Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20130806
AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, August 6, 2013 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. Aspen Alps —PUD Amendment B. 1460 Red Butte Drive — Stream Margin Review VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next'Resolution Number: / ` x P1 "For internal Staff use only. Not for publication. Dates subject to Changer* CITY AGENDAS City Council-2nd and 4th Mon. @ 5:00 PM, (Work sessions for Council @ 5 on Mondays, 4 on Tuesdays) P/Z-1St and 3`d Tues. @ 4:30 PM, HPC-2nd &4th Wed. @ 5:00 PM. BOA Thurs. @ 4 Week of July 29, 2013 816 P&Z(cD- 4:30 Notice: 7/15 Aspen Alps— PUD Amendment—JG (continued from 6/18) 1460 Red Butte, Special Review— ESA, JP 8120 P&Z ca--) 4:30 Notice: 7/29 1460 Red Butte, Special Review— ESA, JP (continued if necessary) 913 P&Z(-4:30 Notice: 8/12 St Regis, PUD Amendment—SN Hotel Aspen, Final PUD —SA 9117 P&Z(>_4:30 Notice: 8/26 Hotel Aspen, Final PUD — SA P2 Community Development Update July 2013 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: City Council reviewed the application for first reading on June 10th and second reading on July 7tH Next Steps: PUD Amendment second reading before City Council is continued to August 12tH Project: 604 W Main Contact: Amy Guthrie Status: Closed Closing Date: July Stn 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 reviewed the application for first reading on June 10th and second reading on July 8tH Next Steps: City Council approved the requested historic lot split and TDRs. Project: 507 Gillespie Contact: Justin Barker Status: Pending Review by Council Closing Date: Closed Description: The applicant proposes to establish TDRs for the floor area that will be un-built on the parcel. Update: City Council reviewed the application for first reading on June 10th with an initial first reading on July 8tH Next Steps: City Council continued the second reading to August 12th Page 1 of 7 P3 Project: 534 E Cooper Ave (Boogies) Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Closed Closing Date: July 22nd 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 vote of 4:0. 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. City Council reviewed the application at first reading on July 8th, and second reading on July 22nd Next Steps: Subdivision review was approved before City Council on July 22nd 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 vote of 3:2. 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. P&Z granted growth management approval by a vote of 5-0. Next Steps: This case is scheduled to go before Council for Subdivision review, with the first reading scheduled for July 8th, and the second reading scheduled for August 12th 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, floor area, height and setbacks. The PUD would establish that the existing buildings, as they are currently situated are permitted. Page 2 of 7 P4 Update: DRC was held on May 8th. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the case on June 11th and continued the public hearing to August 6th Next Steps: P&Z for a recommendation to Council on adding a PUD. P&Z review has been continued to August 6 th 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: HPS approved the application for the historic lot split and the establishment of TDR's. Next Steps: Applicant will apply to go before City Council. 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. 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. Page 3 of 7 P5 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 reRarding work required to in order to qualify for designation, by HPC on October 10t . 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. 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: 422 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. Page 4 of 7 P6 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 conducted a great deal of background work and stakeholder meetings to gain an understanding of Aspen's lodging sector. The background phase was completed in early May. All the reports are available online at: http://wwvv.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/PIanninc-and-. Zorinq/Long-Range-Planning/ In December, City Council identified three (3) goals to focus on: Enabling upgrades to condominium units while maintaining those units in the short-term rental pool, enabling upgrades to existing lodges, and enabling new lodge product. These goals were reaffirmed at a June 25 h work session. Update: City Council affirmed the goals related to supporting condominiums, existing lodges, and new lodges. Staff presented a detailed matrix of policy options at the June 25tH work session, and Council prioritized changes to condominium and existing lodges. Staff presented specific recommendations to City Council as it relates to changes in Condominiums and Existing Lodges during the July 15th work session. Next Steps: Staff has received direction from City Council and is working on draft Code amendments that will be presented to Council at a future date. 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. Page 5 of 7 P7 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 dish ict 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. 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: PUD/SPA Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Fall/Winter 2013 Description: City Council requested staff to update the PUD and SPA Chapters of the Land Use Code to simplify and clarify the review process. Update: In March staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their feedback on potential changes. Staff presented policy options to City Council at their June 24th Council meeting. City Council passed a Policy Resolution directing staff to process a code amendment that combines the SPA and PUD reviews, consolidates and updates the review criteria, and creates a binding Conceptual -Review. Next Steps: Staff is working on specific language changes and will present options to City Council later this summer. Because the proposed changes are significant, staff will present potential process and review criteria changes to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to returning to City Council in public hearings. Project: Subdivision Code Amendment Contact: Chris Bendon Status: Ongoing Closing Date: Fall/Winter 2013 Description: City Council requested staff to update the Subdivision Chapter of the Land Use Code to simplify and clarify the review process. Page 6 of 7 P8 Update: In March staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their feedback on potential changes. Staff presented policy options to City Council at their June 24th Council meeting. City Council passed a Policy Resolution directing staff to process a code amendment that creates different levels of subdivision review, . establishes development document requirements, and updates the review criteria. Next Steps: Staff is working on specific language changes and will present options to City Council later this summer. Project: ESA Code Amendment Contact: Jessica Garrow Status: Ongoing , Closing Date: Winter 2013 Description: City Council requested staff to update the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Chapter of the Land Use Code to simplify and clarify the review processes. Update: In March staff met with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get their feedback on potential changes. Staff is coordinating with the Parks and Engineering Department on changes related to the Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, and 8040 Greenline reviews. Next Steps: Staff is working on specific language changes and will request formal policy direction from City Council later this summer. Page 7 of 7 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 P 1 0 Chairman U Erspamer called the meeting to order at 4:30 with Walterscheid, Goode, Weiss, Myrin, DeFrancia,Tygre, and Gibbs present. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1. Weiss told the Commission he is going to attend a Council meeting and bring up the number of code amendments recommended in the AACP; hopefully the new Council will pick up efforts for code amendments. Several other board members said they would attend with Weiss. 2. Myrin thanked staff for the community development department update. Jessica Garrow told the Board at the work session June 25,they will be reviewing lodge policies and trying to get direction on amending the code or working with outside organizations. Ms. Garrow said she will forward the Council packet and background information to P&Z. 3. Erspamer told the Board their code books are not up to date and the Board can get copies at the community development department or online at the clerk's page. 4. Erspamer asked about review or commenting on a project that is in front of HPC. Weiss suggested joint meetings on some projects. Myrin stated he would support working out a process for referrals. MINUTES—May 21, 2013 The Board agreed to approve these at the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Jim DeFrancia said he is working with the Aspen Alps and will recuse himself. Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, noted the conflict of interest section states city officials may not appear on behalf of an applicant in front of the board of which they are a member. 700 UTE AVENUE ASPEN ALPS PUD AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, said the appropriate mailing and publication has been done. Jessica Garrow, community development department,told the Board there is no development proposed in this application; it is to memorialize the existing conditions of the Aspen Alps. Ms. Garrow said the request is for PUD, rezoning and subdivision. P&Z is the recommending body;Council is final approval. Ms. Garrow showed the property,which is 8 different parcels, 2 of which are vacant. Parcel 6 is a large parcel, originally part of the Moses lot split. The Winter building is where tennis courts, parking garage and affordable housing are located. The 777 Ute at the Aspen Alps was approved and built.in 1992 and is not part of this application. Ms. Garrow pointed out the various Aspen Alps building and their location on the site;the 300,400 and 500 buildings have access off the Aspen Alps road off Ute Avenue. 1 P 11 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 The Aspen Alps was developed from 1962 through 2002 and was the first condominium in Colorado before modern subdivision regulations. There are 73 residential multi-family units with the ability to short term; no units have housed a local working resident. There are 3 affordable housing units in the Winter building developed in 2002;the deed restriction was never filed and the applicant has committed to doing so as part of this application. There 16 offsite parking space for the 100 building on the Sky hotel property and all other parking is within the site. Ms. Garrow pointed out this property is zoned lodge with some of it having a PUD designation,the lack of total PUD designation may have been a staff error in 2001, and parcels 1 through 8 should have had a PUD designation so this application includes a rezoning in order to make it clear there is one PUD for the entire Aspen Alps property. Ms. Garrow said the utility easements will be updated; a new subdivision will be established to make the descriptions clearer. The proposal is to establish the existing dimensions, as conforming;there are a lot of non-conformities on the site compared to what is permitted under the Lodge zone district,there are more units than would be allowed under the existing code. Any improvements after this application would be required to submit a new application;there is no ability to change configurations. Ms. Garrow told the Board there has been a long standing agreement with 525 South Original street for one of the parking spaces so the resolution should note there are 15 offsite parking spaces for the 100 building. Ms. Garrow stated staff finds this proposal complies with all criteria for PUD, subdivision and rezoning and staff recommends approval of the application. Weiss asked why the current floor area for building 2 is 24,100 square feet and the allowed dimension in the lodge zone district is 29,950 square feet and would not approving this allow 5,800 square feet of development. Ms. Garrow said this approval does not memorialize what would be allowed under existing code; it memorializes what exists today, building 2 will be 24,100 square feet. Ms.Tygre asked if the overall square footage on the site would allow additional development in a new building. Ms. Garrow said that would be a new land use application. Ms.Tygre asked if there is enough land available. Ms. Garrow said any development will come through a new land use process and on certain parcels there may be room for new buildings; staff did not calculate what could be built because that is not the application in front of P&Z. Ms.Garrow noted any PUD approval by P&Z locks in the dimensions by what is presented; this request will say what exists on the site today is what is allowed; any change from that would require land use review. Myrin asked about vested rights. Ms. Garrow said any project that goes through review gets a 3-year vested; however,there is no development proposed for this site;the dimensions are being established and stay in perpetuity until a future amendment. Weiss asked if the individual unit sizes are being locked in by this proposal. Ms. Garrow answered the P&Z resolution locks in the range for dimensions; the final PUD documents will include unit by unit showing how large each unit is. The site specific approval will make the buildings and units conforming. Ms. Garrow told the P&Z,the water supply is sufficient for the existing development but any new proposal would require upgrading the water lines to deal with capacity issues. Ms. Garrow noted locking the units and buildings in to what is existing clarifies what is there and what is allowed. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant,told the Boards they had to do surveys and title work on all the properties and boundaries and the application documents what is there today. Vann said some of the buildings at the Aspen Alps are almost 50 years old; some units have been remodeled. Vann stated the +� + Ac..on AIv..- I....-,I1.. +...J but .J.... +.. L.-. L11 1-..-..J ..1.. +1...... units at Aspen/ IpS were legally created bul due o ensuing c langes in le land use code,they e referred to as non-conforming structures. These are not a non-conforming use and are allowed to 2 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 P 1 2 continue. This approval will memorialize what is there today. Vann told the Board this is not a subdivided parcel and the applicants want to file a plat to memorialize the existing parcels, clean up the easements; a PUD document that states what the dimensional requirements are,the review processes necessary for any future improvements: Vann said memorializing what is there gives the applicant greater flexibility to deal with the older buildings and would make the building permit process simpler. Vann noted this is a depreciating asset and is a vital component of the community's lodging inventory. Myrin asked why go through this approval process in advance rather than waiting for an actual application. Vann said the master homeowner's association is trying to get in front of future issues. Vann pointed out the land use code has been amended to disincentivize residential uses in the lodge zone; heights and FAR have been lowered. The Aspen Alps was conforming when built and it could not be built today under the current regulations. This application is to find a way to facilitate retaining this part of the lodging market. Ms.Tygre said one purpose of a PUD is to cluster buildings on a site and this approval would not allow that. Vann said the existing buildings are pretty much in the location they would go and the ability to tear all down and move it around is fairly limited. There are too many owners to gain consensus on tearing all the buildings down and starting over. There are areas where development is prohibited; there are areas that using the land area to increase floor area is prohibited. Erspamer asked about the statement that the reduction for steep slopes shall not exceed 25%and is that a change from 20%. Vann stated in a PUD one is required to reduce the allowable lot area for FAR calculation for steep slopes at the maximum of 25%. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Susan Gaines,Aspen Alps resident,told the Board she does not rent her unit and she is concerned that the actual square footage of her unit is larger than is on record and if this is memorialized, it would not be good for her and the assessment for her unit is not accurate. Ms.Gaines asked P&Z not to approve this request. Vann told P&Z the applicants used the county recorded maps and field verified the figures; used the building permit plans to update the square footage. Vann said they were not able to verified Ms. Gaines unit and would be glad to rectify that. Vann noted floor area is different than gross area; things like stairwells do not count in floor area. Michael Marek, unit 113 Aspen Alps,told P&Z there are homeowners who are confused as to why this application was promulgated. Marek said no one has been polled about redevelopment and redevelopment is not an issue and questioned the money spent by the homeowner's board to come up with a PUD application without any development proposals. Joan Marek stated she does not understand the purpose of this PUD application;the questions P&Z is asking are the same that some of the homeowners have. Sarah Jane Morrell, unit 114,also questioned the purpose of P&Z approving the PUD without other benefit to the city. Ms.Garrow said part of the benefits for the city is getting utilities into proper easements. The information on what exists at the Aspen Alps and when owners come in, it is cost and time for the city staff and for owners to see if their proposal is allowed. Richard Auhll, Alps owner,told P&Z in 2012 Board of Managers received an 11 page document on 3 suggested proposals to redevelop the Aspen Alps so this proposal has caused concern with homeowners that a redevelopment will come in with after this step is approved. 3 P 1 3 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 Connie Harvey,Alps owner,told P&Z the owners,without a vote, were asked to send proxies to the Alps planning committee without understanding what the point is. Ms. Harvey said she does not feel this is a good idea. Paul Taddune told P&Z he is working with some of the homeowners and this appeared to be a routine application and a memorialization of what exists; however,there may be impacts on the homeowners, like a reduction in FAR. The homeowners should be given a chance to review this and see how it may affect each individual's circumstances. Erspamer closed the public hearing. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z that the homeowner's associations are not part of this review and there are criteria in the packet related to PUD, rezoning and subdivision and the two, homeowner association issues and land use criteria, are separate. Ms.Garrow clarified if there is a non-purposeful destruction and a building needs to be redone, if the building is non-conforming, it can be rebuilt exactly as it was. If there is a purposeful destruction and the building is non-conforming, it has to be rebuilt complying with underlying zoning, except for density. One reason to do this PUD is to clarify exactly what exists on the site and will make the buildings conforming. Ms. Garrow said the Winter building was approved in 2001 and at that time staff requested the applicants apply a PUD to the property; however, because the way the ordinance was written,that was not accomplished and the PUD only covered part of the project. Applying a PUD to the entire parcel has been the intent for the last dozen years. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, said it is important for staff and for applicants to have a base line of what exists on a property and what would be permitted. The Aspen Alps has a partial PUD with unclear boundaries, buildings that may or may not meet the height limit. Weiss asked about combining units. Ms. Garrow said that would require a land use application and P&Z review, regardless of whether this PUD passes or not. Ms.Tygre said if this is approved,the Alps or homeowners could come in and process a land use application for more units or for another building. Ms. Garrow said at anytime the owners could request amending their dimensional requirements. Ms. Tygre said a concern to P&Z members is the future requests, not necessarily this PUD, and the dimensional limits can be overturned. Ms. Garrow reiterated these buildings were built according to the codes in place and they are legally established non-conforming buildings in terms of most of the dimensional requirements. P&Z has to look at the review criteria and determine if this request to memorialize what is there meets the criteria. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z that the nature of PUDs is that they are site specific;this is a unique situation and probably no other property in Aspen is half covered by a PUD. The rezoning is to clarify what was intended 12 years ago. Ms.Garrow said most land use applications in front of P&Z are for new development,the applicants are asking to vary dimensions of a building that does not exist. This application is for existing buildings;the default is today—what exists, regardless of whether there is a PUD. P&Z needs to evaluate this application based on the criteria in front of them. Ms. Garrow said if P&Z feels what is there now is inappropriate, does not fit with the neighborhood, does not fit the context of the area and if there were to be a totally new application, P&Z could say it has to comply with the underlying lodge district,that could be the recommendation. vveiss moved to extend tiie meeting untii 7:30 to finish this item; seconded by Goode. Aii in favor, with the exception of Ms.Tygre. Motion carried. 4 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 P 1 4 Erspamer requested the minutes regarding the intent of the PUD approval for the Alps as referred to by staff. Weiss said P&Z cannot enforce or weigh in on_homeowner's association rules. P&Z reviews how this application compares to the code. Myrin said he is not comfortable approving this application based on table 4 existing non-conformities as one of the criteria is that the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide; according to that table, none of density or unit sizes or heights would fit the dimensional requirements of the code. The code requires P&Z to use the underlying zone district as a guide and this does not match the PUD. Weiss stated the request is to memorialize something that cannot be changed without further land use review. Walterscheid suggested leaving the property as is rather than speculate what might come back as a future land use application. Ms.Tygre agreed P&Z could establish what exists on the property without making it a PUD. There is a baseline and it does not need to be memorialized in the form of a PUD. Gibbs stated the new development issue is not germane to this application. Gibbs agreed with staff there are good reasons to apply this PUD and staff has pointed out in order to deal with the Alps property in the future, it needs to be regularized and put into one coherent parcel with known dimensions and standards. Walterscheid said he does not see the necessity to change what the dimensional requirements are. Goode said although he can see staff's reasons for this proposal he can also support the P&Z members who are questioning this approval. Vann said PUD is a complex section of the city's code and if the applicants were coming in with a new development resembling what exists on site, P&Z would be correct in saying this is so far out of bounds it would not meet the requirements of the PUD section. Vann reiterated the buildings can be torn down and replaced as they exist and new structures or buildings voluntarily torn down must meet the underlying zoning dimensional requirements. One can replace existing non-conformities subject to special review approval based on the criteria if it is appropriate in the location; if it is consistent with surrounding development. The Alps is a non-conforming structure which the applicants could propose to demolish, request special review approval to put it back the way it is and if the P&Z were not inclined to give special review approval,the buildings will stand the way they are. Vann stated the idea of this is to address an aging complex and if a majority of homeowners wanted to do some work,this would remove some of the impediments. Vann said one has to assume what exists on the property is effectively the zoning;what exists today could not be built under today's code. Vann said the purpose of this application was to facilitate the Alps' ability to upgrade, maintain, reconfigure, replace and modernize their properties. Vann said the first direction from the homeowners was"do no harm";this application was to make things consistent. Tom Todd, representing the applicant,told Council there would probably be significant discussion at homeowners meetings before any plan is approved for submittal to the city. Todd said this application is a baseline and was spurred on by the city's lodging study and the finding that 2/3 of condominium owners at the Alps rent their units and how can upgrade of the units be encouraged. Myrin moved to approve Resolution#14, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment, rezoning to PUD and subdivision for the property located at 700 Ute Avenue; seconded by Ms.Tygre. Myrin moved to amend, Ms.Tygre withdrew her second. Myron moved to approve Resolution#14, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment, rezoning to PUD and subdivision for the property located at 700 Ute Avenue that exhibit B is modified to include only the parking space column and the first two columns on the left; seconded by Ms.Tygre. 