Notice: 6/24
P2
Community Development Update
OCq. .2013
Project: Aspen Valley Hospital Contact: Jennifer Phelan
Status: Approved by Council Closing Date: May 13, 2013
Description: The Hospital has applied for approval of Phases 3 and 4. These include
the addition of new medical office space, new hospital space, and a new entry.
Update: P&Z recommended approval of the project on January 8th. Council approved
first reading on February 25th, with second readings to be held in March, April, and May
Next Steps: City Council approved this application during the second reading on May
13th in a vote of 5-0.
Project: 514 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Approved by Council Closing Date: May 28, 2013
Description: The applicant received designation approval for their modern building
(commonly known as the Mason Morse building) from City Council earlier in 2012.
They have applied for their final design review with HPC.
Update: HPC approved the final design application on February 27. However, the
applicant is interested in amending their designation approval to remove an approved
free-market residential unit and convert the entire building to commercial space. The
case went before the City Council for first reading on May 13th
Next Steps: The designation amendment to remove an approved free-market
residential unit and convert the entire building to commercial space was reviewed by
City Council at second reading on May 28th. At this meeting City Council approved the
land use application with a vote of 4-0.
Project: 602 E Hyman Ave Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Approved by Council Closing Date: 5/13/2013
Description: The applicant had proposed to remodel the existing building and add a
new third story. The development would have included updated commercial space, a
new affordable housing unit, and an updated free-market residential unit. The applicant
has since withdrawn their application and submitted a request to designate the property
under AspenModern. The new application includes an updated free-market residential
unit and updated commercial space. A small addition in the rear is proposed.
Page 1 of 8
P3
Update: HPC reviewed the requested designation on February 27 and recommended
City Council approval.
Next Steps: The matter went before City Council on May 13th; and City Council
approved the designation of the property under AspenModern.
Project: South Aspen St PUD Contact: Jennifer Phelan
Status: Pending Review Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to amend their townhome approval through a
PUD Amendment. The applicant proposes dividing the project into phases and
reducing the amount of on-site housing. The proposed phasing would involve 5 free-
market and 10 affordable housing units built in phase 1, and 9 free-market units built in
phase 2. The applicant proposes to provide the balance of their required housing
mitigation in the second phase through the use of affordable housing credits or off-site
housing in Aspen city limits.
Update: Staff is reviewing the application and seeking referral comments.
Next Steps: PUD Amendment review before City Council is scheduled for first reading
on June 10th and second reading on June 24tH
Project: 604 W Main Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes an historic landmark lot split and to establish
TDRs for the floor area that will be un-built on the parcel.
Update: City Council will review the application in June and July.
Next Steps: City Council first reading on June 10th and second reading on July Stn
Project: 507 Gillespie Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to establish TDRs for the floor area that will be
un-built on the parcel.
Update: City Council will review the application in June and July.
Next Steps: City Council first reading on June 10th and second reading on July 8th.
Page 2 of 8
P4
Project: 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) Contact: Jessica Garrow
Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to add a third story free-market residential unit,
and convert a second floor deck to commercial space. The building is commonly
referred to as the Boogies Building.
Update: HPC approved conceptual design of the project on July 11, 2012 by a 4:0
vote. City Council reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and accepted
HPC's decision. The applicant has applied for growth management and subdivision
reviews. P&Z approved the growth management reviews and recommended City
Council approve the subdivision review at their April 16th meeting.
Next Steps: Subdivision review before City Council is scheduled for first reading on
June 24th and second reading on July 22"d
Project: 420 E Hyman (CB Paws/Zocalito) Contact: Sara Adams
Status: Pending review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop the property at 420 E Hyman with a
new three-story mixed-use building.
Update: HPC approved the project on July 25, 2012 by a 3:2 vote. City Council
reviewed the application under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project
back to HPC for further review of the mass and scale. HPC approved the massing on
November 14th. The Applicant applied for subdivision and growth management reviews
on February 15th. That application is being reviewed by staff and has not yet been
scheduled for P&Z review.
Next Steps: P&Z granted growth management approval by a vote of 5-0. Next this
case will go before Council for Subdivision review, with the first reading anticipated to
be scheduled in July, and the second reading anticipated to be scheduled in August.
Project: 700 Ute Ave (Aspen Alps Contact: Jessica Garrow
Status: Pending Review by P&Z and Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to add a PUD to the entire Aspen Alps project to
address a number of existing non-conformities. The applicant is also proposing to
update the existing infrastructure easements. Many of the utilities on site are not
located within the prescribed easements. No new development is proposed as part of
this application. The Alps was constructed in the 1960s, before modern zoning and
subdivision regulations. This has resulted in a number of areas where the buildings to
do not conform with existing zoning requirements related to density, unit size, parking,
Page 3 of 8
P5
floor area, height and setbacks. The PUD would establish that the existing buildings, as
they are currently situated are permitted.
Update: Staff is reviewing the case and a DRC was held on May 8tn
Next Steps: P&Z for a recommendation to Council on adding a PUD. P&Z review is
scheduled for June 11th
Project: 601 E Hyman Ave (Victorian Square) Contact: Sara Nadolny
Status: Completed review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes demolishing and replacing the existing building
with a mix of commercial space and one free-market residential unit. The applicant
proposes to use a certificate of affordable housing credit for their affordable housing
mitigation. The building is commonly known as the Garfield and Hecht office building, or
Victorian Square.
Update: Review by Staff. P&Z reviewed the project at their June 19th and July 3`d
2012 meetings, and approved the project by 4:2. City Council reviewed the application
under Call-Up procedures and voted to remand the project back to P&Z for further
review of the public amenity space. P&Z reviewed and approved a slightly revised
design. P&Z approved a Growth Management Review for commercial space and free-
market residential space on December 4th, 2012. The applicant has applied for their
final commercial design review
Next Steps: Final Commercial Design Review with P&Z is scheduled for June 18th.
Project: 430 W Main Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes an historic landmark lot split and to establish
TDRs for the floor area that will be un-built on the parcel.
Update: HPC will review the application in June.
Next Steps: HPC review on June 26th.
Project: 110 W Main - Hotel Aspen Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to increase the number of lodge rooms on the
property from 45 to 53, add 4 new free-market residential units, add on-site affordable
housing, and create an underground parking garage. The lodge rooms average less
than 300 square feet.
Page 4 of 8
P6
Update: Staff is still reviewing the initial application. The project's conceptual
commercial design review will be conducted by HPC. HPC reviewed the project on
January 9, February 13 and March 13 and continued their review to April 24, when the
project was approved.
Next Steps: The applicant will apply for growth management, PUD, and subdivision
reviews.
Project: 434 E Cooper Ave (Bidwell) Contact: Sara Adams
Status: Pending Review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 434 E
Cooper, commonly known as the Bidwell building, with a new commercial building. No
residential space is proposed as part of the redevelopment.
Update: HPC approved the conceptual design on December 12, 2012. City Council
did not call the project up.
Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final commercial design review.
Project: 610 E Hyman Historic Designation Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Pending review by HPC Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposes to designate and expand an existing free-market
residential unit and add two-story commercial addition to the property. The building
houses the Charles Cunniffe offices.
Update: Review by Staff. HPC is reviewed the project on May 23, 2012 and
recommended a continuance. The was approved, with conditions re arding work
required to in order to qualify for designation, by HPC on October 10tty. City Council
approved the designation on January 14th, and gave the applicant 30 days to accept the
decision. The applicant accepted the designation decision.
Next Steps: The applicant will apply for final HPC review.
Project: 616 E Hyman Ave Contact: Jennifer Phelan
Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish and replace the building at 616 E
Hyman, with a new commercial building. Residential space is proposed as part of the
redevelopment.
Page 5 of 8
P7
Update: P&Z approved the conceptual design of the project in November 2012, and
City Council has exercised their call-up authority to review the decision. Council
accepted the decision. The applicant has applied for growth management reviews.
Next Steps: P&Z approved growth management reviews on April 2. The applicant will
apply for final commercial design review.
Project: 420 E Cooper Contact: Amy Guthrie
Status: Pending Review by P&Z Closing Date: Undetermined.
Description: The applicant proposed to demolish an existing one-story commercial
building, commonly known as the Red Onion Annex (currently houses the poster shop).
The applicant proposes to replace it with a new two —three story mixed use building
including commercial space and one free-market unit.
Update: HPC reviewed the project on September 12, 2012 and approved it on October
24. City Council has exercised their call-up authority, and remanded the project back to
HPC for view plane review.
Next Steps: HPC reviewed the remanded project, and approved it with no changes.
The applicant will apply for growth management and final design reviews. No
application has been made to date.
Project: Lodging Study Contact: Jessica Garrow
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Summer/Fall 2013
Description: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is to "examine the desirability and
sustainability of preserving existing lodging and producing more lodging in Aspen." As
part of this effort, staff is conducting a lodging study to examine our existing inventory
and to understand the current state of the lodging market. Staff is utilizing a two-phase
approach to Council's Lodging Goal. The first stage includes an overview of the City's
role in the lodging.sector, interviews with key players in the lodging industry, and an
inventory of lodging in Aspen. Phase two would begin with a series of facilitated
roundtable discussions between lodging owners, planners, developers, general
businesses, ACRA, the Aspen Skiing Company, Stay Aspen Snowmass, and outside
lodging experts. The discussion would focus on three topics: 1) Is there a problem in
the lodging sector as it relates to product diversity? 2) Should the City have a role is
addressing any problems? 3) If so, what can the City do?
Update: The Phase 1 Report is available online at:
http://www aspenpitkin com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-and-
Zoning/Long-Ranqe-Planning/
Page 6 of 8
P8
Phase 2 consisted of a charrette with Aspen's lodging stakeholders to discuss the
issues, challenges and opportunities in the lodging sector. The group also discussed
what roles the City could or should have in the lodging sector. The charrette was held
on October 23rd and included representatives from Aspen's lodges, ACRA, SS, SkiCo,
and the lodging development community. Two lodging consultants from Denver also
attended and are writing a report on their conclusions from that meeting. Staff with
present the findings and a summary of the meeting at a December work session.
Next Steps: Staff is moving forward on the next steps presented to Council at their
December 11th work session and plans on returning to Council in a June work session
to review policy changes and direction. In addition,staff is working with a consultant on
a Lodging Economics report and a lodging remand report. Anticipated completion in
May.
Project: ADUs Code Amendment Contact: Chris Bendon
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Undetermined
Description: Council, P&Z, and APHCA have all expressed interest in eliminating
ADUs as an option when mitigating for housing impacts in single-family and duplex
development. This code amendment eliminates the ADU mitigation option, creates a
system to remove existing ADUs, and changes the mitigation trigger to any time new
floor area is created in a single-family or duplex development.
Update: City Council approved policy direction on November 12th, and approved code
language at first reading on November 26th. Second reading on December 10 was
continued to January 28tH
Next Steps: Staff is taking direction from the January 28th council meeting and working
on the proposal. It will come back to City Council at a later date.
Project: SCI Zone District Code Amendment Contact: Sara Nadolny
Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Fall/Winter 2013
Description: City Council requested staff to examine amendments to the SCI zone
district to better address the current functioning of the zone. SCI is the only zone district
that lists specific allowed uses (Coffee Roaster, for instance), rather than relying on
general use categories (Commercial Uses, for instance).
Update: Staff has met initially with business owners in the different SCI buildings, as
well as with the P&Z to gain feedback on what goals they have for the zone district.
Staff presented the findings and asked for initial Council direction at an April 23rd work
session.
Page 7 of 8
P9
Next Steps: Staff is working on continued outreach with SCI owners and businesses
based on the direction from Council. Staff member Sara Nadolny is meeting with Wally
Obermeyer to discuss the effects of changing the current SCI zoning to NC at
Obermeyer Place on May 29th. A,meeting with the representatives of Clark's Market is
also planned, to discuss any potential impacts of rezoning the Ace Hardware store at N.
Mill St. Station to NC. Staff will return to Council this summer as more progress is
made.