5 P 15 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11,2013 Myrin said his purpose is to leave the dimension and underlying zoning to what exists at the time of an application. Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, noted no dimensions are being established by this motion. Vann stated a PUD approval with no underlying zoning does not work. Gibbs moved to continue to June 18; seconded by Walterscheid. All in favor with the exception of Weiss, motion carried. Gibbs moved to adjourn at 7:30; seconded by Goode. All in favor, motion carried. 6 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 18, 2013 P 1 6 U Erspamer called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm with members Tygre, Myrin,Gibbs and Goode present. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, announced Jim DeFrancia has resigned as he will have too many conflicts coming. The Board requested a letter of thanks and commendation be sent to DeFrancia. Jessica Garrow,community development department,told the Board the next public outreach date for the Rubey Park transportation center is July 10th and she will e-mail the Board the meetings they are expected to attend. MINUTES— May 21, 2013 Myrin moved to approve the minutes of May 21, 2013; seconded by Keith. All in favor, motion carried. 700 UTE AVENUE PUD AMENDMENT Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms.Garrow told the Board the applicant needs more time and has requested a special meeting July 30tH. Staff recommends the regular meeting August 61H Ms.Tygre moved to continue the public hearing for the Aspen Alps PUD and Rezoning to August 6, 2013; seconded by Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. 601 E.HYMAN FINAL COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW Erspamer opened the public hearing. Sara Nadolny,community development department, said this proposal is to demolish the existing commercial building and replace it with a mixed use building. This site is within the commercial design area as outlined in the commercial design guidelines. The review is to focus on material,facade articulation, building character and relationship to the street and pedestrian. The goal of the commercial character is to create connective pedestrian system, define engaging buildings of appropriate scale,to create attractive public spaces. The building has been designed using 3 distinct modules expressed across the lot, setback from the walkway at varying lengths and achieves depth of interest and provides visual interest in the building. The design meets the requirement of a taller first floor of 13'; the upper floors are 11'. Ms. Nadolny noted interest on the first floor is created through the use of materials, primarily glass to give it transparency. The building has been designed with variable heights to the roof and the tallest point is the elevator at 38'setback 15'from the property line; the tallest roofline is 35'. The mechanical equipment will be located in the basement. The earth tones go well with the neighboring buildings and throughout the city. The public amenity space is designed with pavers and abuts the building. Street trees will be planted as a buffer between the walkway and the street. 1 P 1 7 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 18, 2013 Ms. Nadolny noted the expansion of the commercial space of 52 square feet of net leasable. Ms. Nadolny pointed out in the land use code anything less than 250 square feet can be done by administrative review; however,this will be part of the final review by P&Z. Ms. Nadolny said this is approved for 7,265 square feet net leasable,which would require mitigation for 4.79 full time equivalents. The applicants request an increase to 7,317 square feet which requires mitigation for 4.90 FTEs. Staff recommends approval of the final design and the minor expansion of the development and using affordable housing credit. Myrin pointed out there were 6 concerns raised at conceptual and asked if these have been addressed. Ms. Nadolny said these have been worked out with the applicant and staff. Erspamer asked what vacating the covenants and the condominium plat means. Ms. Nadolny said these were recorded previously and the applicants are vacating these. Ms. Nadolny reminded P&Z that for space to count as public amenity space it has to be open to the sky. The area with benches is under cantilevered space; it does not count as public amenity but it is still public space. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, showed the property at the corner of Hyman and Hunter. The current building was built in the 1970's and does not have any energy efficiency qualities and has outlived its usefulness. Clauson said the building was originally condominiumized with the idea of having ground floor retail,which did not happen perhaps because those spaces were setback from the street. Clauson said this design should enhance the retail opportunities. P&Z granted conceptual approval in 2012, at which time bulk, mass and open space issues were agreed upon by P&Z. Clauson showed the proposed public amenity space,the tree plantings,the benches and other landscape. This building will anchor the corner rather than be recessed from it. The building is in alignment with the building next to it. Clauson presented slides of the street elevations,the context with other buildings in the area. John Rowland, architect,told the Commission there were some challenges about the materials at conceptual and the architects propose to replace the glazing with more historical contexts. The proposed materials will require no maintenance. Clauson noted a screen element, which needs to be movable,to cover the transformer necessary at this location. Rowland pointed out the green roofs integrated into the project. There was no public comment. Erspamer closed the public hearing. Ms.Tygre noted this application fulfills the design review requirements; however, she would like to see more variation in color to break up the building. Erspamer said although he would like to see the top floor set back more,the designers did a great job with the comments from conceptual review. Clauson said they will look at achieving the more variation as recommended by Ms.Tygre. Keith moved to approve request for final commercial design review for 601 E. Hyman avenue with the conditions outlined in the resolution and the FTE change to 4.9; seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. P&Z RECOMMENDATION— OFF STREET PARKING Erspamer reminded the Board this was continued from earlier meeting. Bert Myrin noted adopting this resolution sets the process in motion. Stan Gibbs said the resolution should be changed to include the resolution was continued on June 11 and June 18. 2 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 18, 2013 P18 Ms.Tygre moved to approve Resolution#14 to initiate a code amendment to provide parking requirements for the NC zone district as amended; seconded by Gibbs. Erspamer opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Erspamer closed the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried. Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, reminded the board they had asked about the referral process and how they partake in that. There are ways for P&Z to comment to HPC on projects they are considering and if the majority of P&Z wants that referral, it can be brought to them for comment. Gibbs said he feels a better way to do this is to make P&Z's position known to HPC and have HPC ask for P&Z's input rather than just offering up comments on a project without a presentation. This would leave it up to HPC as to how to include the P&Z, if at all. Erspamer agreed it would be difficult to make comments without seeing the presentation. Ms. Quinn pointed out if P&Z gave a position on a project at HPC and then it came in front of P&Z,they would have already voiced opinion,which is not a good idea. Myrin suggested continuing to provide referral comments to HPC to indicate interest in a project. P&Z could get a copy of the application, at which point they could decide whether or not to request a referral. The Board agreed to continue and if a project comes up that P&Z is interested in,staff can place the referral discussion on the agenda. Keith moved to adjourn at 5:45 PM;seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. 3 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 2,2013 P20 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre,Walterscheid, Myrin, Gibbs, Goode and Weiss present. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1. Jasmine Tygre commended Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss and U Erspamer for applying for the vacant Council seat and stated she is glad they will stay on P&Z because they are needed on this commission. 2. Jessica Garrow, community development department,told the Commission the next public outreach meeting on Rubey Park is July 10. Ms. Garrow requested some P&Z members to attend focus groups,that morning 11 am with Rubey Park neighbors or at 1 with employers and hotel operators so P&Z can hear what people have to say about operations at Rubey Park. At 3 pm there is on open house preview for elected and appointed officials and the public open house it 4 pm; all at Rubey Park. Goode said he will attend the 11 am session. Ms.Garrow said the purpose of having P&Z members attend these sessions is that when this comes to P&Z and they will be asked to recommend an option for development at Rubey Park, P&Z will have been part of the process. 3. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, noted there is nothing on the schedule for the July 16"regular meeting and suggested cancelling the July 16 meeting. The commission agreed. MINUTES - June 11, 18, 2013 The commission did not receive these minutes and will review them on the next regular agenda. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. 614 E DURANT COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Sara Nadolny,community development department, presented the legal notice and affidavit. Ms. Nadolny noted this is a consolidated conceptual and final commercial design review for the former Pomeroy Sports in the Aspen Square building, which is zoned CL,commercial lodge. The applicant is remodeling the space and would like to make some changes to the exterior. Ms. Nadoly told the Commission this was on Council's agenda for call up and Council chose not to call it up. The applicant proposes to remove the double doors on Durant and replace that with clear glass. Staff feels this will allow more transparency into the space. Changes proposed to the Hunter street fagade include removal of a corner window,which will allow the unit to go back to its original design. The applicant proposes to replace the frosted glass doors on Hunter street with a window, remove the transom and add brick work above the window. The notch will have bench seating, potted plants and will be open to the public. Staff supports these requested changes. The building department did not 1 P 21 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission July 2,2013 have safety or egress concerns. This meets all applicable criteria. Myrin asked if there was a level of change that would not have required P&Z review. Ms. Nadolny said changing doors and windows triggers P&Z review. Kim Raymond, representing the applicant,said people hang out in the notch just south of the alley and the applicants have decided to create a friendlier, more beautiful spot. The window will echo the other windows in the building and create continuity. The Aspen Square HOA has given approval for these changes. Goode asked what triggers the requirement for an airlock. Ms. Nadolny said if it new development or a new building; changing doors for doors does not trigger that requirement. Weiss asked where the other egresses are located. Ms. Nadoly pointed out the two egresses and a new one in the basement to the parking garage. Myrin said he feels this could have been a staff review. Erspamer opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Erspamer closed the public hearing. Weiss moved to approve Resolution#16, 2013; seconded by Erspamer. Weiss,yes; Goode,yes; Gibbs, yes; Myrin,yes; Walterscheid,yes; Ms.Tygre,yes; Erspamer,yes. Motion carried. 815 VINE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS Justin Barker, community development department,told P&Z this is a Hunter Creek unit,#815, and the request is to deed restrict this unit and have P&Z approve affordable housing credit for 3 full time equivalents. P&Z is the final decision making body on this. Barker said Hunter Creek was built in the `80s in the county and annexed into the city in 1989 and is zoned RMF-A. This unit is a 3-bedroom free market unit on the ground level of the 8 building. If the deed restriction is approved,the unit will be sold through APCHA as a category 4 unit. Barker said the purposes for creating affordable housing credits are to encourage the development of affordable housing and to establish an option for housing mitigation to offset the impacts of development. Barker told P&Z this unit is slightly smaller than the minimum size for a category 4;the smaller size can be mitigated by meeting some criteria. APCHA has reviewed and approved this unit as a category 4 three-bedroom unit.Stan Clauson, representing the applicant,told P&Z the applicant can divide these housing credits; they may be used in part to respond to different mitigation requirements. Erspamer opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Erspamer closed the public hearing. Barker reported he received an e-mail from Tracy Murtaugh opposed to the deed restriction as the free market units in Hunter Creek are some of the more affordable free market units in town. Walterscheid moved to approve Resolution#17,Series of 2013; seconded by Goode. Weiss,yes;Goode, yes; Gibbs,yes; Myrin,yes; Walterscheid,yes; Ms.Tygre,yes; Erspamer,yes. Motion carried. Goode moved to adjourn at 5:25 PM; seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 2,2013 P 2 2 3 P24 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Justin Barker, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: 700 Ute Ave (Aspen Alps)—PUD, PUD Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision Resolution No. Series of 2013 (Continued from June 11 and June 18) MEETING DATE: August 6, 2013 APPLICANT/OWNER: Aspen Alps Homeowners Association REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates e',f E.h LOCATION: 700 Ute Ave, Aspen Alps i CURRENT ZONING: Lodge (L) with a Planned Unit Development. (PUD) Overlay on Parcels 4 and 7 and portions LJ' .' am. of Parcels 3 and 6 .k { PROPOSED ZONING: Lodge (L) with a Planned Unit Development . r ti V s' ►� `` (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 < g development is proposed. Photo: Alps location and picture of Alps 200 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Building. Staff recommends approval of the request. Page.1 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review—8.6.2013 P25 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.) • Rezoning 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.) P&Z QUESTIONS FROM JUNE IITH MEETING: (note this section is new, the rest of the memo is the same as the memo from June 11th) The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at their June l lth meeting and raised a number of questions related to the Non-Conformities section of the Land Use code (26.312.030, Non- conforming structures) and the purpose of establishing this PUD for the Aspen Alps. As a reminder, no new development is proposed as part of this application. The applicant requests a PUD to memorialize existing conditions. Non-Conformities: Currently the Aspen Alps buildings are considered legally established non-conforming structures. This means The Alps buildings were originally developed in conformance and compliance with City regulations, but code changes made by the City over time has resulted in the buildings no longer meeting all the current requirements in the Land Use Code.' Under today's code, there are two (2) scenarios for non-conforming structures to be rebuilt if they are demolished: 1. Non-Purposeful Demolition. If a non-conforming building is destroyed by a fire, flood, etc, that building can be built back exactly as it existed without a land use review. This occurred in the Aspen Alps 400 Building in 1992 and in the 500 Building in 2007 when they had extensive fire damage. The structures were rebuilt in the exact same configuration and location. 2. Purposeful Demolition. If a building is purposefully demolished, it may be built back on the site in one of two ways: a. Conform with existing zoning and code requirements. ' A recent example of this is the downtown zoning changes,which reduced the allowed height in the CC and C-1 zone districts to 28 feet for buildings on the south side of the street. Any existing building over 28 feet is now considered a legally established non-conformity with regard to height. Page 2 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review— 8.6.2013 P26 b. Request Special Review (Section 26.430.040.13, Replacement of non-conforming structures) approval from P&Z to rebuild aspects of the building that were non- conforming. If the Alps wanted to redevelop or just rebuild what is there today they would likely pursue this option because the Alps 100 - 800 buildings are all non- conforming with respect to unit count and size, and this is currently the only option that ensures all owners maintain_their current property and investment. If owners were going to lose the ability to build back their unit, it is highly unlikely they would proceed with any upgrade or redevelopment. If the Alps remains as is (non-conforming structures rather than conforming under a PUD), Option 1 and 2.b result in the. same conclusion - they are sized and located exactly as they are today. It is highly unlikely the Alps would ever pursue Option 2.a because it would mean the loss of thirty-eight (38) units.2 Establishment of Aspen Alps PUD/Subdivision: The applicant requests to memorialize the existing buildings through their PUD request. This has the same result as the likely outcomes highlighted above - the Alps buildings' size and location have the same dimensions as they do today. However, there are important benefits to the City by proceeding through a PUD rather than relying on the non-conformities section. 1. The City will now have recorded, established baseline dimensions for each Alps unit and building. If an owner wanted to submit a building permit to upgrade their unit, the City review would be faster because the existing information is readily available through the recorded PUD documents. (This also means individual unit owners would not need to go through the time and expense of unit calculations for their permit.) 2. The existing utilities will now be located within written and recorded easements. Currently the utilities are not located within easements, making servicing difficult. The PUD requires all easements to be updated to ensure the utility lines are located within them. This will ensure the City and other districts can quickly service these lines if there are maintenance or upgrade.needs. 3. Updated lot descriptions will be created. The existing lots were established before the city's subdivision regulations, so they are based on the original condominium documents and metes & bounds descriptions.. This PUD/Subdivision would create new lot numbers and property descriptions, with creates more clarity moving forward. None of these benefits are realized without the PUD. Staff believes these benefits, in exchange for the existing conditions on the site, is a worthwhile tradeoff and meets all the applicable review criteria. Future Development: .P&Z also raised concerns at the June 11"' meeting about future development of the Alps. This PUD does not preclude any future development. Likewise, not approving the PUD does not preclude any future development. The PUD establishes a clear baseline that any future request can be judged against. With or without the PUD, any future changes at the Alps will require a land use review, either through the non-conformities review or the PUD review. Z Under current zoning,the 100—800 buildings would be allowed 35 units. 73 units exist today. Page 3 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review—8.6.2013 P27 Previous Reviews: P&Z requested a copy of the minutes from the 2001 City Council review of the Winter Building and PUD establishment. Like the rest of the record, the minutes do not provide a great deal of detail regarding the PUD conversation, as the review was mainly focused on the creation of three (3) affordable housing units. The minutes are attached as Exhibit F. Memo from June 11, 2013: Below is a copy of the memo from June 11, 2013 which outlines the background and dimensional characteristics of the Alps. 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 parcel# Parcel Size(Gross Area) building#/common name Current #Units 1 .612 acres; 26,668 sf 100 Building 16 2 .761 acres; 33,163 sf 200 Building 16 3 .971 acres; 42,286 sf 300, 400,500 Buildings 22 4 .312 acres; 13,612 sf 700 Building 10 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) 3 8 .049 acres; 2,126 sf Vacant Land N/A 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 — 700 between 1965-1969, Building 800 in 1973, and the Winter Building in 2002. Note there is no 600 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 hiiilrlings, The master Association also provides services to the 777 Ute At-the-Aspen Alps Condominiums, which is not part of this application. Page 4 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review-8.6.2013 P28 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. 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 Lodge Zone District Unit Floor parcel building#/ Parcel Size(Gross Unit Setbacks Area Height Size (sq Ar Parking # common name Area) Density ft net Ara Spaces livable) 1 100 Building .612 acres;26,668 sf 7 21,571 15 2 200 Building .761 acres; 33,163 sf 9 29,590 Front-5 16 3 300-500 Buildings .971 acres;42,286 sf 11 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 9 Front—12 7 Winter Building .122 acres; 35,314 sf 3 28 feet 775 7,065 East Side—20 69 854 West Side—15 Rear-10 Page 5 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review— 8.6.2013 P29 Table 3: Existing Dimensions Unit Size (sq building#/ Parcel Size ft net livable Floor parcel common (Gross Current Height3 as depicted Area Setbacks(feet) Parking # name Area) #Units on recorded (sq ft) Spaces PUD Plans) Front-4 100 .612 acres; East Side-11.5 15 off- 1 Building 26,668 sf 16 2 story 1,133-1,515 21,559 West Side-18 site Rear-20 200 Building, 10 2 story 1,213-1,537 Front-13 2 Structure A .761 acres; 24,100 North Side-23.5 27 200 33,163 sf South Side-16 Building, 6 3story 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 Building 42,286 sf 7 4 story 1,130-2,265 34,604 Rear-9.5 Parcel Front-14 6) 500 g 408-1,844 North Side-7 Building Rear-9 Front-8.5 12 off- 4 700 .312 acres; 10 3story 1,475-2,973 22,789 North Side-4.5 site (on Building 13,612 sf South Side-5.5 Parcel Rear-13 6) 800 - Building- 1 3 story 2,992 Structure A 800 Front-55 5 Building- •514 acres; 4 4 story 1,695-1,876 18,866 East Side-13.5 6 Structure B 22,393 sf West Side-11.5 Rear-4 800 Building- 4 4 story 1,606-1,989 Structure C 6 Vacant Land 3.402 acres; N/A 148,182 sf Front-17.5 7 Winter .122 acres; 3 2 story 775-854 NLA 6,289 East Side-14.5 69 Building 35,314 sf West Side-20 Rear-10 .049 acres; N/A 8 Vacant Land 2,126 sf s Exact height for each building and parcel shall be recorded as part of the Final PUD Documents. Page 6 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review- 8.6.2013 P30 Proposed PUD: 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 7 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review— 8.6.2013 P31 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 on a unit and project-wide basis 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 (previously provided) Exhibit F—City Council minutes, August 27, 2001 Page 8 of 8 Aspen Alps P&Z Review— 8.6.2013 P32 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: 2737-182-67-800 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, continued to July 18, 2013, and August 6, 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 Resolution No_, Series 2013 Page 1 of 6 P33 The existing dimensions on a unit and project-wide basis 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 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 easement. Twenty (20) foot easements are preferred,and required to the extent the existing development can accommodate them. 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 Alps PUD is required to comply with all rules and regulations in place at that time, including but not limited to fire, stormwater, building, water, 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 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 day of 52013. Resolution No Series 2013 Page 2 of 6 P34 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 P35 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, 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 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 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 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 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. Parcel includes ("Jo ,o.-.,.