Project: Sign Code Amendment Contact: Jim Pomeroy
Status: Approved by Council Closing Date: May 28, 2013
Description: City Council has asked staff to simplify the sign code.
Update: City Council provided Policy Direction at their December 1 Oth meeting.
Council reviewed the code changed at first reading was held on April 8th, and second
reading on May 28th
Next Steps: City Council approved the sign code changes, which include permitting
one sandwich board per building per street (allowing two sandwich boards for each
street side of a corner building). Buildings that host six or more buildings will be
permitted two sandwich boards per street side. The sign code amendment will go into
effect on June 27, 2013.
Page 8 of 8
MEMORANDUM P10
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner 6
Justin Barker, Planner T��
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: 700 Ute Ave (Aspen Alps)—PUD, PUD Amendment,Rezoning, Subdivision
Resolution No._, Series of 2013
MEETING DATE: June 11,2013
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association
I
REPRESENTATIVE: "a
Sunny Vann, Vann Associated
LOCATION:
700 Ute Ave,Aspen Alps
CURRENT ZONING:
Lodge (L)with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay on Parcels 4 and 7 and portions
of Parcels 3 and 6 '
r
c
PROPOSED ZONING: ` ^ '
Lodge (L)with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Overlay on Parcels 1-8
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests the existing
improvements be memorialized by updating the
PUD, and clarifying legal descriptions through a
new Subdivision. In addition, utility easements
are proposed to be upgraded to ensure utilities
are located within easements. No new
development is proposed.
Photo: Alps location and picture of Alps 200
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Building.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Page 1 of 6
Aspen Alps P&Z Review—6.11.2013
P11
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant is requesting the
following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• PUD approval to add the PUD designation to the entire Aspen Alps property memorializing all
existing improvements, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development.
(City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission.)
• PUD Amendment to update the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) to memorialize all
existing improvements, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445.100.13, Planned Unit
Development Other Amendment. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.)
Subdivision approval to memorialize Parcels 1 — 8 as subdivided lots, pursuant to Chapter
• 26.480, Subdivision. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.)
• RezoninP approval to establish a single PUD Overlay for the entire project area, pursuant to
Chapter 26.310,Amendments to the Official Zone District Map. (City Council is the final review
authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.)
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to memorialize all existing improvements on Parcels 1-8 of the Aspen Alps
Condominiums, and to update all utility easements to ensure utility lines are located within the
appropriate easement. No new development is proposed as part of this application.
Existing Conditions and History:
The Aspen Alps, located at 700 Ute Avenue is comprised of 73 multi-family residential units, three (3)
affordable housing units, and a parking garage. There are eight (8) different Alps parcels —two (2) are
vacant and six (6) include improvements. A summary of the parcels and existing buildings are listed in
Table 1,below:
Table 1: Parcel and Develo ment Descriptions
516
parcel# Parcel Size(Gross Area) building#/common name
1 .612 acres; 26,668 sf 100 Building
2 .761 acres; 33,163 sf 200 Building
3 .971 acres;42,286 sf 300,400, 500 Buildings
22
10
4 .312 acres; 13,612 sf 700 Building
5 .514 acres; 22,939 sf 800 Building
9
,
6 3.402 acres;
148,182 sf Vacant Land N/A
7 .122 acres; 35,314 sf Winter Building(Parking Garage, Affordable Housing) N/3
8 .049 acres; 2,126 sf Vacant Land
The Aspen Alps were developed incrementally beginning in 1962. In fact, the Alps was the first
condominium building in the State of Colorado. Building 100 was developed in 1962, Buildings 200 —
Page 2 of 6
Aspen Alps P&Z Review—6.11.2013
700 between 1965-1969, Building 800 in 1973, and the Winter Building in 2002. Note there is no 600 P12
Building.
Individual condominium maps and declarations were created as each phase of the Aspen Alps was
constructed and sold. The recorded condominium plats are the current basis for the existing legally
described parcels. Because a majority of the Alps was developed before modern subdivision
,regulations, the applicant is requesting a Subdivision Review to more clearly establish the existing
parcel boundaries and legal descriptions.
There is one master Homeowners Association, as well as individual associations for the different
buildings. The master Association also provides services to the 777 Ute At-the-Aspen Alps
Condominiums, which is not part of this application.
The Alps units, like The Gant, are considered Free-Market Residential Dwelling.Units with the ability to
be rented on a short-term basis. The units have been occupied by owners, their guests, non-working
residents, and vacationing tourists. No local working residents, as defined in the APCHA Guidelines
have lived in any units.
The Alps is located in the Lodge (L) Zone District. In 2001 an application was approved by the City
rezoning the portion of the Alps that was zoned R-15 PUD and Conservation to Lodge — other portions
of the Alps were already in the Lodge zone district. It appears the intent of the application was to add a
PUD Overlay to all parcels comprising the Aspen Alps, but the Ordinance was mistakenly written to
only include some of those parcels. The PUD Overlay includes Parcel 4 (700 Building), Parcel 7
(Winter Building), portions of Parcel 3 (Buildings 300 and 400), and portions of Parcel 6 (Vacant Land).
Buildings 100, 200, 500, and portions of vacant land do not currently include the PUD Overlay. While
the entire area has essentially functioned as one PUD since 2001, staff has included a rezoning as part of
this review to clearly establish that the entire Aspen Alps is zoned Lodge (L) PUD.
Dimensional Information:
Many of the existing dimensions do not meet the underlying Lodge Zone District dimensional
requirements, and are considered legally established non-conformities. The permitted dimensions are
listed in Table 2, below, and existing dimensions are in Table 3 on the next page.
Table 2: Allowed Dimensions in Lod a Zone District
Unit
parcel building#/ Parcel Size(Gross Unit Sizes FA.
# common name Area) Density Height ft net q Setbacks Parking
livable)
Spaces
1 100 Building 612 acres; 26,668 sf 7 21,571 16
2 200 Building .761 acres; 33,163 sf 9 29,590
3 300-500 Buildings .971 acres;42,286 sf 11 Front—5 16
28 feet 1,500 35,501 Side—5 22
4 700 Building .312 acres; 13,612 sf 4 13,157 Rear-5 10
5 800 Building .514 acres; 22,939 sf 4 14,503 g
Front—12
7 Winter Building .122 acres; 35,314 sf 3 28 feet 775 7,065 East Side—20
854 West Side—15 69
Rear—10
Page 3 of 6
Aspen Alps P&Z Review—6.11.2013
P13
Table 3: Existin Dimensions
Unit Size(sq
building#/ Parcel Size ft net livable Floor Parking
#Units
parcel common (Gross Current Heights as depicted Area Setbacks (feet) Spaces
# name Area) on recorded (sq ft)
PUD Plans)
Front-4
100 .612 acres; East Side-11.5 16 off-
1 16 2 story 1,133-1,515 21,559 West Side-18 site
Building 26,668 sf
Rear-20
200
Building, EJO 2 story 1,213-1,537 Front-13
Structure A .761 acres; 24,100 North Side-23.5 27
2 200 33,163 sf South Side-16
Building, 6 3 story 1,345-2,421 Rear-13
Structure B
Front-19.5
300 7 1,122-2,255 South Side-19
Building Rear-22 8 off-
400 .971 acres; Front-7.5 site (on
3 7 4story 1,130-2,265 34,604 Rear-9.5 Parcel
Building 42,286 sf 6)
Front-14
500 g 408-1,844 North Side-7
Building Rear-9
Front-8.5 12 off-
700 .312 acres; North Side-4.5 site (on
4 10 3 story 1,475-2,973 22,789 South Side-5.5 Parcel
Building 13,612 sf
Rear-13 6)
800
Building- 1 3 story 2,992
Structure A Front-55
800 East Side-13.5
Building- .514 acres; 4 4 story 1,695-1,876 18,866 6
5 22,393 sf West Side-11.5
Structure B Rear-4
800
Building- 4 4 story 1,606-1,989
Structure C
3.402 acres; N/A
6 Vacant Land 148,182 sf
Front-17.5
Winter .122 acres; East Side-14.5 69
7 3 2 story 775-854 NLA 6,289 West Side-20
Building 35,314 sf
Rear-10
0
8 Vacant Land 49 acres; N/A
2,126 sf
1 Exact height for each building and parcel shall be recorded as part of the Final PUD Documents. page 4 of 6
Aspen Alps P&Z Review-6.11.2013
Proposed PUD: P14
No new development is proposed as part of this application. The Applicant wishes to memorialize the
existing development, including all existing non-conformities, while updating utility easements. Each
building has at least one non-conformity. The specific non-conformities that are proposed to be
memorialized through the PUD are marked with an"X"in Table 4, below:
Table 4: Existing Non-Conformities
Density Floor Area Unit Size Setbacks Height Parking
100 Building X X X X X
200 Building X X X X
300 Building X X X X
400 Building X X X X
500 Building X X X X
700 Building X X X X X X
800 Building X X X X X
Winter Building X
STAFF COMMENTS:
The project is required to comply with the PUD standards set forth in Chapter 26.445, the Subdivision
standards set forth in Chapter 26.480, and the Rezoning standards set forth in Chapter 26.310. Overall,
staff finds that the project the requirements set forth in the said Chapters.
Staff supports establishing one, consistent, PUD for the entire Aspen Alps project as it creates
consistency and reliability within the project. The Alps has been developed in its current built form
since the 1960s-70s, and formally memorializing the existing dimensions is consistent with the long
standing use and dimensional characteristics of the area. In addition, because the lots were created prior
to subdivision regulations, staff supports the subdivision request to formally subdivide the project rather
than relying on the condominium language from the 1960s.
No new development is proposed, and the applicant is updating utility easements to ensure utilities are
no longer located outside of proper easements. The City Utility Department and Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District commented on the application, and support the proposed easement updates. Any
future development will require flow testing and updated utility infrastructure may be required.
The deed restrictions on the three (3) affordable housing units were never recorded, so the applicant is
working with APCHA to update and record those.
The existing fire access to the Alps does not comply with the Fire District regulations. However, no
changes are proposed at this time because no new development is proposed. If new development or
redevelopment occurs in the future, the Alps will be required to comply with all Fire District rules in
place at the time, and Aspen Alps Road will need to be modified in a manner acceptable to the Fire
District. Based on information available today, the right of way will need to be expanded, a turnaround
to accommodate fire vehicles, and building sprinklers will be required.
The City Engineering Department is concerned about runoff and mudflow on the site. Any new
development or redevelopment will require compliance with all applicable regulations, including the
City's Urban Runoff Management Plan, in place at the time of said development. Based on information
Page 5 of 6
Aspen Alps P&Z Review—6.11.2013
P15
available today, staff anticipates that, at a minimum, drainage conveyance for any redevelopment of
Buildings 300 — 700 will need to be accommodated on Parcel 6 and as part of an updated Aspen Alps
Road. Drainage easements will likely be required as part of any future redevelopment.
Overall, staff finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the review criteria for Subdivision,
PUD, and Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project,with the following conditions:
1. The existing dimensions are memorialized by this approval. Any changes to the building
dimensions will require a PUD Amendment,pursuant to the Land Use Code in effect at the time.
2. All dimensions shall be documented in the Final PUD Documents. The applicant has not
indicated exact heights as part of the land use application. These are required to be included as
part of the Final PUD Documents.
3. Any future development is required to comply with all City rules and regulations in place at that
time.
4. Updated deed restrictions shall be recorded for the three (3) affordable housing units prior to or
simultaneously with the recordation of the Final PUD and Subdivision Documents.
5. All utility easements shall be updated to ensure the utility line is located within proper
easements.
a. Any water lines not located in a Right of Way shall require an easement. Twenty (20)
foot easements are preferred, and required to the extent the existing development can
accommodate them.
b. All sewer lines shall be located within easements acceptable to the ACSD, including the
main line located in Alps Road and all extensions into the property.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #_, Series 2013, recommending City
Council approve a PUD Amendment, PUD review, Rezoning, and Subdivision for the Aspen Alps that
memorializes the existing development."