-v en+ T 4 Al C`on4i ter+ 1 Q T...,m�L.ir. �/� Q� +11 1 -g. QA AAT o+ --F 'Fl- 9th pri rr•iri�� �/Tari�iari VV VV/1111111J11L LVL TL, IJ�V 11V11 1 V, 1 V VY 11Jllli/ 1 V UVULll, U_ YY\+ V VL l- V 1 1111V 1�/tAl lY1ValU1{Aii, 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); Resolution No_, Series 2013 Page 4 of 6 P36 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 6th 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 76 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 P37 Exhibit B: Approved Dimensions Unit Size (sq building#/ Parcel Size ft net livable Floor Parkin parcel Current * g common (Gross Height as depicted Area Setbacks(feet) Spaces # # Units name Area) on recorded (sq ft) P PUD Plans) Front-4 100 .612 acres; East Side-11.5 15 off- 1 Building 26,668 sf 16 2 story 1,133-1,515 21,559 West Side-18 site Rear-20 200 Building, 10 2 story 1,213-1,537 Front-13 2 Structure A .761 acres; North Side-23.5 200 33,163 sf 24,100 South Side-16 ?7 Building, 6 3story 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 Building 42,286 sf 7 4 story 1,130-2,265 34,604 Rear-9.5 Parcel Front-14 6) 500 g 408-1,844 North Side-7 Building Rear-9 Front-8.5 12 off- 4 700 .312 acres; 10 3story 1,475-2,973 22,789 North Side-4.5 site (on Building 13,612 sf South Side-5.5 Parcel Rear-13 6) 800 Building- 1 3 story 2,992 Structure A 800 Front-55 5 Building- •514 acres; 4 4 story 1,695-1,876 18,866 East Side-13.5 6 Structure B 22,393 sf West Side-11.5 Rear-4 800 Building- 4 4 story 1,606-1,989 Structure C 6 Vacant Land 3.402 acres; N/A 148,182 sf Winter Front-17.5 Building .122 acres; East Side-14.5 7 (Parking, 3 2 story 775-854 NLA 6,289 West Side-20 69 Affordable 35,314 sf Rear-10 Housing) 8 Vacant Land .049 acres; N/A 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 P38 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 5 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 Pagel of 9 P39 aware of this and is currently working with APCHA to deed-restrict the units. Stafffinds 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. 55 ft. 17.5 ft. Setback 7.5 ft. 500 bldg.— 14 ft. 300 bldg.— 19 ft. Side East-1 1.5 ft. North-23.5 ft. 400 bldg.— North-4.5 ft. East-13.5 ft. 14.5 ft. Setbacks West-18 ft. South-16 ft. none South-5.5 ft. West-11.5 ft. 20 ft. 500 bldg.— 7 ft. 300 bldg.— 22 ft. Rear 20 ft. 13 ft. 400 bldg.— 13 ft. 4 ft. 10 ft. Setback 9.5 ft. 500 bldg.— 9 ft. To be To be To be To be To be To be Height documented documented documented documented documented documented during during during during during during recordation recordation recordation recordation recordation recordation Parking 16 off-site 27 (20 off- site) 8 off-site 12 off-site 6 69 6.11.2013 Aspen Alps P&Z Hearing—Exhibit A, PUD Review Criteria Page 2 of 9 P40 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 P41 Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Winter building#/ 300 400 500 Building common 100 Building 200 Building Buildings 700 Building 800 Building (Parking, name Affordable Housing) #Units 16 16 22 10 9 3 Original St& From From Ute Ave via Aspen Alps Ute Ave via Access Original St From Spring St Road Aspen Ute Ave Mountain Road #Parking 16 off-site 27 (20 off-site) 8 off-site 12 off-site 6 69 Spaces portion of parking area encroaches onto 777 Ute Condos provided on property Sky Hotel through property exclusive 12 spaces on 69 spaces on- Form of pursuant to easement for 8 spaces on Parcel 6 (with 6 spaces on- site (general Parking 1976 parking-20 Parcel 6 easement) site parking for Easement spaces; project) 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. Stafffinds 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 P42 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. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds 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 P43 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. Stafffinds 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. . 5. 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 P44 Staff Finding: Since no new development or redevelopment is proposed as part of this application, all existing,site features will be preserved. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials,weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. Staff Finding: 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. Stafffinds 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 P45 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. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Finding: 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 ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 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 P46 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 P47 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 sane, 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 nzudflow, 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 P48 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. Stafffinds 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. Staff finds 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 P49 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. Stafffinds 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 P&Z Hearing—Exhibit C, Rezoning Review Criteria Page 1 of 1 P50 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 coining 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 P51 • 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. • 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 Exhibit F Recrular Meetinf Aspen City Council Au ust 27, 2001 P52 dinance can have conditions regarding the shuttle service, bike storag et Mayor landerud opened the public hearing. Fonda Pater n, Boomerang Lodge, commended Hills for b 'ng a good neighbor. Ms. aterson suggested Council conduct a site v'sit with story poles to see the ge 4-plex. Ms. Paterson asked the Co cil and applicant to consider moving his 4-plex to the west end of the ock. Ms. Paterson said the building on t east end of the block is'pro sed to be located right on the alley with large picture windows. Ms. Pat son said these may not be a good location for picture windows on this bu alley. Ms. Paterson.said she has some suggestions on ow to manage e construction so that their guests will have a good vacatio experienc . Ms. Paterson questioned restricting 3 on-site parking spac for e ployees; these employees may not have cars and if there is parking, it Id be used. The applicants agreed. Mayor Klanderud closed the pub ' hear g. Councilman Semrau comme ed the applic for not pushing too much development on this site. ouncilman Semrau id he feels this project is very doable. Councilm McCabe asked how the roposed 6 month lease will be handled. Haas oted the land use code allo an owner to use up to 6 months as long as e unit is available the other six nths for short-term rental. Haas said ey have not gotten any further into de ils. Councilman Paulson said h ants to make sure the tree replacement pr am is spelled out. Council an Semrau moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 200 on secon reading deleting condition#1 regarding leasing of the parkin on 4`' sure ; seconded by Councilman Hershey. Roll call vote; Councilmemb rs Cabe, yes; Paulson, yes; Semrau, yes; Hershey, yes; Mayor Klanderu , es. Motion carried. — ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2001 - Aspen Alps Rezoning/PUD Fred Jarman, community development department, told Council this is a request to redevelop lot 2B of the Aspen Alps, currently containing tennis courts. The proposed development would have a two level subgrade parking garage, including a maintenance and laundry and 3 housing units, with — 9 P53 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2001 tennis courts on top. Jarman showed Council the surrounding land uses and their zoning and lot 2B zoned R-15/PUD,'the subject of this application. This ordinance rezones the.entire Alps property LTR (lodge/tourist residential). The Aspen Alps is zoned LTR, Conservation and R-15 PUD. In order to build a subgrade garage,this property needs to be rezoned. Jarman said rezoning to LTR would also allow the 3 employee units. The applicant requests a GMQS exemption for affordable housing for`these 3 units as well as subdivision approval. Jarman told Council this ordinance modifies a previous Council approval regarding lot 2B. Jarman showed a rendering of the tennis courts and affordable units from Ute and from Vie Avenue south. Jarman told Council there will be a total of 69 spaces in the garage. There will not be interior circulation.in the garage so there will have to be an entrance for each level. The housing authority recommends approval of the 3 employee units. This is a creative use of land, which provides employee units for the Aspen Alps in close proximity to the Alps and to the commercial core. Jarman said this is consistent with the Aspen Area Community.Plan. Jarman noted the Aspen Alps does not have enough parking currently. Councilman McCabe asked if there is any radon on site and if so, is there a radon mitigation plan. Alan Richman, representing the Aspen Alps, told Council they have no issues with any of the conditions recommended by staff. Richman said the applicants have worked with the neighbors through P&Z. The applicants have been working on the project since 1998. The city's philosophy has been to address non-conforming status of lodges. Richman said the only reason for the request to rezone lot 2B is because of the 3 affordable units, which under the city's code is a multi-family use and multi-family use is not allowed in R-15. The other uses are allowed.in R-15 as accessary to the Aspen Alps. Richman said the applicants want Council to feel confident they have control over what happens at the Alps in the future. Staff has recommended a PUD designation over the entire property, which will require review of any future development on the property. Richman noted that in 1992 Council imposed limitation on development on lots 2A and 2B. The Alps was developed in the.1960's and was not a phased plan. It was built one building at a time and because of iacx or planning, "mere is no laundry facility, there is no Regular Meeting_ Aspen City Council August 27, 2001 P54 maintenance facility, and there is not adequate parking. Richman noted the surrounding land was not given over to the Alps until 1992. At that time Council approval a subdivision to allow this land to be given to the Alps. Council was concerned about the addition of several acres of land to the Alps and they did not want it to be developed for more or larger units. The Alps agreed to a deed restriction on lots 2A and 2B that this land could not be used for additional floor area or additional units. Richman requested this condition be modified for lot 2B as the Alps is proposing 5 bedrooms and 6500 square feet of floor area. This condition will be kept on lot 2A. Richman said since the Aspen Alps is a condominium, many owners leave their cars on property. The proposed parking garage will be used more as a storage facility rather than have heavy daily use. ,Richman stated these employee units are not mitigation for development; they are units for the Alps' needs and will be deed restricted to category 3. Mayor Klanderud opened the public,hearing. Mary Gleason, adjacent property owner, said she realizes parking is needed and affordable housing is needed; however, their concern is that this area is a mine dump and a lot of excavating will be done. Ms. Gleason.said they would like to be kept appraised of the nature of the materials, are they toxic, and is the mitigation plan sufficient. Jarman told Council he received an e- mail from a Gant condominium owner regarding the type of landscaping on top of this proposed structure. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Paulson asked about the conservation easement. Richman reiterated they are proposing no modifications to the restrictions on lot 2A. Matt Roberts, industrial hygienist, said his company focuses on health and safety to workers and to ambient air quality issues. Roberts said they have conducted evaluations of similar sites. The intent is to environmentally profile sites to understand the nature of the contaminants and then to develop a protective program for neighbors and for workers. Roberts said they will look into whether there is radon on this property or not. The housing is above grade, which makes radon a minimal issue. Semrau said after construction is when radon is addressed, usually through ventilation. There is no way to address it until construction. Pamela Cunningham, Aspen Alps P55 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2001 manager, told Council there have been,radon.tests around.the project and there has not been a problem with radon yet. Richman pointed out conditions 7 and 8 in the ordinance, which focus on the concerns of lead and potential exposure to the neighbors. Richman said the recommendations from the environmental health department and the applicant are to make sure fugitive dust does not become a concern to the neighbors. Keeping the dust wet and suppressed is the right way to contain it. Condition #8 requires when soils tests are conducted to make city staff aware of the results and for staff to place additional requirements on the project, if necessary. Mayor Klanderud asked about the trees on.site and the comment from the Gant owner that the Spruce trees along Ute avenue be replaced. Richman said he has met with the city's forester; some of the existing trees are very close to the excavation and will be difficult to save. If the trees cannot be saved, they will be replaced. The area along Ute Avenue is predominantly cottonwoods and Aspen, which Richman demonstrated with photographs. There are some spruce; however, this is not a spruce forest. The city's forester noted this forest has grown up on its own and he would like to see it recreated, if the trees come out, cottonwoods interspersed with ground cover, aspens and spruce. Richman said they do not want a line of spruce trees and they want light to get into the housing units. Councilman Hershey moved to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 2001, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Semrau. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Hershey, yes; McCabe, yes; Semrau, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2001 - Supplemental Appropriations Mike Cain, budget director, told Council this ordinance approves carry forward in departmental budgets, the asset management carry forward projects, and departmental savings. Cain noted departments can retain 50% of the savings of money not spent in their budget. The other 50% is split 10% city manager central savings and 40% goes back into fund balance. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. P56 MEMORANDUM # To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 1460 Red Butte Drive- Residential Design Standards Variances, Special Review, Stream Margin Review- Public Hearin DATE: August 6, 2013 APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen F. Brint Revocable Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn,Davis Horn Inc. t LOCATION: 1460 Red Butte Drive u ' CURRENT ZONING&USE — Low -Density Residential (R-30) with an existing residence PROPOSED LAND USE: {1 The applicant proposes to redevelop Subject property from Red Butte Drive the site with a new residence and an a accessory dwelling unit. SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting four variances from the Residential Design Standards, a variance from the ADU design standard, confinnation of an alternative top of slope and Stream Margin Review approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of two of the Residential Design Standards variances, denial of the ADU variance request, approval of the alternative top of slope and Stream Margin Review. Page 1 of 7 P57 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single family residence and construct a new single family residence and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site with a single-family residence, ADU and garage: • Special Review approval for an appeal to the top of slope.determination pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.435.040 E., Special Review. The Applicant is requesting to memorialize an alternative top of slope (top of slope assists in demarcating where development may be located). • Stream Margin Review approval for development within 100 feet of the mean high water line of the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries (Castle Creek) pursuant to Land Use Code (L.U.C.) Chapter 26.435, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Variance approval from the Residential Design Standards pursuant to L.U.C. Section 26.410.020 D., Variances. The applicant is requesting variances from standards related to Building Orientation, Parking Garages and Carports and Building Elements. • Special Review for variance approval from the ADU design standards pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The Applicant is Nrequesting to attach the ADU to the primary residence. A development application for Stream Margin Review, Residential Design Standards variances, and Special Review shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration during a duly noticed public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. PROJECT SUMMARY: The subject property is located outside of the Aspen Infill Area just off of Cemetery Lane. The property contains an existing residence that is proposed to be demolished and a new residence with an ADU is proposed in its place. The applicant is requesting that an alternative top of slope be memorialized by the Planning and Zoning Commission allowing for the placement of the proposed residence closer to the Roaring Fork River. As part of the review certain variances are requested in the design of the residence and accessory dwelling unit. SPECIAL REVIEW(FOR TOP OF SLOPE) Stream Margin Review requires that development be set back from the top of slope. Top of Slope is identified by a Stream Margin Map that was created for the city by a surveying company. An alternative top of slope may be proposed via Special Review. As shown in Exhibit D, the surveyed top of slope (shown in orange) is quite close to the rear of the existing building. An alternative top of slope was flagged in the field and verified by the Page 2 of 7 P58 city's engineering department,which moves the top of slope closer to the river but still outside the 100 year flood plain (shown in Exhibit 4 of the application). Staff supports the alternative as it is supported by the engineering department and development will still be able to meet the Stream Margin Review Standards STREAM MARGIN REVIEW All development within 100 feet, measured horizontally, from the Roaring Fork River is required to meet standards outlined as Exhibit A. The purpose of the standards is to minimize the impact of development upon the river through a variety of standards that affect the location of development, grading, landscaping and drainage. Staff has found that all of the criteria are met or not applicable, if the alternative top of slope is approved. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCES: All residential development in the City of Aspen is required to meet certain Residential Design Standards or obtain a variance from the standards pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the standards "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home...contribute to the streetscape." As a property located outside of the Aspen Infill Area, not all of the Residential Design Standards are applicable to the site. Of those standards that are applicable, variances from the following are requested. Staff has underlined the portion of the standard that is not met. 1) 26.410.040.A.1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the are of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.13.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. 2) 26.410.040.C.2(e). Parlring, garages and carports. The vehicular entrance width of a garage shall not be greater than twenty-four 24 feet 3) 26.410.040.D.1(a). Building Elements. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front most wall of the building Entry doors shall not be taller than eight(8) feet. 4) 26.410.040.D.3(a). Building elements. Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. No variance shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with either of the requirements set forth below: Page 3 of 7 P59 a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. 1460 Red Butte is in a residential neighborhood consisting of larger lots with a number of them along the Roaring Fork River as shown in Figure 1. 1470 Red 1440 Red Butte Butte Figure 1: Vicinity Map The subject property does not Y &J ,t g have any unusual site-specific constraints and is shown to contain 31,464 square feet of gross lot area. As staff does not believe there are unusual site constraints, the review criterion applicable to tlus site is related to neighborhood context. �=. 4 M1 SC t. �2' ti r s The neighborhood context is one of single family residences, some 'F t4 with accessory dwelling units. A site visit to the area confirmed z t that most of the residences contain varying degrees of landscaping that assist in screening the houses. T t , 4. } 1430 Red Butte FF 4 �dam■ � � R � 'F��� rd � a. A l� :9 1? Y. L..1':. _ -� .m d 3y , "' 3 1420 Red Butte 1465 Red 1445 Red Butte Butte Page 4 of 7 P60 Building Orientation: Staff finds that neighborhood context supports a variance to allow the proposed building orientation to be rotated slightly unparallel to the midpoint of the curvilinear street. The existing buildings do, to varying degrees, orient the front facades to the street but not all are parallel to the street. Staff finds that the proposed location of the house,being only a few degrees off, will still address the street which satisfies the purpose of the standard. Staff recommends that the Commission grant a variance from Standard 26.410.040.A.1. Garages: Staff finds that the standard related to garages, meets the criterion for a variance. The proposal locates the garage forward of the front facade of the residence which is permitted based upon the size of the lot. The side loaded garage contains three bays, with one bay being offset from the other two. The particular standard under review notes that the entrance width of a garage or carport "shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet;" however, the neighborhood context does contain a number of 3 bay garages that do not meet the standard. The neighborhood context supports the provision of garage entry widths of a greater width than 24 feet. 1445, 1465 and 1470 Red Butte contain three car garages. Additionally, side-loaded garages minimize the mass of and visual impact of the parking. Staff reconunends that the Commission approve the request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040.C.2(e). Fi re 2: Red Butte Residences 1470 140 a ;'�'• a :#- 1445 1465 Building Elements. Staff does not support the request to locate the entry of the house more than ten feet from the font most wall of the building. The intent of this design standard is to provide a clear and visible entryway to the residential unit, to provide a front entryway that is prominent, and to create an element of uniformity among residential dwellings. Staff finds the proposal to not meet the intent of the residential design standard. Staff finds that the criteria for granting a variance are not met and recommends that the Commmission denX Page 5 of 7 P61 Building elements. Staff finds that the neighborhood content does not support the applicant's request to allow street-facing windows to span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet'above the finished floor as prohibited by standard 26.410.040.D.3(a). The pictures shown above provide the context of the neighborhood. SPECIAL REVIEW(FOR AN ADU) All ADUs and carriage houses are required to meet a minimum number of design standards such as a minimum size, parking, storage availability and kitchen design. One of the standards is to have the ADU detached from the primary residence. The applicant is requesting, via Special Review, to be granted a variance from this standard. The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program is to provide "viable housing opportunities for working residents." Additionally, "detached ADUS and carriage houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacy and livability of both the ADU and the primary unit. Detached ADUS and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a community goal of housing the workforce." Providing an attached ADU does not provide for a subordinate, private unit which is the intent of the design standards associated with ADUs, rather the ADU is encompassed by the primary residence via the proposed design. In requesting to provide an attached ADU staff does not find the criteria met and recommends denial of the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the alternative top of slope, which is supported by the Engineering department, meets the standards of Special Review and should be approved, likewise staff supports approval of the Stream Margin Review. Regarding the request for Residential Design Standards variances, staff finds that the requests for Building Orientation and Garages variances satisfies criteria `a' of Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.1), Variances, and recommends approval for the two residential design standards variances. Staff finds that the request for two variances from Building Elements does not meet the variance review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.020 D, Variances related to Building Elements specifically Sections 26.410.040.D.l(a) and 26.410.040.D.3(a), related to maximum distance of the entry door from the front most face of a building and the prohibition of windows between 9 and twelve feet. Staff recommends denial of the request. Staff does riot support the request to attach the ADU to the primary residence via Special Review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The resolution has been written approving all of the Applicant's requests. If staff's recommendation is supported the following motion should be made: Page 6 of 7 P62 "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2013 with the following amendments: Sections 1C and 1D, Building Elements as well as Section 2, Special Review(for an accessory dwelling unit) be deleted from the resolution." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A— Stream Margin Review Criteria Exhibit B—Residential Design Standards Variances Exhibit C - Special Review(for an ADU) Exhibit D—Special Review(for Top of Slope) Exhibit E—City Stream Margin Map, Top of Slope Exhibit F—Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit G—Parks Department referral Exhibit H- Application Page 7 of 7 P63 Resolution No. _ (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCES, SPECIAL REVIEWS AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AT 1460 RED BUTTE DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3,BLOCK 1, RED BUTTE SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273501302002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Davis Horn Inc., on behalf of Stephen F. Brint Revocable Trust requesting Variance approval of four Residential Design Standards, Special Review for a variance for an accessory dwelling unit, Special Review to determine and alternative top of slope, and Stream Margin Review for a new single family home located at 1460 Red Butte Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of two of the four Variance requests, denial of the Special Review for the accessory dwelling unit, approval of Special Review for an alternative top of slope and approval for Stream Margin Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,has reviewed and considered the reconunendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 6, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meet either applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS,the Plamling and Zoning Commission approves the requests; and WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1• Residential Desil4n Standards Variances Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance application from the following Residential Design Standards that are underlined, as represented in the application presented before the commission and included as an exhibit to this resolution: P64 A. 26 410.040.A.1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the are of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.13.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. B. 26.410.040.C.2(e). Parking, garages and carports. The vehicular entrance width of a garage shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet C. 26410.040.D.1(a). Building Elements. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front most wall of the building. doors shall not be taller than eight(8) feet. D. 26.410.040.D.3(a). Building elements. Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. Section 2: Special Review (for an accessory dwelling unit) Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code; the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a variance application via Special Review from the following design standard which allows the accessory dwelling unit to be attached to the primary residence, as represented in the application presented before the commission and underlined below: A. 26.320.050 S. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the rip mary residence An ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area shall qualify as a detached ADU or carriage house. No other connections to the primary residence or portions thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached. Section 3: Special Review (for top of slope) Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Plamling and Zoning Commission hereby approves an alternative top of slope request via Special Review. Section 4: Stream Markin Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Stream Margin Review for the project as represented in the application presented before the commission. Section 5: Plat The Applicant shall record a site improvement plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code section 26.435.040 F., Building permit submittal requirements prior to submittal of a building permit. As approved by the Commission, the plat will delineate a 15 feet setback from P65 the top of slope as the building envelope for any development in lieu of a minimum rear yard setback. All other setbacks are subject to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Section 4: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: A. A copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission resolution. B. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. C. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. D. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted City standards. E. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. F. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. G. A detailed excavation plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. H. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 5: Parks A. 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. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 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 B. Tree Pen-nit 1) 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 P66 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. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu 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. 2) The permit should include the trees which will have impacts from excavation and building under the drip line of the trees. The site plan shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent to or around the trees. The permit shall include a detail of the impacts, which include but are not limited too; depth of excavation, distance from trunks, height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. C. Stream Margin Improvements/landscaping 1) The landscape plan has to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Any landscape treatments within the 15 foot setback are required to be native vegetation only. A site visit held on June 25, 2013 determined that the area below the top of slope is in good condition additional landscaped or re-vegetation within the 15 foot setback is prohibited. 2) During a site visit held on June 25, 2013, Staff identified several landscape treatments which are prohibited by the stream margin code 26.435.040. Staff identified several trees which were purposefully damaged and poorly trimmed. These landscape practices are not approved within the stream margin. D. Miscellaneous 1) How and where utility connections are made is a major concern relative to impact on the existing trees and areas of protection. Please detail these connections with the existing vegetation overlaid for building permit review. 2) Grading or slope changes outside of building envelope is prohibited, 26.435.040. 3) A top of slope protection fence is required at the 15 foot setback of the top of slope. Section 6: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant design shall also be compliant with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Section 7: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. P67 Section 8: Utilities The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 9: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, at the time of construction, which are on file at the District office. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 10: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section It: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 12: All material representations and cominitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 13: 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 14: 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 Commission at its meeting on August 6, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney Li Erspamer, Chair P68 ATTEST: Reed Patterson, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit 1: Approved site plan, elevations Exhibit 2: Alternative top of slope plan 4,T) ...... LLI / El n o MOM K SIIEFI NO. SITC PLAN _ A1.2 � a D.. 7 4 4 4 4 � Q Q QQ I _ I I I I i I i I � I 1 I i I 1 I I 1 I I j j i I I i I p 1 I I I f i I I 1 1 I I j u I 1 I I ! I I I I Y I jo a om F , m oc o O �� 0 I I i I I \ \ R I i __ .._.._.._ ._.._ _.._.. _.._.._.. ......................_.. .._.. CO _.._ D i i i 1 p�°• °��O I I j I I i I O ED B RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS y o sF��3 N mF 14&0 RED BUTTE DRIVE 3 ®� ASPEN,COLOADO 610 EI.ST1'YM/.N RV�4SPEN,CO 6t6111'EL 9>C926=59J IFA].:9J0.930<_5] i i l i i i i j i ' I i i ,I fT i i C> j - I ....._.... i I I i t o ��. i i i oi8 i I / I � f/ x I bid 0) ;A I o � J m m CD `m m I ; I r' ais c'z qla 5 B pie ° RED BUTTE RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 450 RED BUTTE DRIVE S %!*: ASPEN,COLOADO 610 EtST HYIARN PV2ASPcN,OO 816111 TC1'S>09255=9O[FAX:920920 LOT 3, BLOCK 1, RED BU A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SW%4 OF SECTIOP7-2 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF_THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 1 OF 1 R S v / ) .OUND XN�umB R _ &�411MINUM,L4P \�r \ Fq OAS DG'OF ROARING LOT �� LS X236 FORK RIVER AS SURVEYED / 6'WITNESS) ON 10124/12 h v .1 11 2 EMA 100 YEAI FLOOD PLAIN L �2 ptBIDDer 16,1960 in PPRO%1MATE 1i\ �I T51Q SEE NOTE 3 HE PER li'(Y O'ASPEN \ D \ 9 EATE Et(T jr \ - A?GPOnIMATE� TER PtnT\� UTIUTYEAS '6y tfi4 15'FROM EDGEOF,� ?E.q\PLAT ` LOT ACRE' � � 314645O.FT.3 r l APRON ONCRIETF END FLAG'TON - '{ so-9• \ t4 T3 APRON P F �\ `'\• ✓�'.' OUNDXS REBAR ���'n02 ' &ALUMINUM CAP 'c PEDESTAL j N �'\- L5.X2376 / MULTI-LEVELWOOD EASEMENT N 6 IETER PEb PLAT (70'WITNESS) ,/. { FRAME HOUSE W/GARAGE _ $ \ RANSFORMER 1640 RED BUTTE DRIVE FENCE S � N 7105 L (CALIPER PER_"DRRIP IP DI OIAhETFR=) ('RP=CONIFER/TRO=DECIDUOUS) NCR IS TREE \ \ \, APRONS 1)49"X 10'T,77N'77N' 2/)10'X 20'TRP 41)SJ5.j---2)9.5-X 20' P 22)10"X 20'iRP 42J US TR EE WOOD DECKS S _ nemll{ / Iry,,415' 3)9Z-X 18'RAP 23)10-X 20'TRP a3)eJ"X \ � ABOVE 4f X 10'72P 24)6"X f2'iRP .) 0-4- 5)99"X 20'F P 25)10'X 20'TRIP 6)11"X 22'TRP 26)7'X 14'ITRP _b)6.1X ('R4�`<.Y' \ _ QF ])5.1"X)0'RP 27)14'X 26'TRP 47)a"X PROJECT BENCHMARK O p OPS 28)3" 15'TRP 14'X FOUND RE CAP 4a L' \ � �l _S f{, 9)13.2"X 16',"r.0 29)5'X IO''RP 49)54 &ALDMIN XS I R CAP 1 ! "/ f II 1 / / / vim' 10)cx 12'TRP JO)21"X 40'Pr.D LS j .. i1)5'X 10''P Ji)9X 16X2 51)125- I2)9'X 16'TRIP 32)4'X a'�D 52)IS.' /I _ y.- Q •(;Y / 13)5 X 10 J-1)10"X 20'YD 53)55 f 14 IS"X 30'RD 34 8"X W iR0 54)7.5 L♦_-�-- - - / / 15)b'X 12'TRP JS)7 1-X Z'FP ��pS j 16)5"X 10''RP 36)10.6"X 20'730 56)?.,�: LOT 4 17)6'X 12'RrP J])]'X 14'RrP 57))8'X 19)4'X 8'TRP 3E)123-X 24'APO' 9)YX W TRP 39)10'X 20'TRr D 20)9'X 18'�P 40)10.4"X 20'TRP 1 nil +"� �� IRON PIPE E 7A6LE NT CHORD BEARING DELTA �\ �r -may 80.62' 647"35'SB"E 15'17'14" �\ t ).:f { t\\\ :32.80' N?8"17'44"W 16"49'33•' � /'ON�a SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC �\ CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET,SUITE A3 CARBONDALE,COLORADO 81623 (970)704-0311 SOPRISENG @SOPRISEi 1G.COM P73 Exhibit A C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or offsite which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and Staff Finding: As shown in the application, the proposed location of the residence is outside the flood hazard area (or 100 year flood plain). Due to the location of the house, away from the flood plain and at a higher elevation than the flood plain, it will not be affected by the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Staff Finding: The Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan does not show any trail development along this property and, as noted in the application, the city cannot require that a fisherman's easement be granted by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and Staff Finding: Staff is recommending that a building envelope be developed for the rear setback that should mimic the 15' setback from the alternative top of slope and that minimum side yard setbacks of the underlying zone district be the requirement for the side yards. A draft plat has been included, and with a few edits, can be recorded per the land use code. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel P74 to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and Staff Finding: Any permit issued will have constraints on construction techniques and will be reviewed under the urban runoff management plan to ensure protection of the river during and after construction. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Staff Finding: No alteration to the river is proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and Staff Finding: No alteration to the river is proposed. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and Staff Finding: No work is proposed within the floodplain. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and Staff Finding: As represented in the application, the applicant is committing to only native vegetation being planted within 15 feet of the top of slope and this requirement will be memorialized in the resolution. Staff finds this criterion met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) 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 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and P75 h ig-ti iuo nr � — �'+ --.i�ww r.1YR L aa Staff Finding: As shown in Attachment 5 of the application submitted to the city, the two site sections show that the building will meet the progressive height limit measured from the top of slope. Staff finds this criterion met. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and Staff Finding: The applicant will need to meet the outdoor lighting standards of the city at building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Finding: A wetlands report was completed by Beach Enviromnental that identifies areas of wetlands that are outside of the development area being proposed by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion met. P76 Exhibit B 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. All residential development in the City of Aspen is required to meet certain Residential Design Standards or obtain a variance from the Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards. The purpose of the Standards "is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character....ensure that neighborhoods are public places....that each home...contribute to the streetscape." As a property located outside of the Aspen Infill Area, not all of the residential design standards are applicable to the site. Variances from the following are requested. Staff has underlined the portion of the standard that is not met. 1) 26.410.040.A.1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.13.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. Staff Finding: Staff finds that neighborhood context supports a variance to allow the proposed building orientation to be rotated slightly unparallel to the midpoint of the curvilinear street. The existing buildings do, to varying degrees, orient the front facades to the street but not all are parallel to the street. Staff finds that the proposed location of the house, being only a few degrees off, will still address the street which satisfies the purpose of the standard. Staff recommends that the Commission grant a variance from Standard 26.410.040.A.1 2) 26.410.040.C.2(e). Parking, garages and carports. The vehicular entrance width of a age shall not be greater than twenty-four(24) feet. P77 Staff Finding Staff finds that the standard related to garages, meets the criterion for a variance. The proposal locates the garage forward of the front fagade of the residence which is permitted based upon the size of the lot. The side loaded garage contains three bays,with one bay being offset from the other two. The particular standard under review notes that the entrance width of a garage or carport "shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet;" however, the neighborhood context does contain a number of 3 bay garages that do not meet the standard. The neighborhood context supports the provision of garage entry widths of a greater width than 24 feet. 1445, 1465 and 1470 Red Butte contain three car, garages. Additionally, side-loaded garages minimize the mass of and visual impact of the parking. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040.C.2(e). 3) 26.410.040.D.1(a). Building Elements. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. Staff Finding: Staff does not support the request to locate the entry of the house more than ten feet from the front most wall of the building. The intent of this design standard is to provide a clear and visible entryway to the residential unit, to provide a front entryway that is prominent, and to create an element of uniformity among residential dwellings. Staff finds the proposal to not meet the intent of the residential design standard. Staff finds that the criteria for granting a variance are not met and recommends that the Commission deny the request to vary standard 26.410.040.D.1(a) b homing the entry door further back than ten feet from the front most face of the building. 4) 26.410.040.D.3(a). Building elements. Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the neighborhood content does not support the applicant's request to allow street-facing windows to span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor as prohibited by standard 26.410.040.D.3(a). P78 Exhibit C A. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the ADU and carriage house design standards or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.(a), (b and c). Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is an historic landmark, on the Inventory of Historic .Sites and Structures or within an Historic Overlay District and the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Chapter 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the special review. A Special Review for an ADU or Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability. Staff Finding: The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program is to provide "viable housing opportunities for working residents." Additionally, "detached ADUS and carriage houses emulate a historic development pattern and maximize the privacy and livability of both the ADU and the primary unit. Detached ADUS and carriage houses are more likely to be occupied by a local working resident, furthering a community goal of housing the workforce." In requesting to provide an attached ADU, staff does not find this criterion met. 2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property. Staff Finding: Providing an attached ADU does not provide for a subordinate, private unit which is the intent of the design standards associated with ADUs, rather the ADU is encompassed by the primary residence via the proposed design. Staff does not find this criterion met. 3. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on- street parking, availability of transit services and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Staff Finding: The neighborhood contains single-family homes, some with accessory structures and ADUs in separate buildings. Staff does not find that incorporating the ADU into the residence assists in the ADU operating as a separate, livable unit. Newer development in P79 the neighborhood has, when providing an ADU, developed a separate unit. Staff finds this criterion is not met. P80 Exhibit D E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and Staff Finding: A surveyor has identified an alternative top of slope compared to the Stream Margin Map. The proposed alternative has been field verified by the Engineering department as an appropriate alternative. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff Finding: As outlined in Exhibit A, using the alternative Top of Slope, the proposal meets all stream margin review standards. Staff finds this criterion met. - i K I G �Sv - ' 1 �r WIN /� III - �. �, _� � • ■ I nnMac W H _ U iw - LL _ U W Q 2 U W U Z W D o�co 5/16/2013 Lu PROGRESS SET w w SI DENCE Lu RED BUTTER E ASPEN,CO 1460 RED BUTTE DRIVE CHARLES C ARCHITECTS F nvR 25.5590 FAX: 970.925.4557 Rio610 EAST HYMAN AVENUE I ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 I TEL: 970.9 co a 84 T � Q Q QQ i ; I I I - ! i I j 1 j j I I ! I I I I j I ! I I I ! I I I I ! ! i I I i S I i i I i I I i i .I ._.._.._..___.._.._.._.._.. I i Ey i I i i.._.._ Mo Pvu HP D n �m O I O I m i i i I ! I ! 6 m i N __._.._.._- .._..�.._.._ I \ I ! I D fll ! i I i m El m - i i ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._ .i.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..___.._.._.i_..___._ i ; I I I ! ! i I i I ! i 'i RED BUTTE RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 3 9 1460 RED BUTTE DRIVE m ASPEN,COLOADO 610 EF.ST HttdAN AV9ASPEN,C0 811111'EL 9]0925.55901FAX:oip 020455] S ©■ 3 O Ln I Z Gd NV ld 311S rn U3 av�a 7 - ----- — cz _ / I III o m � \\ \ �'T',.� ❑ � _ � - "-_____- -_ � - m C7 1-----J 0 i ;'� oa anaa _ �=a � o m - m AO'C"k ❑ _ ❑ s , -- 0 ---------- 86 QQ I 0 ! i ._..i.._.._.._. ._ I I i I I I ; I I I I I I i I I I „d I I I I i I I I � I � i 3 I Ho I O I � W ® ® Ho I -Q cDF o I I 1 ❑ o ®o ®_ I �F — I ; I I ; I 8 I "s C I I m I ; � I i r I r ! i i I I i i i � I O I I m m c RED BUTTE RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS € N � € N m 1460 RED BUTTE DRIVE - ASPEN.COLOADO 610E THYMA AVHSPEN.Cp6'6111TcL570925.55901FA 9709201151 s �■ 3 P 7 b IS I I I ; I I I I � I I I I I I I f , I I ' III i I is !j I' I I I r I I I I --------------- — I I I I I Z j m 0 I �} pj 1 � !. m _..� m v 0 o � D I I I 13 I"^ to I I � bIF yIS CIS j IA ;o Ip9 BUTTE RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS jl, WRED �1460 RED BUTTE DRIVE ASPEN,COLOADO 610 EAST—AN AV SPEN.CO—111 TEL'.91093555901FP%'.9]0.9201151 3 88 I Is j I i I I U � I I I i I wj , I � i I a i I i I I Ml y i m =' m co CD 0 i I ss; a ti j I I I I {I}c I f§ T gIF RED BUTTE RESIDENCE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS E m ©© C.J. m� 1460 RED BUTTE DRIVE ASPEN,COLOADO 610 EAST MVMAN AVEUBPEN,CO 816111 TEL 9]092555901FA%:9]D,920455] 8 �■ QQ Q ©� DD -------------- I i I i i I i j sO U ! 1 i HALL -I,C, BEDROOM 1 I FrUl ® ® W I � _--------------- LL LL - Z L. Z 2 SECTION-TRANS.LIVING w zt i i j i I i - --'-'-'- '_._.-.i.-._.-. W i U W LU k W M.CLOSET M BATH ~ PANTRY OFFQICE K d Do ❑ Q �. sO _._._���a�I ❑ $ _-- LLJ LEV.VE TIBULE ENTRY DR��V,- MECNANICAL LAU�Y . ISSVE: 'DATE: _---._._.--.-.---.-,-.-. -,-.-,-.-.-._.-._ no O N0.1]D] ........ ._.-.-._._.-.-.-.-._._.- SHEET NO. SECTION-LONG.STAIR A4.1 cn co CIL vv11``cc._VV�� lJ P 9 0 Memorandum Date: June 25, 2013 To: Jennifer Phelan, City of Aspen Planning From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: 1460 Red Butte ---------------------------------------------=------------------------------------------------------------- A) 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 As referenced in Chapter 13.20 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 B) Tree Permit: 1) 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. Mitigation for removals will be paid on site or cash in lieu 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. 2) The permit should include the trees which will have impacts from excavation and building under the drip line of the trees. The site plan shows several trees proposed to remain with significant impacts adjacent to or around the trees. The permit shall include a detail of the impacts,which include but are not limited too; depth of excavation, distance from trunks, height of impacts, etc. Approval of the tree permit is contingent on review and approval of the drip line impacts. P91 C) Stream Margin Improvements/landscaping: 1) The landscape plan has to be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Any landscape treatments within the 15 foot setback are required to be native vegetation only. A site visit held on June 25, 2013 determined that the area below the top of slope is in good condition additional landscaped or re-vegetation within the 15 foot setback is prohibited. 2) During a site visit held on June 25, 2013, Staff identified several landscape treatments which are prohibited by the stream margin code 26.435.040. Staff identified several trees which were purposefully damaged and poorly trimmed. These landscape practices are not approved within the stream margin. D) 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. Please detail these connections with the existing vegetation overlaid for review. 2) Grading or slope changes outside of building envelope is prohibited, 26.435.040. Notes A top of slope protection fence is strongly recommended, preferred at the 15 foot setback if possible. The plan should account for storm water and bio retention possibly conflicting with existing vegetation. Impacts for the installation of these features will not be approved under the drip line of existing trees or outside of the designated building envelope. Staff would like to understand the need for the privacy wall. The existing landscaping and neighbor's fence provide some level of privacy and the design of the wall could have negative impacts to the existing vegetation. Throughout the property there are several noxious weeds listed on the Colorado Noxious Weed Act directory and should be treated accordingly. Plat"General Notes" #4 should include the note,".......with review and approval of the Parks Department."