Attachments:
Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B — Subdivision Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit C - Rezoning Review Criteria,_ Staff Findings
Exhibit D - DRC Comments
Exhibit E - Application
Page 6 of 6
Aspen Alps P&Z Review—6.11.2013
P16
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
AMENDMENT, REZONING TO PUD, AND SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 700 UTE AVE (THE ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS), LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT A TO THIS RESOLUTION.
Parcel ID:2 73 7-182-67-800
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The Aspen
Alps Condominiums Homeowners Association, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates
requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and Rezoning to memorialize
the existing improvements at the Aspen Alps Condominiums and establish a single PUD for the entire
project; and,
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Lodge (L) with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
on Parcels 4 and 7 and portions of Parcels 3 and 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 June 11, 2013, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2013, by a to L— vote, recommending
City Council approve PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning reviews; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and
considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered
public comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or
exceeds all applicable development standards; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approval
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve a PUD, Subdivision, and Rezoning
for the Aspen Alps Condominiums, legally described in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
Section 2: Dimensions
The existing dimensions are memorialized by this approval. Any changes to the building dimensions
will require a PUD Amendment, pursuant to the Land Use Code in effect at the time. All dimensions
Resolution No_, Series 2013
Page 1 of 6
P17
shall be documented in the Final PUD Documents. The applicant has not indicated exact heights as part
of the land use application. These are required to be included as part of the Final PUD Documents.
Approved dimensions are outlined in Exhibit B to this Resolution.
Section 3• Affordable Housing
Deed restrictions for the three (3) affordable housing units shall be recorded before or simultaneously
with recordation of the Final PUD and Subdivision Documents.
Section 4: Utilities
All utility easements shall be updated to ensure the utility line is located within proper easements.
Any water lines not located in a Right of Way shall require an ( 0) foot easements
are preferred, and required to the extent the existing developm ent can accommodate
All sewer lines shall be located within easements acceptable to the ACSD, including the main line
located in Alps Road and all extensions into the property.
Section 5• Code Compliance
Any future development or redevelopment in the Aspen 1pmitedDtosfire,required
rmwater,comply
building,lwaters
and regulations in place at that time, including
but not A
sanitation, and trash requirements.
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
I or proceeding now pending under or such ces repealed r amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted an d concluded under rordinances.
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 day of
52013.
Resolution No_,Series 2013
Page 2 of 6
P18
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Debbie Quinn,Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A: Legal Description of The Aspen Alps Condominiums
Exhibit B: Approved Dimensions
Resolution No Series 2013
Page 3 of 6
P19
Exhibit A: Aspen Alps Condominiums Legal Description
Parcel 1: Building 100, Aspen Alps, according to the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Alps
recorded December 11, 1963 in Book 205 at Page 145, as amended, and according to the Condominium
Map recorded January 8, 1964 in Plat Book 2a at Page 308, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
Parcel 2: Building 200, Aspen Alps West, according to the Condominium Declaration for Aspen Alps
West recorded March 15, 1965 in Book 212 at Page 83, as amended, and according to the Condominium
Map Recorded March 17, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 26, Amendment No 1 Recorded February 25,
1992 in Plat Book 28 at Page 69, Second Supplemental Condominium Map Recorded July 26, 2002 in
Plat Book 61 at Page 40, Third Supplemental Condominium Map Recorded October 12, 2010 in Plat
Book 94 at Page 90, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
Parcel 3: Building 300, 400, 500, Aspen Alps South Condominiums, acco to he and The First
Declaration for Aspen Alps South Recorded December 1, 1965 in Bo at Page
Supplement Recorded January 6, 1969 in Book 238 at Page 804, and according to The Condominium
Map Recorded December 10, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 54, and First Supplement Recorded December
10, 1969 in Plat Book 3 at Page 373, Second Supplement Recorded April 14, 2005 under Reception No.
508992, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Parcel includes a portion of Government Lot 42, Section
18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of The 6th Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado (Lot 42 merged with Lot 33, per Bureau of Land Management Supplemental Plat, Dated 1995,
Recorded in Plat Book 36 at Page 94);
Parcel 4: Building 700, Aspen Alps South Condominiums, according to the Condominium Declaration
for Aspen Alps South recorded December 1, 1965 in Book 217 at Page 189, and The First Supplement
Recorded January 6, 1969 in Book 238 at Page 804, and according to the Condominium Map recorded
December 10, 1965 in Plat Book 3 at Page 54, and First Supplement Recorded December 10, 1969 in
Plat Book 3 at Page 373, Second Supplement recorded April 14, 2005 under Reception No. 508992,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Parcel includes a portion of Government Lot 42, Section 18,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of The 6 Principal Meridian, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
(Lot 42 merged with Lot 33, per Bureau of Land Management Supplemental Plat, Dated 1995, Recorded
at Plat Book 36 at Page 94);
Parcel 5: Building 800, Aspen Alps North Condominiums, according to The Condominium Declaration
For Aspen Alps North recorded January 31, 1973 in Book 271 at Page 967, and the Amendment
recorded June 4, 1973 in Book 276 at Page 393, and Agreement to Amend Condominium Declaration
for Aspen Alps North Condominiums recorded October 19, 1993 in Book 727 at Page 437, and
Agreement to Amend Condominium Declaration for Aspen Alps North Condominiums recorded
October 19, 1993 in Book 727 at Page 457, and according to The Condominium Map recorded January
31, 1973, in Plat Book 4 at Page 353, and First Supplemental Condominium Map recorded October 19,
1993 in Plat Book 32 at Page 87, and Second Supplemental Condominium Map recorded October 19,
1993 in Plat Book 32 at Page 88, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado;
Parcel 6: Lot 2a, Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Thereoflre recorded
of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefield, Jr Property, according to The
September 3, 1992 under Reception No. 348317, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Parcel includes
Range 84 West of The 6th Principal Meridian,
Government Lot 42, Section 18, Township 10 South, per Bureau of Land Management
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (Lot 42 merged with Lot 33, p
Supplemental Plat, Dated 1995, Recorded in Plat Book 36 at Page 94); Resolution No_,Series 2013
Page 4 of 6
P20
Parcel 7: Lot 2b, Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Subdivision Plat
of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefield, Jr Property, according to The Plat Thereof recorded
September 3, 1992 under Reception No. 348317, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
Parcel 8: A Tract of Land Situated in The West One-Half of The Northwest One-Quarter of Section 18,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of The 6`h P.M., County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as
follows: Beginning At The Most Southwesterly Corner of That Tract of Land Shown On The
Condominium Map of Aspen Alps North Recorded in Plat Book 4 At Page 353, From Whence Corner
No. 9 of Aspen Townsite Bears North 10*06'00" East 239.97 Feet and North 39*57'22" West 403.50
Feet; Thence Along The Southerly Line of Said Tract of Land South 79*05'00"East 35.72 Feet; Thence
South 20*15'00" East 11.00 Feet; Thence South 03*30'00" East 12.50 Feet To Line 5-6 of The M&Y
Lode, United States Mineral Survey No. 3921; Thence Along Line 5-6 of Said M&Y Lode South
44*59'00" West 67.87 Feet To Line 3-4 of The Millionaire Lode, United States Mineral Survey No.
3620a; Thence Along Line 3-4 of Said Millionaire Lode North 04*30'00" East 55.20 Feet To Corner
No. 4 of Said Millionaire Lode; Thence North 10*06'00" East 22.97 Feet To The Point of Beginning.
Resolution No Series 2013
Page 5 of 6
P21
Exhibit B: Approved Dimensions
Unit Size (sq
building#/ Parcel Size ft net livable Floor Parking
parcel Current Hei ht* as depicted Area. Setbacks(feet)
common (Gross #Units g Spaces
# name Area) on recorded (sq ft)
PUD Plans)
Front-4
100 .612 acres; East Side-11.5 16 off-
1 16 2 story 1,133-1,515 21,559 West Side-18 site
Building 26,668 sf Rear-20
200
Building, 10 2 story 1,213-1,537 Front-13
North Side-23.5 27
2 Structure A .761 acres; 24,100 South Side-16
200 33,163 sf
6 3 story 1,345-2,421 Rear-13
Building,
Structure B
Front-19.5
300 7 11122-2,255 South Side-19
Building Rear-22 8 off-
400 .971 acres; Front-7.5 site (on
3 7 4story 1,130-2,265 34,604 Rear-9.5 Parcel
Building 42,286 sf 6)
Front-14
500 g 408-1,844 North Side-7
Building Rear-9
Front-8.5 12 off-
700 .312 acres; North Side-4.5 site (on
4 10 3 story 1,475-2,973 22,789 South Side-5.5 Parcel
Building 13,612 sf
Rear-13 6)
800
Building- 1 3 story 2,992
Structure A Front-55
800 East Side-13.5
Building- •514 acres; 4 4 story 1,695-1,876 18,866 West Side 13.5 6
5 22,393 sf
Structure B Rear-4
800
Building- 4 4 story 1,606-1,989
Structure C
3.402 acres; N/A
6 Vacant Land 148,182 sf
Winter Front-17.5
Building .122 acres; East Side-14.5 69
7 (Parking, 3 2 story 775-854 NLA 6,289 West Side-20
35,314 sf
Affordable Rear-10
Housing)
049 acres; N/A
8 Vacant Land 2,126 sf
*Exact Height for each building and parcel shall be recorded as part of the Final PUD Documents.
Resolution No_, Series 2013
Page 6 of 6
P22
Exhibit A—PUD Review Criteria
26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD.
A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor
PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues
associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain
standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the
reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter and this Title.
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture,
as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The purpose of the PUD is to fully memorialize the existing Alps
improvements, which includes 7 buildings on S parcels, three (3) affordable housing units
and a parking garage located on Parcel 7, and various parking and road improvements
All told, there are 8 parcels in the Alps (6 that include improvements, and 2 vacant
parcels). The main Alps buildings range in height from 2 stories to 4 stories. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The existing development is in character with the surrounding uses,
consisting mostly of multi family residential complexes and hotels. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The site currently has utilities that are not located in their respective
easements. This is proposed to be rectified in this application by establishing new
easements that correspond with existing utilities. The Water Department and Sanitation
District have indicated that the applicant may be interested in upgrading those utilities,
but that is it not needed at this time as they are sufficient to serve the area. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, there are not GMQS allotments required. There are three existing affordable
housing units on Parcel 7 that were never deed-restricted as required. The applicant is
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 1 of 9
P23
aware of this and is currently working with APCHA to deed-restrict the units. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall
establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in
General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the
underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate
dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements,
compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be.
emphasized.
Staff Finding: The PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties
in a PUD. The existing dimensional requirements the applicant would like to memorialize are
listed below:
Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel?
Lot Size 26,668 sq. ft. 33,163 sq. ft. 42,286 sq. ft. 13,612 sq. ft. 22,939 sq. ft. 35,314 sq. ft.
Density 16 units 16 units 22 units 10 units 9 units 3 units
Floor Area 21,559 sq. ft. 24,100 sq. ft. 34,604 sq. ft. 22,789 sq. ft. 18,866 sq. ft. 6,289 sq. ft.
Maximum 1,515 NLA 2,421 NLA 2,265 NLA 2,973 NLA 2,992 NLA 854 NLA
Unit Size
300 bldg.—
19.5 ft.
Front 4 ft 13 ft. 400 bldg.— 8.5 ft 5.5 ft. 17.5 ft.
7.5 ft.
Setback 500 bldg.—
14 ft.
300 bldg.—
19 ft.
Side East-11.5 ft. North-23.5 ft. 400 bldg.— North-4.5 ft. East-13.5 ft. 14.5 ft.
Setbacks West-18 ft. South 716 ft. South-5.5 ft. West-11.5 ft. 20 ft.
500 bldg.—
7 ft.
300 bldg.—
22 ft.
Rear 400 bldg.— 13 ft 4 ft. 10 ft.
20 ft. 13 ft. 9.5 ft.
Setback 500 bldg.—
9 ft.
To be To be To be To be To be To be
documented documented documented documented documented documented
Height during during during during during during
recordation recordation recordation recordation recordation recordation
27 (20 off- g off-site 12 off-site. 6 69
Parking 16 off-site site)
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 2 of 9
P24
The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following:
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses
in the surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as
steep slopes,waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking
and historical resources.
Staff Finding.•'The applicant only intends to memorialize the existing development
dimensions. No existing features of the property will be changed as part of this
application. If the applicant wishes to make any changes or propose new
development in the future, a PUD Amendment and review will be required. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of
open space and site coverage appropriate and- favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding: The existing open space and site coverage will not be changed as part of
this application. Stafffinds this criterion to be met.
3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development
including any nonresidential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general
activity centers in the City.
Staff Finding: No existing parking spaces are to be removed and no new parking
spaces are proposed as part of this application. The existing parking for the Alps is
accommodated in a variety of ways, depending on the parcel. These are outlined in
the Table below:
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 3 of 9
P25
Parcell Parcel Parcel3 Parcel Parcel Parcel
Winter
Building
building#/ 300,400, 500
common 100 Building 200 Building 700 Building 800 Building (Parking,
Buildings Affordable
name Housing)
#Units
16 16 22 10 9 3
Original St&
Ute Ave via
From From Ute Ave via Aspen Alps Aspen Ute Ave
Access From Spring St Road
Original St Mountain
Road
#Parking 69
16 off-site 27 (20 off-site) 8 off-site 12 off-site 6
Spaces
portion of
parking area
encroaches onto
777 Ute Condos
provided on property
Sky Hotel through 69 spaces on-
property exclusive 12 spaces on
Form of pursuant to easement for 8 spaces on Parcel 6(with s spaces on- site (general
site parking for
Parking 1976 parking- 20 Parcel 6 easement)
project)
Easement spaces;
Agreement- 7 spaces
16 spaces partially on Ute
Ave ROW
(needs
encroachment
license)
The existing parking scenario appears to work for the Alps. Any new development,
and its associated parking requirements, would be reviewed if and when an
application is made. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to
service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 4 of 9
P26
Staff Finding: The Alps were developed in the early-mid 1960s, and were the first
condominiums in the state of Colorado. They were developed before modern
subdivision or zoning standards. Initially 77 units were developed. Over the years, 8
units were combined in various combinations, and 3 affordable housing units were
added to parcel 7creating an existing total unit count of 76 units. The result is that
the existing density is higher than that currently allowed by underlying zoning. Code
currently would allow 38 units. The applicant does not propose to reduce the
maximum allowable density. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density
of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful
disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding: As stated above, the existing density is already higher than that
currently allowed by underlying zoning and the applicant does not intend to reduce
the maximum allowable density. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and
with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD
may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as
expressed in.an applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there
exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above,, those areas can be avoided or those
characteristics mitigated.
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible
with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development
pattern, land uses and characteristics.
Notes:
a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or
lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average,
the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective
Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density
pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 5 of 9
P27
b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required
to be reflected in the final PUD development plans.
Staff Finding: The existing density is already higher than that currently allowed by
underlying zoning. There have been no issues with the existing density. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces,
is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual
interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town
are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing site features will be preserved. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
Staff Finding: No changes are proposed at this time, as no new development is proposed.
South Alps Road can be modified to an 18 foot road if all buildings are sprinklered upon
redevelopment and an adequate turnaround is provided. The applicant will provide an
explanation of the existing trash and recycling access and service areas for the record.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, the existing accesses will remain. Any new development will trigger
accessibility and energy code requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, the existing drainage situation will remain. Any new development will
trigger the need for a complete drainage plan consistent with the City of Aspen's Urban
Runoff Management Plan. In addition, because of the site's location a mudflow
assessment will be required if any new development is proposed. Staff finds this criterion
to be met.
7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed
to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 6 of 9
P28
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing site features will be preserved. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the
proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and
with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development
shall comply with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety
of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness
and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features
is appropriate.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing landscape features will be preserved. Staff finds this criterion to
be met.
E. Architectural character.
I. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate
to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable
for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby
historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or
less-intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior
materials,weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, the existing buildings will remain. Any new development will trigger
accessibility and energy code requirements and will be required to meet all applicable
design standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development
will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general
aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless
otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site
features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to
the property is prohibited for residential development.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 7 of 9
P29
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, all existing lighting will remain. Any new development will be required to
comply with all lighting codes. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Common park, open space or eation area for the mutual benefit of all s
evelopmentin
common park, open space or recr
the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or
industrial development.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed,as part of this
application, all existing common spaces will be preserved. Future development will
require compliance with all Parks standards, including tree protection standards. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to
capabilities ensure the
and that ithe
does not impose an undue burden on the City's infra
public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public
facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately
and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional
improvement.
Staff Finding: There are current utilities that do not lie within access easements. The
applicant intends to update all easements to contain the existing utilities. The existing
utilities will not be modified unless redevelopment occurs or replacement is necessary.
The applicant intends to contact any property owners necessary to obtain the required
easements. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The
purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access
and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 8 of 9
P30
1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public
street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or
other area dedicated to public or private use.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or
such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of adopted specific regulatory master plans, as applicable,
regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are
proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
Staff Finding: Adequate access exists for all structures within the PUD. The existing
access points and parking arrangements have not created issues. There are no new
proposed roads, drives or trails. Aspen Alps Road will be..required to be upgraded, per
Fire District comments and standards, should any new development be proposed in the
future. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The
purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed,
each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan
shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any
facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required
affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to
the respective impacts associated with the phase.
Staff Finding: No phasing is proposed at this time. Staff finds this criterion is not
applicable.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria
Page 9 of 9
P31
Exhibit B—Subdivision Review Criteria
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.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of
this Title.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to memorialize the existing parcels as subdivided
lots to be recorded in a subdivision plat. The lots were legally established before the
current subdivision regulations. No new subdivision of land is occurring, and the existing
lots will remain the same, all conforming in size and width. Staff finds this criterion to be
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.
Staff Finding: No new development or redevelopment is proposed as a part of this
application. The existing development has not created issues regarding land suitability or
spatial pattern. Any future development will be required to address slopes, drainage, and
mudflow, in accordance with the Engineering Department's standards and requirements.
Staff finds this criterion to be 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.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit B, Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 1 of 2
P32
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 Finding: The existing lots were legally established prior to the current regulations.
The applicant is proposing to update and align the existing utility easements to 20 feet as
required. Only new development will require flow testing and potential water line
replacement. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, no new affordable housing is required. There are 3 units on parcel 7 that were never
deed-restricted as required. The applicant is currently working with APCHA to deed-restrict the
units. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth
at Chapter 26.620.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, School land dedication is not required. Stafffinds this criterion to be 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 parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management
approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this
application, Growth Management approval is not required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit B, Subdivision Review Criteria
Page 2 of 2
P33
Exhibit C—Rezoning Review Criteria
26.310.090. Rezoning- Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to memorialize the existing development. No new
development is proposed at this time. A portion of the Aspen Alps site is zoned with a PUD
overlay. Extending that PUD to the entire Alps site will ensure clarity and consistency within
the project. Other similar PUDs are located in the area, including The Gant. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation
facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical
facilities.
Staff Finding: The Alps was developed in the 1960s and 1970s and is currently served by all
utilities. No new development is proposed that would require new services. The applicant is
proposing to update and align the existing utility easements. Only new development will require
flow testing and potential water line or sewer line replacement. Aspen Alps Road does not meet
Fire District standards, and will be required to be updated should any new development be
proposed in the future. At this time, no changes are required. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding: No new development is proposed as part of this application, thus no new impacts
to the natural environment will occur. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title.
Staff Finding: The proposal is consistent with all requirements of the Land Use Code. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps PU Hearing—Exhibit C, Rezoning Review Criteria
Page 1 of 1
P34
Exhibit D -Aspen Alps DRC Comments
Planning/Zoning
• By memorializing the existing conditions, any unit wanting to expand internally, add a
sky light, enclose a deck, etc will require a PUD Amendment. If the owners want the
ability to change items related to height, unit size, or floor area, that needs to be built into
the PUD, otherwise it's not allowed.
• The application indicates the exact heights will be recorded with the final documents.
We prefer to know that information now, but can work with the information in the
application.
• The Alps will need to record the deed restrictions for the 3 affordable housing units in the
Winter Building prior to or as part of the approval. The deed restriction must be
acceptable to AHPCA.
Parks
• Any future development will be required to comply with all Parks standards, including
tree protection standards.
• Any trees to be removed on the site require a tree removal permit.
• No trails are planned for these properties at this time.
Utilities
• Electric service is through Holy Cross, so the applicant should address any
concerns/issues with them.
• Water is provided by the City. Any water lines not in a Right of Way require an
easement. These should be 20 foot easements, as can be accommodated by the existing
development.
• If any future development occurs on the site, flow testing will be required, and water line
replacement will be needed.
Sanitation
• All sewer lines must be in easements acceptable to ACSD. Based on the information,
this would include the main sewer line easement for the line coming up Alps Road and a
small extension into the property, as shown in the application.
• In the future a couple of main line extensions into the property would help them by
eliminating some of the long service lines that serve some of their existing buildings.
• We can comment in detail on future development with the new applications.
Fire
• Any new development or redevelopment will require compliance with Fire District rules
and regulations.
• Aspen Alps Road can be modified to an 18 foot road if all buildings are sprinklered and
an adequate turnaround is provided.
Building
• No comments at this time as no new development is proposed.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit D, DRC Comments
Page 1 of 2
P35
• Any new development will trigger accessibility and energy codes.
Environmental Health
• Any new development or redevelopment will trigger compliance with the City's Trash
and Recycling requirements
• Please provide an explanation of existing trash and recycling access and service areas for
the record.
Engineering
• Any future development will be required to comply with all Engineering requirements,
including the URMP and the mudflow hazard area regulations. Staff is concerned there
are no easements related to drainage throughout the project area. Easements will be
required as part of any future development. Given the limited information available
related to drainage, staff anticipates at a minimum conveyance will need to be
accommodated on Parcel 6 and on Aspen Alps Road. Additional items that may be
required as part of any future development proposal include:
• All Engineering requirements applicable to the development must listed as part of
any future development application, including but not limited to those
requirements specified in the code, in the URMP and the design guidelines.
• 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 upon any future
proposed development, when there is enough information to review.
• Section 1.3.2 "Development Review Committee" of the URMP states: "Prior to
the DRC review process, applicants must submit a conceptual grading and
drainage site plan to the Engineering Department for approval. For complete
requirements, see the conceptual review submittal checklist in Appendix A." The
checklist is attached. Considering the location of the project, the applicant should
also prepare a mudflow assessment. The intent of the conceptual drainage plan
and mudflow assessment is to ensure that adequate planning has been
incorporated into the PUD for mitigation of runoff and mudflows.
o A compliant conceptual drainage plan and mudflow assessment must be
submitted and approved prior to finalizing approval of any future development.
Parking
• No comments.
6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit D, DRC Comments
Page 2 of 2
P36
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO
INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT
RESOLUTION#_, SERIES OF 2013
Recitals
1. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may initiate an amendment to the
City of Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter the Land Use Code) pursuant to §26.310.020.A.2. of
the Land Use Code.
2. Initiation requires adoption of a resolution by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a work session on March 26, 2013 to
discuss off-street parking requirements.
4. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that Land Use Code
§26.515.030, Required number of off-street parking requirements, be amended to add a specific
section with parking requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial zone district.
5. At their regular meeting on May 21, 2013, after public notice and hearing, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered the initiation of a code amendment for that
purpose, and continued the hearing to June 11, 2013, at which time the Commission voted to
initiate the amendment by a vote of to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN:
1. That the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby initiates a Land Use
Code Amendment to §26.515.040 to add a specific section with parking
requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial zone district; and
2. That this Resolution be forwarded to Aspen City Council for authorization to
proceed with the process set out in §26.310.020.B.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the IIth day of June, 2013.
1
P37
APPROVED:
L.J. Erspamer, Chair
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
2